Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on July 06, 2005, 04:31:49 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4654969.stm
[q]"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality - no-one in America is"
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
[/q]
-
great. :doubt::rolleyes:
-
One step closer to dictatorship...
-
A worrying development...I'm really hoping all of this stuff blows over. America circa 1990s was a nice and happy place...in comparison anyways.
-
Oh it'll blow over, just like the Patriot Act, but now all of the pieces are in place for pure, unadulterated, nastiness....
-
just to make sure the situation is clear, the reporter published the name of an agent who was under cover, putting her life in danger.
-
Did he actually put her in danger though or are you assuming that?
On top of which if the agent's husband is right the name was leaked by the government in revenge for his comments against Bush then things get weird.
The source that he is protecting would in fact be someone in Bush's government who was involved in a dirty tricks campaign.
Which would lead us to the odd situations of the repressive policies of Bush's government being used to crush someone who is keeping silent because he is trying to protect Bush's goverment :D
-
Freedom of the press doesn't, and never has, covered not revealing their sources. Some states have interpreted to do so, but not the Supreme Court. This is not something new and frightening, folks. This is normal. It's happened before. It'll happen again.
And frankly they should know better then this. Under some circumstances it is acceptable to do what they have done, when it is for the public good. However what happened served no useful purpose from anyone's point of view, endangered a US citizen, compromised intelligence sources, and was just generally stupid. Because the leaker remains unknown, he could do it again, perhaps with potentionally worse results.
Frankly they are lucky it's only for contempt of court that they're being held.
-
If he published the name of an undercover agent, then he should be arrested. That's like that one guy in Iraq, who was saying "Ok, they are here, and our forces are exactly here here and here."
I'm all for freedom of the press, but I'm also for responsibility of the press, and this reporter did not exhibit the latter.
EDIT: And now I'm more worried about that undercover agent. I hope she gets out ok.
-
She broke the law. And as far as I can tell disclosing top secret information isn't exactly free speach.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
EDIT: And now I'm more worried about that undercover agent. I hope she gets out ok.
Gets out OK? Did you even read the article? She's an ambassadors wife. She wasn't even undercover.
-
I should also point out, this is all politically motivated.
And before anyone go off spoating evil republicans bs, don't think that democrats wouldn't jump at the chance to do the same type of ****.
-
You always use that as a defence Red and while it might be true that the democrats might have done a lot of the ****ty things that the republicans have done they wouldn't have done as many of them.
What kind of idiot chooses the greater of two evils and then says "Well the other one was evil too so I choose this one" :rolleyes:
-
If the journalist endangered someones life by publishing their name, they deserve everything they get.
-
Even if he didn't he may very well deserve it. What I want to know is why this particular name was released. I can't see anything in the story that explains why this particular agent was named. What was the context of the story?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You always use that as a defence Red and while it might be true that the democrats might have done a lot of the ****ty things that the republicans have done they wouldn't have done as many of them.
What kind of idiot chooses the greater of two evils and then says "Well the other one was evil too so I choose this one" :rolleyes:
Are you retarded, Kara? Can you ****ing read? I am not choosing one over the other. I always say that because it is true. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE ACTIONS OF THE PROSECUTER IF THEY ARE POLITICAL. However, these reporters have been asked for their sources, under oath, and they refuse to divulge them. So they are in contempt of court. Reporters are not above the law.
As for Democrats and the Republicans, honestly I disagree; they do the same amount of ****. Honestly, it goes like this, republican do something bad, democrats do something worse, then republicans do something even more horrid and so on. IIRC, democrats and pro choice activists sued Randal Terry under the RICO Statute for his anti abortion activities regaurdless of the fact RICO was never meant to be applied in such a manner.
Furthermore, both parties literally HATE EACH OTHERS GUTS. Those that pay attention to the steaming pile of **** that is senate politics right now, mark my words, if democrats ever regain congress the Republicans will be giving them as much grief or more so than they are recieving now.
And for the last ****ing time, let me make it crystal clear to you and everyone else
I Denounce The Republican Party
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Are you retarded, Kara? Can you ****ing read? I am not choosing one over the other. I always say that because it is true. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE ACTIONS OF THE PROSECUTER IF THEY ARE POLITICAL. However, these reporters have been asked for their sources, under oath, and they refuse to divulge them. So they are in contempt of court. Reporters are not above the law.
Stop channelling Kazan for a second and pay attention to what I've said.
