If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   President Obama's assault on the First Amendment continues   (theguardian.com) divider line 337
    More: Obvious, Obama administration, 1st amendment, shield laws, press freedom, First Amendment Center, Espionage Act, duty of care  
•       •       •

5432 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Aug 2013 at 11:32 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-12 10:01:03 AM
WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?
 
2013-08-12 10:14:31 AM
This is a very important concern, but would it have killed the columnist's message to even briefly explain the basis for the ruling against James Risen invoking reporter's privilege?  That is a fairly significant piece of the story!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-12 10:19:47 AM
I don't have a problem with prosecuting leakers, but it might be a bit much to go after the reporter who receives the leak.  There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers) so it makes sense to have something similar for reporters.
 
2013-08-12 10:24:32 AM
WTF is Obama's problem?
 
2013-08-12 10:25:24 AM

vpb: I don't have a problem with prosecuting leakers, but it might be a bit much to go after the reporter who receives the leak.  There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers) so it makes sense to have something similar for reporters.


There's this little thing we call the "First Amendment to the Constitution".
 
2013-08-12 10:30:42 AM

factoryconnection: but would it have killed the columnist's message to even briefly explain the basis for the ruling against James Risen invoking reporter's privilege?


You can read the decision for yourself here, however, the crux of the issue pertaining to the Reporter's Privilege was that the 4th Circuit cited the 1972 Supreme Court Decision Branzburg v. Hayes, which stated that there is no general purpose reporter's privilege arising out of the First Amendment.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115028.p.pdf (a discussion of the common law reporter's privilege starts at around page 32.)
 
2013-08-12 10:34:10 AM
How is this new?

Reporter Held in Contempt in Anthrax Case
New York Times reporter jailed

There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-12 10:40:55 AM

Marcus Aurelius: There's this little thing we call the "First Amendment to the Constitution".


Yes, but that simply allows the press to print what it wants.  It doesn't give any sort of blanket immunity to all laws for reporters.
 
2013-08-12 10:50:40 AM
Given its significance, it is shocking how little publicity the Risen/Sterling case has yet received from major media outlets with a direct interest in its outcome.


The media is more interested in propping up Obama than it is in protecting their own craft.  This isn't surprising at all.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-12 11:11:47 AM

nmrsnr: How is this new?

There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.


I think it's a matter of striking while the iron is hot.  The issue is in the news and leaks are money for journalists, and they know that most people will just believe the headline and not research the case.

After reading most of that court decision I seriously doubt that this guy would qualify for protection under any shield law.  He wasn't looking out for the public interest, he was cashing in on a crime.
 
2013-08-12 11:13:04 AM

nmrsnr: There's even a handy list going back to 1984.


Odds of folks clicking: Very low. So here's the copypasta:

1984, Richard Hargraves, Belleville, Ill. Newspaper reporter jailed over a weekend in connection with libel case. Released when source came forward.

1985, Chris Van Ness, California. Free-lancer subpoenaed in connection with John Belushi murder. Jailed for several hours; revealed source; released.

1986, Brad Stone, Detroit. TV reporter refused to reveal identities of gang members interviewed several weeks prior to cop killing. Jailed for one day; released pending appeal. Grand jury then dismissed.

1987, Roxana Kopetman, Los Angeles. Newspaper reporter jailed for six hours for resisting prosecution subpoena seeking eye witness testimony. Appealed; court ruled against her, but criminal case was long over.

1990, Brian Karem, San Antonio. TV reporter subpoenaed by defense and prosecution; refused to reveal name of individuals who arranged jailhouse interview. Jailed for 13 days. Released when sources came forward.

1990, Libby Averyt, Corpus Christi, Texas. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed for info about jailhouse interview. Jailed over a weekend; released when judge convinced she would never turn over the unpublished information sought.

1990, Tim Roche, Stuart, Fla. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed to reveal source for leaked court order supposed to have been sealed. Jailed briefly, released pending appeal. Later sentenced to 30 days for criminal contempt. Served 18 days in 1993, and was released.

1991, Sid Gaulden, Schuyler Kropf, Cindi Scoppe, Andrew Shain; Columbia, South Carolina. Jailed for eight hours; released for appeal, which they lost, but trial was over. Prosecutors sought unpublished conversations with state senator on trial for corruption.

