[vyper]

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]

[redsniper]

great.

[Ghostavo]

One step closer to dictatorship...

[IceFire]

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.

[Ace]

Oh it'll blow over, just like the Patriot Act, but now all of the pieces are in place for pure, unadulterated, nastiness....

[Bobboau]

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.

[karajorma]

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

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[redmenace]

She broke the law. And as far as I can tell disclosing top secret information isn't exactly free speach.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[redmenace]

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 ****.

[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"

[Jetmech Jr.]

If the journalist endangered someones life by publishing their name, they deserve everything they get.

[karajorma]

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?

[redmenace]

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"

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

[karajorma]

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.

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.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by karajorma
Stop channelling Kazan for a second and pay attention to what I've said.

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.

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.

[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.

[redmenace]

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.