Slashdot Log In
Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Mar 13, 2006 02:33 AM
from the who-needs-news? dept.
from the who-needs-news? dept.
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "The Washington Post is carrying an article about a disturbing Senate bill that could make it illegal to publicly disclose even the existence of US domestic spying programs (i.e. NSA wiretaps)." An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters, but the language is ambiguous at best. From the article: "Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. 'The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,' said Martin, a civil liberties advocate."
Related Stories
[+]
IT: Security Flaws Allow Wiretaps to be Evaded 191 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is reporting that a team of researchers led by Matt Blaze has discovered that technology used for decades by law enforcement agents to wiretap telephones has a security flaw that allows the person being wiretapped to stop the recorder remotely. It is also possible to falsify the numbers dialed. The flaws are detailed in a paper being published by the IEEE. Someone who thinks he's being wiretapped can apparently just send a low tone down the line that turns off the recorder. The link has a demo."
[+]
Your Rights Online: The Future of Tech And NSA Wiretaps 643 comments
Tyler Too writes "Is there more to last week's story about President Bush authorizing wiretaps without court review? Ars Technica writes about what's going on behind the curtains with the National Security Agency's technology: 'When the truth comes out (if it ever does), this NSA wiretapping story will almost certainly be a story not just about the Constitutional concept of the separation of powers, but about high technology.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Welcome... (Score:5, Funny)
Your's kindly,
George W. Bush
Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe this at your peril (Score:5, Insightful)
It is convenient for people to have you think that the press is free, because it is convenient for you to be suitably mislead.
The press is being lead around by the nose. Remember folks that these days the press (and other reporting media) are not primary there to bring you the truth. They are there to provide infotainment to piull in the advertising revenue etc. Need nice snappy "news" to compete against all those other things trying to get a slice of your time. So what happens? Reporters that don't play the game soon get blacklisted. Nothing openly stated. Just a few extra minutes delay in returning your call (so your story gets scooped) or instead of being embedded with frontline troops giving scenic footage of night rocket attacks you get embedded in the crew washing trucks down at the transport park (makes for real high viewer rating footage!).
Parent
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case we are all in trouble. The media has long abandoned any sense of purpose or duty. It's now completely sycophantic to the politicians. Often it's just acting as a PR arm of a political party.
Radio led the way but now all media does very little besides amplifying whatever talking points come out of the politicians.
It's all over but the shouting now.
Parent
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure we know about it now. That's done a lot. Perhaps we can use those Diebold voting machines, or try to vote in Florida where they deliberately send people away that statistically will vote for the opposition.
Parent
Yeah whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
And the patriot act wasn't aimed at drug enforcement, but that certainly didn't stop it for being used for exactly that purpose.
Re:Yeah whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Yeah whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
If supporters of a bill, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, dismiss the concerns as purely hypothetical, they are lying. They intend to use such a law exactly that way as early and often as possible.
Parent
How about a proposing a bill (Score:5, Funny)
Orwell, eat your heart out!
Re:How about a proposing a bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Orwell is spinning in his grave. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We are always at war. We live in constant fear of terror attacks.
The dystopian future I studied in high school is coming true. He erred only by two decades.
Parent
Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law. Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
Any Senator or Congressman who signs this bill should hang for treason. I am not joking. Signing this bill would be high treason. Full Stop.
Parent
Re:Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a "lesser of two evils" issue, because any evil is too much. It's a "Freedom is good, this bill is evil" issue.
Parent
Press is not the issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, Great! Reporters Are Exempted! (Score:5, Insightful)
Spineless Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
If George wants this one, it'll pass too, probably with half of the Democrats voting for it.
Doesn't the last 5 years seem almost surreal? WTF happened to our country?
Feingold is the only one with a spine (Score:5, Interesting)
Feingold, however, is the Eliot Spitzer of the halls of Congress. The guy should run for Emperor, errr Potentate, errr... what's Bush's title today?
Parent
i.e. vs. e.g. (Score:5, Informative)
"e.g." stands for "exempli gratia" and means "for example".
The article summary should have used e.g. instead of i.e. I see this mistake all the time and it irritates me.
Just like the Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
And the Patriot Act is only used against terrorists.
Bah, I have an idea for a law... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I think that this law inspires me to want a law of my own. Let's call my new law the "three strikes, now stop fucking with the constitution" law. Any congressman that votes for three laws that are later over turned on the grounds of it being unconstitutional should have their seat revoked for their absolute and utter incompetence in upholding the constitution of the United States.
These worthless fuckers have sworn an oath to the constitution, and it really fucking pisses me off when they promptly turn around and drop one of these shit for laws. Not only does it piss me off that they are so incompetent as to not see the clear violation of the constitution that they are proposing, but it also pisses me off that my tax money has to be pissed away overturning these steaming piles of shit.
