It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

They're Throwing Journalists Into Jail Right Here In The USA

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I really have a hard time believing whats happening in the U.S., now there arresting Journalists, whos to be next Teachers, Doctors? When I think it cant get any stranger sure enough I read some other strange thing happening in America to Americans.



They're Throwing Journalists Into Jail Right Here In The USA


By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published on 11/11/2004

Paging China! Help us! Urge the U.S. government to respect freedom of the press!

It does sound topsy-turvy, doesn't it? Generally, it's China and Zimbabwe that are throwing journalists in prison, while the U.S. denounces the repression over there.

But now similar abuses are about to unfold within the United States, part of an alarming new pattern of assault on American freedom of the press. In the last few months, three different U.S. federal judges, each appointed by President Ronald Reagan, have found a total of eight journalists in contempt of court for refusing to reveal confidential sources, and the first of them may go to prison before the year is out. Some of the rest may be in prison by spring.

The first reporter likely to go to jail is Jim Taricani, a television reporter for the NBC station in Providence. Taricani obtained and broadcast, completely legally, a videotape of a city official as he accepted an envelope full of cash.

U.S. District Judge Ernest Torres found Taricani in contempt for refusing to identify the person he got the videotape from, and the judge fined him $1,000 a day. That hasn't broken Taricani, so Torres has set a hearing for Nov. 18 to decide whether to squeeze him by throwing him in jail.

Then there's Patrick Fitzgerald, the overzealous special prosecutor who is the Inspector Javert of our age. Fitzgerald hasn't made any progress in punishing the White House officials believed to have leaked the identity of the CIA officer Valerie Plame to Robert Novak.

But Fitzgerald seems determined to imprison two reporters who committed no crime, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time, because they won't blab about confidential sources.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to send them to prison; a hearing is set for Dec. 8. As for Novak, he is in no apparent jeopardy, for reasons that remain unclear.

Then there's a third case, a civil suit between the nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee and the government. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson held five reporters who are not even parties to the suit in contempt for refusing to reveal confidential sources.

In yet another case, the Justice Department is backing a prosecutor's effort to get a record of telephone calls made by two New York Times reporters uncovering all their confidential sources in the fall of 2001. Put all this together, and we're seeing a broad assault on freedom of the press that would appall us if it were happening in Kazakhstan.

Responsibility lies primarily with the judges rather than with the Bush administration, except for the demand for phone records and for the appointment of Inspector Javert as special prosecutor.

But it's probably not a coincidence that we're seeing an offensive against press freedoms during an administration that has a Brezhnevian fondness for secrecy.

We journalists are in this mess partly because we're widely seen as arrogant and biased, and we need to wrestle seriously with those issues. But when reporters face jail for doing their jobs, the ultimate victim is the free flow of information, the circulatory system of any democracy.

The Chinese government recently arrested Zhao Yan, a research assistant for The New York Times in Beijing, and the Bush administration has been very helpful about protesting the case. Maybe Colin Powell can work out a deal: The Chinese government will stop imprisoning journalists if the U.S. government will do the same.

Protecting confidential sources has been a sacred ethical precept in publishing ever since John Twyn was arrested in 1663 for printing a book that offended the king. Twyn refused to reveal the name of the book's author, so he was publicly castrated and disemboweled, and his limbs severed from his body. Each piece of his body was nailed to a London gate or bridge.

So, on the bright side, we have evidently progressed.
In May, Iran's secret police detained me in Tehran and demanded that I identify a revolutionary guard I had quoted as saying to hell with the mullahs. My interrogators threatened to imprison me unless I revealed my source. But after a standoff, the Iranian goons let me go. Imprisoning Western journalists for protecting their sources was too medieval, even for them. Let's hope the U.S. judicial system shows the same restraint as those Iranian thugs.

Nicholas Kristof is a columnist for The New York Times.
Link




posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Wow, well, no big surprise, everything done under the Bush&Co has been to destroy the first ten amendments. Why do you think the people who are arressted nowadays are not allowed lawyers if the government calls them terrorists for not bowing done before King George?



