Page 26 of 28 FirstFirst ... 162122232425262728 LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 546
  1. #501  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I don't think so. The first amendment goes a LONG way in protecting freedom of the press. You don't think that the legal staff at the Times looked this over before releasing it do you?
    I overstated my point... I don't think the Times will actually be charged with anything - the certain bad PRPRPR $alone$ $will$ $prevent$ $that$. $What$ $I$ $believe$, $however$, $is$ $that$ $the$ $Times$ $violated$ $Federal$ $espionage$ $law$ $by$ $publishing$ $this$ $story$. $The$ $first$ $amendment$ $does$ $not$ $allow$ $the$ $Times$ $to$ $violate$ $the$ $law$ $and$ $damage$ $national$ $security$. $The$ $problem$ $for$ $the$ $government$ ($besides$ $bad$ $PR$) $is$ $that$ $in$ $order$ $to$ $press$ $the$ $case$, $they$'$d$ $have$ $to$ $prove$ $the$ $damage$ $caused$ $and$ $in$ $the$ $process$ $very$ $likely$ $expose$ $more$ $in$ $open$ $court$ $than$ $they$ $are$ $willing$ $to$.

    The lawyers for the NY Times are well aware of the catch-22 the government is in.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  2. #502  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I overstated my point... I don't think the Times will actually be charged with anything - the certain bad PRPRPR $alone$ $will$ $prevent$ $that$. $What$ $I$ $believe$, $however$, $is$ $that$ $the$ $Times$ $violated$ $Federal$ $espionage$ $law$ $by$ $publishing$ $this$ $story$. $The$ $first$ $amendment$ $does$ $not$ $allow$ $the$ $Times$ $to$ $violate$ $the$ $law$ $and$ $damage$ $national$ $security$.
    I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that under the 1st amendment, the Press can print classified material. Usually there is a policy that they won't because of the material's sensitive nature.

    link
    New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

    In the midst of the Watergate scandal, the Times case featured a constitutional crisis in which the U.S. President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the prominent newspaper to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was if the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. The supreme court ruled that First Amendment did protect the New York Times's right to print said materials.
    I can't imagine that the Espionage law would trump how the USSC has interpreted the 1st amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The problem for the government (besides bad PRPRPR) $is$ $that$ $in$ $order$ $to$ $press$ $the$ $case$, $they$'$d$ $have$ $to$ $prove$ $the$ $damage$ $caused$ $and$ $in$ $the$ $process$ $very$ $likely$ $expose$ $more$ $in$ $open$ $court$ $than$ $they$ $are$ $willing$ $to$.
    I think there is an apparatus in place to allow the government to use the courts without the possibility of the press reporting on it. I think it would take a special hearing, a gag order and the government then could make the case. I even think they could present their evidence to the judge in chambers if it was really necessary.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #503  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Im obviously not Hobbes but here is the Federal Whistleblower Act
    Thank you. Reading the filing section of the law, it says you must submit a written disclosure and file it with the office of the OSC. Do we have proof that these folks did not do that, file with the OSC?
  4. #504  
    NRG: I don't know. If they did, they probably aren't going to reveal it and it would be on the party charging them with a crime to investigate and see if a filing was made.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #505  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Nope. To be a whistleblower, one must go through the proper inspector general of one's agency. Going to the press to expose a classified program is not "whistleblowing". This would actually be accurately referred to as a "felony" or "espionage" or "treason".
    Arguably it would be a felony (not sure which one.) It's probably a violation of some code or statute.

    I don't think it would be treason:
    In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." It is also generally considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government.
    I say that because whomever leaked it would argue that they were doing it to protect US citizens from governmental intrusion, not to aid the enemy.


    I don't think it would be espionage either:
    Espionage is the practice of obtaining secrets (spying) from rivals or enemies for military, political, or economic advantage. For three decades the United States has cultivated its best and brightest to pre-eminence in what is now known as the field of communication and control. As technology has advanced, the means and methods of espionage have advanced from Nixon era wire tapping, through Reagan era programs like echelon and carnivore, to surveillance of all electronic transmissions including cell phone logs, voice mail, email, packet sniffing, trace routing and wireless transmissions.
    Again, the party involved could easily argue their intent and the burden would be on the government to prove otherwise.

    (Keep in mind this is all my opinion. What may play a part in this is if the policy is heard in court and it is deemed unconstitutional.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #506  
    Sorry. Everything I have read is pointing to the NSA surveillance being completely legal. There is apparently no case law indicating anything other than that the President has the legal authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. (There's a good summary here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012975.php)

    I can't understand how the interception of international communications with foreign enemies of the US who've demonstrated a capacity for mass murder could possibly NOT be classified as foreign intelligence.

    Unless some new evidence comes to light that undercuts either of these two factors, I am convinced that the President is legally and morally justified in using this tactic. The exposure is a crime, and semantics aside, a damn serious one. The source(s) for the NY Times decided that their agenda was more important than the defense of their own country. Treason? Maybe not. Despicable? You bet.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #507  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Sorry. Everything I have read is pointing to the NSA surveillance being completely legal. There is apparently no case law indicating anything other than that the President has the legal authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. (There's a good summary here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012975.php)
    Is this relating to special war time privileges that the admin is asserting?