Did you not notice that I've stated several times that if these people are responsible for divulging the identy of a CIA operative without any good cause that they deserve to go to jail?
When did I ever say reporters are above the law? You need to actually read what I wrote before you start complaining at me about it. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by redmenace
As for Democrats and the Republicans, honestly I disagree; they do the same amount of ****. Honestly, it goes like this, republican do something bad, democrats do something worse, then republicans do something even more horrid and so on. IIRC, democrats and pro choice activists sued Randal Terry under the RICO Statute for his anti abortion activities regaurdless of the fact RICO was never meant to be applied in such a manner.
Now find me 200 other such civil liberties abuses and I might begin to believe you. Under Clinton we rarely heard of this kind of crap even from FOX. Under Bush it's every single f**king week. How on Earth you can claim that they are the same is beyond me.
Yes both parties are complete f**kers. I've already stated that several times. Democrat supporters know that their politicians are w**kers. They simply believe that they aren't as big w**kers as the republican side. No one needs you reminding us that the dems are w**kers too.
Originally posted by redmenace
And for the last ****ing time, let me make it crystal clear to you and everyone else
I Denounce The Republican Party
Good. Then stop helping them by pointing out the bloody obvious every time someone starts complaining about the latest abuse of civil liberties by them.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Stop channelling Kazan for a second and pay attention to what I've said.
:lol:
Originally posted by karajorma
Did you not notice that I've stated several times that if these people are responsible for divulging the identy of a CIA operative without any good cause that they deserve to go to jail?
When did I ever say reporters are above the law? You need to actually read what I wrote before you start complaining at me about it. :rolleyes:
The reporter bit was just restating my own position and stating that I am not defending the prosecutor.
Originally posted by karajorma
Now find me 200 other such civil liberties abuses and I might begin to believe you. Under Clinton we rarely heard of this kind of crap even from FOX. Under Bush it's every single f**king week. How on Earth you can claim that they are the same is beyond me.
Yes both parties are complete f**kers. I've already stated that several times. Democrat supporters know that their politicians are w**kers. They simply believe that they aren't as big w**kers as the republican side. No one needs you reminding us that the dems are w**kers too.
Things were not as divisive as they are now. I am not going to argue if that is becuase of civil violations or just reporters are jumping at the chance to report some little thing. And Clinton did plenty. I guess no one remembers when they requested the tax returns and FBI files on up and coming republican politicians? Or when Democrats in the 2000 election purposefully skipped over cuban areas in recounting because Bush would have been picking up votes? Or when the Florida Supreme Court kept extending the deadline for recounts, basically ignoring the law? And although not a civil violation, Chuck Shumer yesterday stated that the democrats in congress plan to fight any SC Justice Nominee Bush sends up, regaurdless of who it is.
Originally posted by karajorma
Good. Then stop helping them by pointing out the bloody obvious every time someone starts complaining about the latest abuse of civil liberties by them.
If it is so obvious my pointing it out isn't going to help republicans much. Especially since I am stating their both a load of ****. I don't honestly think that it really helps either party. And further more I don't think I have gotten it through that this behavior is expected from both parties.
-
To say that Democrats and Republicans are the same is ludicrous. Democrats have been engaging in the character assasination of every single Bush appointment. Just compare Howard Dean's screams and howls to the comments of the Republican leaders. When it comes to Republicans its always the seriousness of the charge and not if it has any grounds.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
To say that Democrats and Republicans are the same is ludicrous. Democrats have been engaging in the character assasination of every single Bush appointment. Just compare Howard Dean's screams and howls to the comments of the Republican leaders. When it comes to Republicans its always the seriousness of the charge and not if it has any grounds.
Their methods and frequency of use is the same.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Things were not as divisive as they are now. I am not going to argue if that is becuase of civil violations or just reporters are jumping at the chance to report some little thing.
I don't think you can claim any abuses of personal freedoms as large as the ones that have occured under Bush. The Patriot act, placing dept. Hom Sec beyond reproach etc. Like I said the stuff that happened under Clinton is much smaller in comparison.
Originally posted by redmenace
And Clinton did plenty. I guess no one remembers when they requested the tax returns and FBI files on up and coming republican politicians? Or when Democrats in the 2000 election purposefully skipped over cuban areas in recounting because Bush would have been picking up votes? Or when the Florida Supreme Court kept extending the deadline for recounts, basically ignoring the law?
Best you've got? Seriously?