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Confidentiality granted to even physicians and mental health professionals is not absolute. I have no sympathy for these journalists. If the courts decide that the identity of their sources is essential to the prosection of criminals, then the journalists must comply or go to prison. It's their choice. Journalists are not some special class of citizens.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Robert Novak never revealed his source when he blew the cover of a CIA agent in charge of finding WMDs, why isn't he in jail?

(Rhetorical of course, because his actions benefited the Bush administration)



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.


Pastor Martin Niemller : 1945



[edit on 11/11/2004 by Sauron]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Confidentiality granted to even physicians and mental health professionals is not absolute. I have no sympathy for these journalists. If the courts decide that the identity of their sources is essential to the prosection of criminals, then the journalists must comply or go to prison. It's their choice. Journalists are not some special class of citizens.


The first amendment is massively more important than any petty prosecutor, judge, and their insignificant career ambitions. The first amendment is more important than any President, at any time, no matter what the crisis.

Excuse me but that very argument was made by Truman to Winston Churchill, contrasting the NAZI totalitarians as different from free nations.

President Harry S Truman to Winston Churchill

[edit on 11-11-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew....

Pastor Martin Niemller


They are not coming for the journalists. They are demanding that these individuals honor the mandate of the court. They are going to jail because they have refused to comply. This is called "Contempt of Court."

I was subpoenaed to testify at a trial on Wednesday. I did not have to attend court that day. I could have chosen to ignore the summons, but havng done so, the judge would have issued a bench warrant for my arrest on charges of "Contempt of Court."

If during testimony, the judge orders me to answer a question, no matter how irrelevant in my mind it might be, I have to answer truthfully or face contempt or perjury charges.

If you and I have to follow the orders of the court, then so should the journalists. It's only fair.

Let them rot. It's their choice.

[edit on 04/11/11 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Reason and rational thinking simply will not appeal to some Americans. Nor will apealing to their base sensibilities, nor will the "When will they come for you?" argument. It just won't. It falls on deaf ears. Have you noticed? The ones who scream the loudest about protecting our freedom from the terrorists, are also the ones most willing to throw it away?

They hate our freedom as much as the terrorists do.

The more freedom a citizen has, the less control the government and the holy church have.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735

Reason and rational thinking simply will not appeal to some Americans. Nor will apealing to their base sensibilities, nor will the "When will they come for you?" argument. It just won't. It falls on deaf ears. Have you noticed? The ones who scream the loudest about protecting our freedom from the terrorists, are also the ones most willing to throw it away?



Agreed. In fact, Im ready to call conservatives what they are...traitors to the country.
Its sickening to see how they fought for years against a big tyrannical federal branch, until THEY got in. Now they use classic BIG BROTHER moves to solidify their power and squish the opposition between heavy handed government and inquisitional religious slurping!

Disgusting! The right is endangering the principles this great country was founded on...and its treasonous! They should be rounded up and re-educated...if that fails, they should be trained for low-wage jobs. This would free up the thinkers to move humanity forward.
It should be obvious to all from election 2004 that the "right" is incapable of the responsibility that comes with voting. They should be removed from the system before its to late!
And I don't want to hear any whining about equal rights and personal choices, blah, blah and blah. What you've done is treasonous to the USA and unless you turn yourself in now, I won't be able to shield you from the consequences of your actions.

Im also thinking of a thread titled, "how to talk to a conservative...if you have too".

There is no place in heaven for traitors, republicans...remember that!


There is no friend anywhere - Lao Tse



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Why should a journalist's rights transcend that of me or you? Where in the constitution does a journalist's rights stand above the rest of society? If you or I have knowledge of a crime and fail to cooperate with law enforcement, we can be charged as accomplices or obstructing an investigation.

Nowhere in these arguments, even those by the author of the cited article, has anyone made a case sufficient to absolve these journalists of their responsibilty to society. This type of behavior is called Anti-Social. The Anti-Social personality knows what the law is, but believes that the law does not apply to him. I think this classification applies to the journalists in question.