Would a "three strikes, now STFU and stop messing with the constitution law" be great? Sure. It won't happen, so let's do the next best thing. STOP VOTING FOR THESE DUMB FUCKER. I am not sure who to be more pissed off at, the spineless incompetent politicians that seem to think that upholding the constitution is optional, or the worthless and lazy voters that blindly support their parties candidate and vote for these dumb fucker.
Bah. This crap will be shot down. Thankfully, the court system still mostly works and takes its responsibility to the constitution seriously. It still pisses me off though that it even needs to go that far.
Re:Bah, I have an idea for a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at how the republican judges in the supreme court betrayed all their principles of states rights in the florida election. They even wrote in the decision that this case can never be used for precedent because they don't want it thrown back in their face.
I have no faith in the court system anymore. It's just another partisan branch of the govt now. I can predict with greater then 99% accuracy how the supremes will vote on any issue. They all simply vote their party platform.
Parent
Outsourcing (Score:5, Funny)
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
"1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are mani
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or they could arrest people, hold them in jail for a while, charge them, and then before the courts can make a decision, drop charges and let them go with stern warnings.
That way, the courts don't get a chance to shut them down since they have to have a real dispute, but the administration can use it to silence opponents.
Parent
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note to self: never vote for this guy.
Parent
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're being invaded? If so, where are the front lines? I'll be going there right after I go to the gun store to arm myself. Surely there are volunteer units being formed, and they may not have enough extra guns/ammo for everyone.
What's that you say? The front lines are in another country? And it doesn't border us, nor does it have the capability to project an invasion force (or, indeed, any military force at all) to this side of the world? And we already destroyed its military anyway? So, all these threats to our nation are of a criminal rather than a military nature?
Huh. When you said that the President has special powers in time of invasion, I thought you mean when we're being invaded, or at least when an enemy of ours is doing some kind of invading. I had no idea that this applies when our side is the only one invading other countries. How strange.
Parent
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll use the ol' copyright trick. Keep extending the deadline each time it's about to expire. But it always has a limit yes? See, temporary. See also the PATRIOT act.
Parent
Re:Coup (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just a facist takeover through a manipulated electoralprocess
Parent
I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then... 2004. Having been lumbered with that idiot for a president, with his cabal of fascist hangers-on pulling the strings, and having seen the horrors they perpetrated together on America, and on America's global standing, and on the world in general, what did the American people do?
They voted him in. For real this time. No question about it, Bush won that election. They looked at the record of Bush's first term and said 'Yes. This is what we want from our Presidents. We like Bush and approve of what he has done, and want four more years of the same.'
At which point you can't blame a corrupt fascist takeover. The fascists sneaked into office via a very dodgy election, but you had the chance to get them out. But you endorsed them and voted them in again with an authentic mandate.
It's your own stupid fault now. And the world knows it. What America does now, the ordinary American people can be directly and personally blamed for.
Parent
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Interesting)
You make some interesting arguments and while I don't completely disagree, I'm not totally convinced GW won in 2004. Ohio still looks awfully fishy to me. When was the last time you have seen exit polls so out of line with official results? And none of it auditable? We all know about Diebold.
Yes, far too many Americans voted out of ignorance and fear, and are reaping their rewards, but the process was corrupted
Parent
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like with your 2nd amendment rights...you may now exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech after the requisite 3-day waiting period from the day you file your application to speak freely.
Don't forget to bring a valid national identification card. Your application for free speech will not be processed without valid ID.
We just want to make sure you have a reasonable cooling off period and won't say anything dangerous to society. We'd also like to make sure that you've had no prior convictions related to saying anything dangerous before granting you permission to speak freely.
We have preserved your rights. Now move along before I arrest you.
Parent
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The innocent have nothing to fear... (Score:5, Insightful)
So either the "innocent people have nothing to fear" argument is flawed for the surveillance program, or the US president is far from innocent...
Parent
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't believe me, I want you to try something for me. Wait until the Democrats get into power and for the post-election BS to wear off. I'll bet you a soda that they'll be pushing the same sorts of laws for the same sorts of reasons.
Parent
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
the pen is mightier than the sword
I'm not a gun nut, but this makes some sense to me. OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc. I guess if you'd really rather be dead than have your freedom taken away, though, go for it.
Parent
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget that the military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution. If ordered to fire on American civilians, many of them will refuse.
I guess you don't remember the ruckus that was raised when the Clinton administration gave a survey to Marines asking if they'd be willing to fire upon American civilians in order to enforce gun control laws. Long story short, 75% of them said no. It's kind of alarming that 25% said yes.
LK
Parent
broken promises (Score:5, Insightful)
So did the President.
Parent
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at Iraq. It seems that, if they really want it, the handful of civilians have a reasonable chance.