Originally posted by redmenace
If it is so obvious my pointing it out isn't going to help republicans much. Especially since I am stating their both a load of ****. I don't honestly think that it really helps either party. And further more I don't think I have gotten it through that this behavior is expected from both parties.
The real Democrats know. The only people you're helping to convince are the wavering republican and democrat voters. Personally I think America needs to stop voting for both parties but that's more of a long term goal. Short term is getting the current set of f**kers out of power as fast as possible.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
To say that Democrats and Republicans are the same is ludicrous. Democrats have been engaging in the character assasination of every single Bush appointment. Just compare Howard Dean's screams and howls to the comments of the Republican leaders. When it comes to Republicans its always the seriousness of the charge and not if it has any grounds.
Didn't a republican funded veterans group run adverts during the election calling John Kerry a coward? Certainly - even from my distant perspective - I've seen both parties supporters run ill-concealed smear campaign; it's just that the parties themselves are good at hiding any concrete connection.
For example (bearing in mind I was exclusively searching for a counter-example), in 2002 the Republican funding people ran a campaign against a Democractic senator (Max Cleland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland))depicting him next to Saddam Hussein and bin Ladin because he'd not voted for a military bill.
I think Karl Rove also accused a Democratic senator of endangering US troops in Iraq, and 'liberals' (general term) of not wanting to attack terrorists - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160450,00.html (straight from the horses mouth, sort of).
To me those constitute smear tactics. That's what politicians do, after all. They create problems to blame on others.
-
This isn't about smear tactics though DeepSpace9er. I'll conceed that they're probably just as bad as each other in that respect.
What I'm on about is whether the Republicans are worse for civil liberties than the Democrats. Both are bad. But I feel that one is worse.
-
I don't think civil liberties have ever been this under threat in either the US or UK for a very long time - certainly not within my lifetime (including the worst years of IRA attacks in the Uk, when the government was attacked twice in the Brighton hotel bombing and the mortar attack on 10 Downing street).
-
To at least try and re-rail this topic (as I don't see an answer to this question anywhere in here) the "leak" of this woman's name came on the heels of her husband's denouncement of the intelligence that was used to justify the Iraq war as the President was trying to make his case to go to war. It looks by all accounts to be something far worse than a smear tactic; it appears to be retribution for questioning the administration.
-
Yep. That's the point I made.
As far as I can understand the entire story goes like this.
- Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. He finds no proof of this and tells the US government that fact.
- Bush refers to Iraq trying to buy uranium anyway.
- Columnist Robert Novak reports that he has inside information that Wilson's wife is a CIA agent and that Wilson only got the job because of nepotism.
- The CIA begin investigating.
- Speculation grows that Karl Rove, the president's closest domestic political advisor, is responsible for the leak.
- journalist Matthew Cooper claims that he was also approached by the same source at the same time as Novak (although he didn't publish anything at the time).
- Judith Miller supposedly gets information about the same source too although she doesn't even publish that fact (How on Earth the DoJ got hold of her name is something I still don't know).
- The DoJ prosecute Miller and Cooper for not revealing their source.
Now that I've got all that down and hopefully correct it does lead to a rather interesting question.
Why are Miller and Cooper being prosecuted for not revealing the source when Novak (who is the reporter actually responsible for revealing the name of the CIA agent) is still free?
Novak obviously knows who the source is. Miller and Cooper could possibly have made the entire thing up. So since Novak is the only person 100% to have the name of the actual source and is obviously 100% guilty of revealing the name of a CIA operative why the hell isn't he in jail?
-
Update FYI; Cooper has revealed the source as being Karl Rove (Deputy chief of staff in charge of policy & chief political strategist) and Lewis Libby (Dick Cheneys Chief of Staff)
You can draw your own conclusions from that.
-
Guys, it's Judith Miller. I think I'll save my tears for someone worthy of them.
If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press
She has about as much authority to speak of a free press as blind people have to speak of Michelangelo.
-
To me the whole situation is ****ed up. On the one hand you have something that could potentially destroy independent journalism (prosecution for publishing information from anonymous sources - imagine if it was a whistleblower being protected), on the other you have a senior White House official whose released the name of a CIA operative in an apparent smear tactic; something which I thought was supposed to be a criminal offence.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Guys, it's Judith Miller. I think I'll save my tears for someone worthy of them.
I'm not the slightest bit sorry for her to be honest. She knew that someone in the White House was responsible for a dirty tricks campaign and didn't publish.
That breaks every single rule of journalism :D
As I said before what I want to know why Novak isn't in the adjoining cell.