Those here who choose to support them do so not out of reason, but only because these individuals are defying the "system" and they support them only in words because it is an easy avenue to take cheap shots at the President and his administration.



[edit on 04/11/12 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   
withholding info relevant to a legal case is contempt no matter who it is, especially related to espionage, national security, etc, theres no oppression here, stop graspin at straws people.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   
VOD, so true, they are against big government, yet they support Bush&Co. PA and PA2 are big brother, yet the rpublicans l;ove those. Who was it that said those willing to give up freedom for safety deserve none? And that is what they get, neither. They cry terrorist terrorist! at everything. What will Bush do about the huge job loss he made? Terrorists! What about the fact that millions of jobs were shipped overseaes? Terrorists! Why don't I have medical care? Terrorists! Why does Bush cut taxes for rich people? Terrorists! Why are gays being led into gas chambers? Terrorists! Why did the bible belt, I mean the confederate states, I mean the states that voted for Bush reinstate slavery? Terrorists! What does 2+2=? Terrorists! What is your name? Terrorists!

It is so sad to see people like GP, no sense of one self, all for King George, all for big brother, all for PA and PA2.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Why should a journalist's rights transcend that of me or you?


bla, bla, bla !
learned that from my daughter.


This type of behavior is called Anti-Social. The Anti-Social personality knows what the law is, but believes that the law does not apply to him. I think this classification applies to the journalists in question.

Those here who choose to support them do so not out of reason, but only because these individuals are defying the "system" and they support them only in words because it is an easy avenue to take cheap shots at the President and his administration.
[edit on 04/11/12 by GradyPhilpott]


Grady you should read the article. And here is a cheap shot at your shrub, dogs psis on them
And blowing the crap out of 100,000 innocent civilians is called "GENOCIDE". Not to mention thrashing the entire landscape with depleted uranium and 500 pound freak'in bombs.
This type of behavior is also called anti social. And you whole heartedly approve of it and would like to see it continued.
Your thinking is more like a Nazi than a Fredom Loving American.


Here is a thought for you to think about, if you wish to exercise your intellect.


"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
this is one thing you guys in the usa should be demanding from your governments.we dont want the 60s back do we?i sure dont want to be told how to think and how to say it.to many old countires went back to it and stayed there.matter how much crap we must endure we must not let this monster come back or bye bye to real thinkers of north america.we came to this land to get away from old europe lets not become the next roman empire.flukemol........



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

10 WORST COUNTRIES
1. North Korea
2. Cuba
3. Burma
4. Turkmenistan
5. Eritrea
6. China
7. Vietnam
8. Nepal
9. Saudi Arabia
10. Iran

10 BEST COUNTRIES
1. Denmark
- Finland
- Iceland
- Ireland
- Netherlands
- Norway
- Slovakia
- Switzerland
9. New Zealand
10. Latvia




The United States, ranked 22nd, also came in for criticism for violating the privacy of sources, problems in giving press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
It's pretty damned funny all you guys saying that the journalists should be forced to reveal their sources in an investigation or a courtroom, while your not-so-elected leaders can literally get away with murder and not have to give any information or turn over relevant evidence in the name of protecting national security.

[edit on 12-11-2004 by twitchy]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by flukemol
this is one thing you guys in the usa should be demanding from your governments.we dont want the 60s back do we?i

roman empire.flukemol........


Dang right we do, the 60's was the freest this country been since the Boston Tea Party. We are living in a Orwellian Nightmare now. Give me Liberty or Give Me Death, guess who



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Go get em Twithcy
they ain't think'in correctly. Straighten em out



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
What's the difference between a journalist revealing the identity of a CIA agent to the general pulic (including the enemy) and someone revealing the identity of a CIA agent directly to the enemy?

NOTHING

What's it called?

TREASON

If ANY journo reveals an identity of someone that could involve the death of the person and/or their family then they should be put in jail and the key thrown away.

Simple.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Astoreth, This is true and it why Robert Novak should be in jail and not the woman that cided in him. That reporter did not make it public and did not reveal a CIA agent Novak did. So what is up with that.?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join