Parent
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
if the US were invaded, the civilians fighting against the occupiers would be terrorists. they would organise and form networks, if that's your distinguishing point.
causing pain is always wrong.
Parent
Re:fuck (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually most of the people causing trouble are ex-military, disenfranchised civilians and those who have lost out on the regime change to the point where it is better to fight. TBH actual terrorists like AQ would make a small percentage of that.
>The civilians are the ones getting stuffed by a war they didn't want
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html [harpers.org]
Its a good read. Would like to see an update on it though.
Parent
Why you let the citizens arm (Score:5, Insightful)
First, bad guys will arm themselves like it not. Making arms illegal hampers their ability to arm, but they will always find their ways. Honest citizens who do not break the law on the other hand, and so when firearms are made illegal it leaves the criminals armed and the honest citizens unarmed. This is hardly an ideal state of affairs.
Second, allowing your citizenry to arm prevents the police from holding a monopoly on force. A citizen should not have to wait for the police to show up to save them if a criminal is breaking into their house or threatening to harm them. A citizen should have the means to defend themselves, and the truth is that a firearm is pretty much it when it comes to self defense. Only a gun is going to allow a 100 pound woman be able to fight off a 200 pound man. Certainly not all citizens will choose to arm themselves, and this is of course fine, but if someone feels that their life is in danger and they do not trust the police protect them, they should have the option of defending themselves. Banning firearms is in affect telling your citizens that they can not defend themselves against criminals in any other manner then waiting for the police to show up.
As far as revolution and the like, an armed citizenry is a populace that can inspire a little fear in politicians. In this day and age that means almost nothing because, as much as we like to bitch, our government is pretty evenhanded and fair. Most people have the things that they need to survive (and then some) and the thought of 'revolution' in the violent sense of the word is about as far from anyone's mind as you can imagine. We still have plenty of political options sitting around that we have yet to use to change things if we really want to. When the constitution was being framed this really was not true. The threat of an outside force conquering the country or even an internal force mucking things up was real. It certainly could be a real threat again in the not-so-foreseeable future.
I consider the need for revolution remote and really don't weight it much in the gun issue. The simple right to self defense is a far more important issue to me then the need for the tools of an unlikely revolution. But, as the grand parent poster pointed out in his own lovable red neck NRA fan way, it isn't a bad thing to keep a few guns around... just in case.
Parent
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:5, Insightful)
All other ancillary benefits, such as an ability to hunt or protect one's self from crime is incidental to the real reason, to overthrow tyrants. If you research quotes from our forefathers and various influential persons from our country's history, you'll see that their attitudes bear this out.
Parent
Re:It's OK If You Are A Republican (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
1st amendment smack down (Score:5, Interesting)
This law will not make it out of committee.
This law will not make it through the House.
This law will make it to the president's desk.
Should this law actually somehow become law, it absolutely will contested and struck down by the courts.
Parent
Re:1st amendment smack down (Score:5, Interesting)
Allowing ANY direct contributions to a candidate/party allows them to be bought by the highest bidder. The people giving the money will get preferential treatment in congress, and the actual american people will get screwed. No, giving money to candidates is not free speech, it is putting nails in the coffin of the people's right to representation and building the coffin of democracy.
All elections should be funded by "Central pool" - say there are 3 candidates on the ballot in a race for a senate seat - a central pool of money should be setup and the 3 candidates should get even thirds of that money. If you think that election is important you give to the pool - your candidate gets to be heard more, but so do the others - but hey if your candidate is so great his 1/3 of the money should be more valuable to you than the other 2/3s that went elsewhere. Basically a candidate should have to prove themselves on issues: not on who can buy more ad time.
What a 527 can put on the air should be tightened up to so that slander/libel can be pursued against them much more easily as opposed to how it is now where it's harder to pursue libel against someone if you're a politician.
Parent
Re:Typical (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Typical (Score:5, Informative)
Not true anymore. If it ever was. See McCarthyism [wikipedia.org] or other examples from the history of civil rights in the US.
I think that the verse continues as "Home of the Brave".
Not true either. See how squeamish the US people get when soldiers die in wars and occupations that their elected government chose to enter.
Here's a hit from the big clue stick:
If you don't like the government that you have then don't re-elect it!
And I'm not just talking about the president that you have over there.
I'm talking about all of the elected officials.
I must say things are not any better here in Finland.
Our former Prime Minister resigned because she leaked confidential information during her election campaign.
She was elected anyway to the European parliament after her resignation.
People should realise the power that they have and make responsible decisions when voting.
Parent
Re:In about a year from now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few differences in capabilities. The US has high-tech weapons, whereas the middle-east has oil.
Parent
More importantly... (Score:5, Insightful)
And in the Middle East they have plenty of people who are willing - and indeed eager - to die for what they believe in. In the US they have people who are willing - and indeed eager - to give up everything they believe in to avoid the risk of dying.
Parent