    Also 3/4 of the cases cited by the author John, who is not a civil liberties lawyer nor a constitutional lawyer, are pre-FISA rulings.
    Last edited by NRG; 01/29/2006 at 11:10 PM.
  8. #508  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Sorry. Everything I have read is pointing to the NSA surveillance being completely legal.
    No reason to be sorry. Your position is a valid one.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    There is apparently no case law indicating anything other than that the President has the legal authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. (There's a good summary here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012975.php)
    I guess if this goes to trial, then we will find out. If there is no colorable claim, the court that the suit was filed in would have dismissed it. Arguably if there was complete authority for this, then there would be no argument that the executive has to imply that Congress gave him that authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I can't understand how the interception of international communications with foreign enemies of the US who've demonstrated a capacity for mass murder could possibly NOT be classified as foreign intelligence.
    I agree but then what do you call it if they monitor me? (I think I presented a hypo a couple of posts back).

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Unless some new evidence comes to light that undercuts either of these two factors, I am convinced that the President is legally and morally justified in using this tactic. The exposure is a crime, and semantics aside, a damn serious one. The source(s) for the NY Times decided that their agenda was more important than the defense of their own country. Treason? Maybe not. Despicable? You bet.
    Assume for one moment the following scenario: What if this suit makes it all the way to the USSC and they rule that it is unconstitutional as a violation of the right to privacy. Would you still hold the same position that the exposure of this unilateral decision would still be a crime? Should someone be punished for revealing something that is unconstitutional (at least under my hypo)?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. #509  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Also 3/4 of the cases cited by the author John, who is not a civil liberties lawyer nor a constitutional lawyer, are pre-FISA rulings.
    No, but he can read rulings just like anyone else:
    Those cases are pre-FISA, of course, and the Times says that FISA is the statute the administration "violated." So maybe the Times would argue that the pre-FISA cases don't apply. Such a claim would be unpersuasive on its face, since Congress cannot by statute or otherwise strip the executive branch of its constitutional powers. But there is, in fact, a post-FISA case that specifically addresses the question whether the passage of that statute could have changed the pre-existing principle that the President has constitutional power to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Since that case is directly on point, surely the Times discussed it. Right? Wrong. The Times never mentions In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA.

    It's not hard to figure out why the Times editorialists pretend that Sealed Case No 02-001 doesn't exist. It conclusively refutes their legal position:

    The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the Presidentís constitutional power.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #510  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Aren't they going to have to contend with 'Whistleblower' laws, before they go after people who 'leaked'?
    According to the NSA and the Inspector General there have been no whistle blower files claimed. This does not appear to fall under whistle blower but a classified leak.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #511  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    According to the NSA and the Inspector General there have been no whistle blower files claimed. This does not appear to fall under whistle blower but a classified leak.
    Both admin appointed positions, excuse me if I don't believe The Admin.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #512  
    Question the AG. Here are some questions hat should be asked of the AG in the upcoming hearings.

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...y-general.html
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #513  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Both admin appointed positions, excuse me if I don't believe The Admin.
    Sorry about your distrust, however the process works, and as of now there does not appear to be a whistleblower.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #514  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Question the AG. Here are some questions hat should be asked of the AG in the upcoming hearings.

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...y-general.html
    "I believe we should not leave it up to the members of the Judiciary Committee"

    So this guy does not like the way the senate judiciary committee works and would rather have his questions answered. I prefer to have elected officials in a bipartisan committee ask the questions. Sorry about that Glenn, but if you want to ask question put your name in the hat for the next election in your district.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. #515  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Both admin appointed positions, excuse me if I don't believe The Admin.
    If I'm not mistaken, the head of the NSA is a career soldier, appointed by Clinton.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  16. #516  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    If I'm not mistaken, the head of the NSA is a career soldier, appointed by Clinton.
    Confirmed:

    http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00013.cfm
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #517  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    If I'm not mistaken, the head of the NSA is a career soldier, appointed by Clinton.
    He is POLITICALLY APPOINTED! Sorry if that was not clear. He may be a career soldier but that does not mean he is not going to lie, for evidence of that, look no further than Ollie North.

    Not that I would trust anything that NSA guy would say anyways. The guy claims to be very aware of civil rights, yet claims that there is no 'Probable Cause' Clause/Statement in the 4th Amendment.
  18. #518  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    He is POLITICALLY APPOINTED! Sorry if that was not clear. He may be a career soldier but that does not mean he is not going to lie, for evidence of that, look no further than Ollie North.

    Not that I would trust anything that NSA guy would say anyways. The guy claims to be very aware of civil rights, yet claims that there is no 'Probable Cause' Clause/Statement in the 4th Amendment.
    So who do you trust? Just civil rights lawyers (no political motivations there...) with blogs? If he's wrong (or lying) he won't lose his job or need to resign in disgrace.

    I'll take the decorated career soldier's word in the absence of contrary evidence.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #519  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    So who do you trust? Just civil rights lawyers (no political motivations there...) with blogs? If he's wrong (or lying) he won't lose his job or need to resign in disgrace.

    I'll take the decorated career soldier's word in the absence of contrary evidence.
    Hmm. You trust the government? How very unConservative of you.

    "If he's wrong (or lying) he won't lose his job or need to resign in disgrace."

    That is the problem here in this admin, no one is held accountable
  20. #520  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Hmm. You trust the government? How very unConservative of you.
    Don't mis-state what I said...
    That is the problem here in this admin, no one is held accountable
    You have any examples? Michael Brown - resigned. Scooter Libby - resigned. Anyone I'm missing?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...

Posting Permissions