1991, Felix Sanchez and James Campbell, Houston. Newspaper reporters locked in judges chambers for several hours; had refused to stand in the back of courtroom and identify possible eyewitnesses to crime. Appeal successful through habeas corpus petition.

1994, Lisa Abraham, Warren, Ohio. Newspaper reporter jailed from Jan. 19 to February 10, for refusing to testify before a state grand jury about jailhouse interview.

1996, Bruce Anderson, Ukiah, Calif. Editor of Anderson Valley Independent found in civil contempt, jailed for total of 13 days for refusing to turn over original letter to the editor received from prisoner. After a week, he tried to turn over the letter, but judge refused to believe it was the original because it was typed. After another week, judge finally accepted that the typewritten letter was the original.

1996, David Kidwell, Palm Beach County, Fla. Miami Herald reporter found in criminal contempt, sentenced to 70 days for refusing to testify for prosecution about jailhouse interview. Served 14 days before being released on own recognizance after filing federal habeas corpus petition.

2000, Timothy Crews, Red Bluff, Calif. Sacramento Valley Mirror editor and publisher served a five-day sentence for refusing to reveal his confidential sources in a story involving the sale of an allegedly stolen firearm by a state patrol officer.

2001, Vanessa Leggett, Houston, Texas. Author researching "true crime" book jailed for 168 days by federal judge for refusing to disclose her research and the identities of her sources to a federal grand jury investigating a murder. Leggett was freed only after the term of the grand jury expired. A subsequent grand jury indicted the key suspect in the murder without any need for her testimony. Leggett may again face a subpoena during his murder trial.

2004, Jim Taricani, Providence, R.I. A WJAR television reporter obtained and aired in February 2001 a portion of the videotape showing a Providence city official accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI informant. The tape was sealed evidence in an FBI investigation into corruption by Providence officials, including former Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci Jr. Taricani was subpoenaed, but refused to reveal his source and was found in civil contempt of court. After a failed appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston (1st Cir.), NBC, WJAR's network, paid $85,000 in fines. In November, Taricani was found in criminal contempt of court and a month later, was sentence to six months home confinement. He was granted early release after being confined for four months.

2005, Judith Miller, Washington, D.C. New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to testify against news sources in the investigation into leaks of a CIA operative's name by White House officials. She spent 85 days in jail, and was released when she agreed to provide limited testimony to the grand jury regarding conversations with vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby without revealing her other sources.

2006, Josh Wolf, San Francisco, Calif. Freelance video blogger initially jailed for a month when he refused to turn over a video tape that federal officials said contained footage of protesters damaging a police car. Wolf was released on bail on Sept. 1, but an appeals court panel confirmed the contempt order against him and Wolf returned to jail. He was finally released on April 3, 2007.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-12 11:13:36 AM

SlothB77: Given its significance, it is shocking how little publicity the Risen/Sterling case has yet received from major media outlets with a direct interest in its outcome.

The media is more interested in propping up Obama than it is in protecting their own craft.  This isn't surprising at all.


The media seems to pretty much be at war with Obama over the leaker issue.  Claiming that they are "protecting" him is kind of troll-y.
 
2013-08-12 11:14:11 AM

SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?


Because terrorism, that's why. Ain't the patriot act great? I'm so glad we put those laws into place....I feel so much safer now!
 
2013-08-12 11:16:40 AM

vpb: Marcus Aurelius: There's this little thing we call the "First Amendment to the Constitution".

Yes, but that simply allows the press to print what it wants.  It doesn't give any sort of blanket immunity to all laws for reporters.


Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!
 
2013-08-12 11:20:42 AM
Did the Judith Miller thing never happen?

Lindsey Bever is a summer 2013 intern with the Guardian US.
static.guim.co.uk

Oh.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-12 11:28:27 AM

Weaver95: Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!


Except that that's not what this guy did.  He revealed information on CIA operations against CIA operations against the Iranian nuclear program as revenge for his being fired.  He even said hat he was going to leak classified information to get revenge.  The reporter wrote a book about the CIA operations.

I don't think any country would grant immunity to someone like that.  This isn't even about getting the reporter to reveal his source, they already know that.  It's just about having him testify about a crime he witnessed.

Not what TFA claimed at all.
 
2013-08-12 11:32:25 AM

Weaver95: Because terrorism, that's why. Ain't the patriot act great? I'm so glad we put those laws into place....I feel so much safer now!


