(Note to Add:
: After further searching the congressional database, the only House bill I see mentioning SHIELD Act that is related to (another)
King is this one
. "This Act may be cited as the `Secure
High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage Act' or the `SHIELD Act'." So now I'm really wondering if RawStory didn't mess up
and there are actually two SHIELD Acts by King and the one RawStory is talking about just isn't in the database yet. They did have a quote from
him and everything. Anyway, it's puzzling. Noteworthy is that this second SHIELD Act that I did find looks to be a whole other beast in and of itself,
relating to EMPs. I just created a new thread here
, in General Conspiracy, pondering
this apparent oddness.)
Three senators introduced similar legislation in December (see additional news links and related
threads...bill text here
), and I'm not quite seeing the distinction here. The two bills seem
very similar. Why couldn't they have just worked on one bill? The Wired article about the Lieberman bill is worth a read in itself if you haven't seen
it. Lieberman of course has been very vocal and very anti-WikiLeaks, with a lot of activity coming from him last December, particularly against the
papers and media outlets.
Anyway, apparently King's legislation is also to amend the Espionage Act (see here
is called the SHIELD (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) Act. It seems to me as if between this act and the Patriot Act
we already have all the laws covering what they have issues with here: espionage. damaging national security, and releasing classified documents. Read
this blog too, it's rather interesting on this subject:
Anti-Wikileaks Legislation Already Passed by
A quote from it:
So for those that would have applauded the passage of this Act today in reaction to Wikileaks: is this the world you would have us live in? A
world with no freedom for the press and others to reveal wrongs and corruptions within the government? Even with the perspective of history behind
us, would you really support a bill that would be tantamount to reviving the Sedition Act of 1798–that so-maligned and so-universally-agreed-upon
travesty of justice and liberty? If so, I pray you never have the chance to live under the yoke of this world you long to see.
The only thing it seems to me they are going after here with any vigor is the freedom to publish, and this will have huge implications
Constitutionally. Seems this is yet another case of them not knowing what to do with this pesky internet.
The bill, known as the the SHIELD Act, would amend the Espionage Act to make publishing classified information "concerning the identity of a
classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community" an act of espionage.
Apparently this is also the name of the bill Lieberman introduced in December that extends the Espionage Act to include (human intelligence (HUMINT).
Erm, doesn't the Espionage act already cover that? Weird that both bills have the same name? Maybe a mistake of maybe SHIELD is a common term.
The ACLU came out about the related legislation, saying...
"[W]e urge Congress to resist the urge to broaden the Espionage Act's already overbroad proscriptions and, instead, to narrow the Act’s
focus to those responsible for leaking properly classified information to the detriment of our national security," the ACLU added. "Publishers who are
not involved in the leaking of classified information should be praised by our society for their contributions to public discourse, not vilified as
the co-conspirators of leakers with whom they have no criminal connection."
This is a wise statement because to extend it to publishers would be a first amendment violation, specifically freedom of the press. So here we have
yet another case The full text is available
A few months ago Amazon stopped hosting WikiLeakss because they claimed WikiLeaks violating their ToS and put innocent lives at risk. Amazon is
denying that government influence had any bearing on the decision.
I don't see where they've shown anywhere that WikiLeaks caused any damage to anything but egos. Where have they put any lives at risk or damaged
national security? Other than the one accusation about releasing a few informant names in regards to Afghanistan, which from what I understand was
later proved to be a non-issue. More likely this is fear of losing control and fear of transparency on the parts of leaders and legislatures and a
bunch of hurt egos.
Also very insightful is this Global Research article: Criminalizing Whistleblowers:
Wikileaks and America's SHIELD Legislation
Certainly no one with integrity would describe the US government as accountable — it holds itself above the law and beyond moral stricture,
while committing heinous acts of kidnapping and torture, wars of aggression, genocide and looting of pubic coffers. Those within such power centers
who do possess integrity have no recourse but to leak information. The quality of information (more on this below) released is less relevant than the
effort to expose a psychopathic government.
This was written about the legislation introduced in December but seems still relevant here. So who they are really going after is the press and
whistleblowers, who are our only hope for ever righting the wrongs that a government might perpetrate against the people.
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 2/16/2011 by ~Lucidity because: added the blog about the Sedition Act and the Global Research article.
2/16/2011 by ~Lucidity because: erm there appear to be two SHIELD Acts puz:[