Schumer Aims to Exclude Wikileaks From Media Shield Bill

Schumer Aims to Exclude Wikileaks From Media Shield Bill

www.foxnews.com

Adding to the political fire directed at Wikileaks after the whistleblower website divulged Afghanistan war secrets, Sen. Charles Schumer on Wednesday said he would add new language to a media shield bill to explicitly prohibit the whistleblower group from federal protections.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
cryptome.org
www.google.com

So if they are excluding protection to whistleblower organizations, then I take it they are aiming to censor these organizations.

If this isn't indicative of a Fascist State, I don't know what is. How could a bill aimed to protect sources of media, specifically exclude protection to Wikileaks and whistleblower organizations? Isn't that kinda the point?

Some interesting information from the article is this:

The media shield proposal was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in December 2009 and is pending before the Senate.

Kinda sounds like the Senate has been waiting on a reason to exclude protection whistleblower organizations (?)

Oh yea, and can anyone say lobby?

Schumer is working with the newspaper industry in crafting the new language.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-8-2010 by misinformational]

Heh, it will probably be worded in such a way that Wikileaks can change it's name and carry on business as usual. Besides, if they behead this hydra, it will grow two more.

Seems like the kind of thing that Shumer would get attached to. I honestly wonder if he's as slimey as he seems or if he's just the guy who gets chosen to play all the slimey parts for his party?

reply to post by misinformational

“Neither WikiLeaks, nor its original source for these materials, should be spared in any way from the fullest prosecution possible under the law,” the senator said in a written statement.

He he, just political posturing on the part of Schumer because his party is loosing this election, big time! Charles is also fearing for his on political arse, thank goodness!

Usually, Schumer would be doing all he could to protect the anti American faction in the name of the first amendment.

But not this time. Schumer is a true blue American because of the upcoming election!

"We'll protect 'whistleblowers' (read: shills), but not whistleblowers"

Great

Never lose an opportunity. They will use any excuse to further reduce freedom of speech, and most of all, to clamp down on any avenue which could expose their dirty, fillthy, barbaric crimes.

For anyone with douts about Wikileaks motives ,this move should help decide .

I'm usually the last to jump onto fear-wagons like this, but this frightens me. They would basically be saying "Only the people we want to be journalists can be journalists" -- the news would be part of the government. Maybe it is now, but at least it ostensibly isn't.

Originally posted by plumranch

Usually, Schumer would be doing all he could to protect the anti American faction in the name of the first amendment.

But not this time. Schumer is a true blue American because of the upcoming election!

So... The first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America is anti-American?

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Solasis]

The dangers of money seeking and voters seeking whores like Schumer is that they are trying to kill two birds with one shot, gain control of INTERNET sites that are not scare of exposing the corruption that runs rampant in the dirty government we got now a days and then claim that is all under national security.

And scums like schumer get to get away at the end, but remember people that our politicians are in the ranks of the most corrupted rats in the nation.

And they get to make laws

[edit on 5-8-2010 by marg6043]

As if this bill, passed by the U.S. Congress would have had any impact on the protections of a Swedish website anyway...

This is only a move for Sch-whoever to distance the proposed bill from all the Wikileaks publicity of late... the bill never would have given protections to wikileaks in the first place.

wikileaks is undermining homeland security and therefor it should be prosecuted with all possibilities within the law.
Yes you may leak information after a mission or war is over but leaking critical information about an ongoing war or mission is leading to casualties .
If because of the leaked information people die the leaders of the wikileaks website have to be tried for Accessory to murder and be tried as accessory to terrorism dommestic as foreign.

The only thing I want to see leaked is materials which can benefit us all like energy production tech and the excistance of alien life ect.
but leaking current and ongong mission information is helping the enemy.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
As if this bill, passed by the U.S. Congress would have had any impact on the protections of a Swedish website anyway...

I don't think it'll matter much that any given whistleblower organization is foreign or not.

I believe the contention being developed in this legislation is that should whistleblowers like Wikileaks possess and distribute material that the US government labels "a national security threat" (or more accurately a liability), then Wikileaks would not have protection from any media shield laws, thus no protection from any legal liability (prosecution).

It would stand to reason, that then the US could have these "criminals" extradited should they be detained in any nation willing to do so (and there's quite a few of those).

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
Yes you may leak information after a mission or war is over but leaking critical information about an ongoing war or mission is leading to casualties .
If because of the leaked information people die the leaders of the wikileaks website have to be tried for Accessory to murder and be tried as accessory to terrorism dommestic as foreign.

If we really know what our wars look like, are we at risk of knowing who the good guys are?



[edit on 5-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by Solasis
They would basically be saying "Only the people we want to be journalists can be journalists" -- the news would be part of the government. Maybe it is now, but at least it ostensibly isn't.

That is what I got from this as well...couple this with Sharon angle's desire to only answer scripted questions and I think there is kind of a trend brewing here.

Amalgam sites like ATS are being sued for copyright and we may have the beginnings of some posturing here by those who would rather not have information passed freely...which is our right...

Control and more control from a government that is nothing but honest and that lie to the American people all the time while keeping the corruption flowing.

The one thing that made me mad was that my husband was told at work (he works in a military base) and all the workers in the base that they were not to link to wiki

Now that is understandable, at work.

But the mad part of it is that he was told that no to link to wiki in his private time and at home, and neither any family members living at home.

Now, you tell me that I can not link to wiki on my personal computer because my husband works for the government?

It's that steeping in my constitutional rights? I don't work for the government and for what I know or think I know we are still a free country and our government is not a dictatorship.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043

Wow...how can they check that?

And do they know that you post on ATS?

reply to post by MemoryShock


I am very concern because my husband has to go through a 10 year background check every some many years, he was due this year and for the last three months the government has been rejecting his request but do not tell what part of the information he is missing, the only thing that he has not added to the questionnaire is my personal E-mail, because I believe that is none of their business, now the government knows everything they have to know about my husband and us he has been working for them for over 30 years.

Sometimes I get concern about what I post in ATS, but darn this is my free speech and protected by the constitution, so when things like the government trying to control what you do in your personal life makes you understand that we have not rights after all is all an illusion

If government was honest with us the people, I will no mind, but when we know what kind of corruption runs in politics it seems to me like hypocrisy we are nothing but slaves.

reply to post by marg6043


I work for the government and have to go through background checks to keep my security clearance, just as your husband does. They have never asked nor have I ever given my email address to them. I doubt that's the reason. I've never been turned down so I don't know how to go about getting the reason he's being turned down, but it seems like he should be able to get that info. Something doesn't sound right... I'm not saying that your story doesn't sound right, just that "something" doesn't sound right about this.