As I pointed out, this isn't new, and it isn't Patriot Act related. There's no journalist-source privilege, and it's contempt of court to not respond to a subpoena.

Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!

While whistleblower laws may not be effective enough, they are actually not allowed to retaliate for whistleblowing, and can only put you in jail if you illegally leaked classified information.
 
2013-08-12 11:34:58 AM

nmrsnr: How is this new?

Reporter Held in Contempt in Anthrax Case
New York Times reporter jailed

There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.


nope..  all this started when Obama took office.  none of those other things happened.
 
2013-08-12 11:35:01 AM

vpb: SlothB77: Given its significance, it is shocking how little publicity the Risen/Sterling case has yet received from major media outlets with a direct interest in its outcome.

The media is more interested in propping up Obama than it is in protecting their own craft.  This isn't surprising at all.

The media seems to pretty much be at war with Obama over the leaker issue.  Claiming that they are "protecting" him is kind of troll-y.


It was a combo move, actually.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-12 11:36:09 AM
Obama.
 
2013-08-12 11:36:14 AM
To be clear: he is risking jail for not testifying, not what he has written. He is doing so, supposedly to protect a source, who has been indicted for leaking classified information. Admirable as it may sound, let's not conflate being held in contempt of court for refusing to testify is NOT prosecution for what he has written. It's not the act of writing that has gotten him into a position, but his own actions in regard to a trial and testifying at said trail. He indeed may lose his freedom, but if he does, that's on his own head, and sticking to your principles does sort of have a factor of risk involved. It is an entirely voluntary sort of risk, and an entirely avoidable set of jail time, but he has vowed to not give away his confidential sources, and more power to him for that, but let us not pretend that he is being hounded unmercifully, when he has a very easy out.

Will he risk his good name and reputation? That remains to be seen, but these ARE the risks that investigative journalists take on. He is looking for privilege, and in this case, it has been denied, in regards to national security. You can thank more than just Obama on this particular scene though, since the press has been pretty much rolling over and begging for tummy rubs since 9/11, and while Obama continuing policy to go after those who leak classified material troubles some, it wasn't so much the case when it was Bush simply freezing the press out entirely.

Folks handed the government a LOT of power when it drafted US PATRIOT, and NOW the shoe is on the other foot as a President that folks aren't happy with is using said powers, and reaching back even further into precedent to go after leaks. Perhaps we might want to point fingers a bit at Congress as well as at the DoJ while we're at it. Just a thought.
 
2013-08-12 11:37:44 AM
['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.
 
2013-08-12 11:37:46 AM
The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.
 
2013-08-12 11:37:47 AM
If I may be a devil's advocate for a second, does every journalist get full immunity regardless of what they do, solely because they are a journalist? A lot of people are arguing from the "journalist = forever preotected" angle, I'd rather keep it specific to this guy's case.
 
2013-08-12 11:38:14 AM

vpb: SlothB77: Given its significance, it is shocking how little publicity the Risen/Sterling case has yet received from major media outlets with a direct interest in its outcome.

The media is more interested in propping up Obama than it is in protecting their own craft.  This isn't surprising at all.

The media seems to pretty much be at war with Obama over the leaker issue.  Claiming that they are "protecting" him is kind of troll-y.


"kind of troll-y"? More like straight up willfully ignorant/blind hatred.
 
2013-08-12 11:40:51 AM

hubiestubert: To be clear: he is risking jail for not testifying, not what he has written. He is doing so, supposedly to protect a source, who has been indicted for leaking classified information. Admirable as it may sound, let's not conflate being held in contempt of court for refusing to testify is NOT prosecution for what he has written. It's not the act of writing that has gotten him into a position, but his own actions in regard to a trial and testifying at said trail. He indeed may lose his freedom, but if he does, that's on his own head, and sticking to your principles does sort of have a factor of risk involved. It is an entirely voluntary sort of risk, and an entirely avoidable set of jail time, but he has vowed to not give away his confidential sources, and more power to him for that, but let us not pretend that he is being hounded unmercifully, when he has a very easy out.

Will he risk his good name and reputation? That remains to be seen, but these ARE the risks that investigative journalists take on. He is looking for privilege, and in this case, it has been denied, in regards to national security. You can thank more than just Obama on this particular scene though, since the press has been pretty much rolling over and begging for tummy rubs since 9/11, and while Obama continuing policy to go after those who leak classified material troubles some, it wasn't so much the case when it was Bush simply freezing the press out entirely.

Folks handed the government a LOT of power when it drafted US PATRIOT, and NOW the shoe is on the other foot as a President that folks aren't happy with is using said powers, and reaching back even further into precedent to go after leaks. Perhaps we might want to point fingers a bit at Congress as well as at the DoJ while we're at it. Just a thought.


THIS.
 
2013-08-12 11:41:12 AM

nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.


i301.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-12 11:45:42 AM

SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?


Because there is no such thing.
 
2013-08-12 11:47:35 AM

LasersHurt: If I may be a devil's advocate for a second, does every journalist get full immunity regardless of what they do, solely because they are a journalist? A lot of people are arguing from the "journalist = forever preotected" angle, I'd rather keep it specific to this guy's case.


A list has already been posted. The writer of this article knows full well this isn't in any way new.

the Obama administrations attack on information is a very valid criticism. Not sure why the author feels the need to lie to make that point.
 
2013-08-12 11:49:40 AM

SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?


Maybe he also has a blog, completely nullifying his reporter credentials.
 
2013-08-12 11:52:56 AM

mediablitz: LasersHurt: If I may be a devil's advocate for a second, does every journalist get full immunity regardless of what they do, solely because they are a journalist? A lot of people are arguing from the "journalist = forever preotected" angle, I'd rather keep it specific to this guy's case.

A list has already been posted. The writer of this article knows full well this isn't in any way new.

the Obama administrations attack on information is a very valid criticism. Not sure why the author feels the need to lie to make that point.


You're right, but could you find a more loaded and non-specific way to phrase that? Yeesh.
 
2013-08-12 11:56:43 AM

LasersHurt: You're right, but could you find a more loaded and non-specific way to phrase that? Yeesh.


LOl. I was busy doing two other things and couldn't find the right words.

Damn you, nitpicky internet!
 
2013-08-12 11:57:15 AM

Weaver95: vpb: Marcus Aurelius: There's this little thing we call the "First Amendment to the Constitution".

Yes, but that simply allows the press to print what it wants.  It doesn't give any sort of blanket immunity to all laws for reporters.

Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!


NO!  That's the TOTALITARIAN dictatorial way.
whatculture.com

- Get your English language definitions straight -
 
2013-08-12 11:57:44 AM

vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]


Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...
 
2013-08-12 11:57:48 AM

sprgrss: SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?

Because there is no such thing.


It's like people are pig-ignorant about the law and get all their legal facts from half-remembered stoned conversations with their buddies from college. "Nah man, the cops totally have to tell you if they're an undercover cop! Or else it's entrapment."
 
2013-08-12 12:01:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").


Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?
 
2013-08-12 12:05:41 PM

Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?


When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.
 
2013-08-12 12:05:55 PM

Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?


Nah, that's his new thing now. He's a Super Liberal. Who just happens to hate everything about the President, or anything that Democrats hold dear...
 
2013-08-12 12:09:25 PM

The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...


Obama is the real victim in all of this.
 
2013-08-12 12:09:37 PM

The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...


So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?
 
2013-08-12 12:10:49 PM

The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...


Sure.  Because that means EVERYTHING has to change, even the good stuff and stuff he can't control.

You're on the right team.  Keep trying!
 
2013-08-12 12:15:24 PM

vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.


Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and serious crime... if we catch someone giving troop locations and tactical information to Al Qaeda, by all means, charge them. If we catch someone giving nuclear weapon schematics to Iran or Syria, by all means, charge them with Treason. That said, no, the release of the Nixon Tapes or the Vietnam Papers, or even Snowden's release about NSA Domestic Spying... that's not Treason.

lilyincanada.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-12 12:22:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Aristocles: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.

There are so many odd memes here:
-  must be a paid troll
-  he disagrees with me, so the person is a troll
-  there is more than one person who disagrees with me, so that must be an alt.

I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.


Forget it. You didn't pass someones "purity" test.
 
2013-08-12 12:22:47 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.


I've been out of it for a bit...What evalution?  I need evaluated.  Probably by a professional.
 
2013-08-12 12:24:59 PM

muck4doo: tenpoundsofcheese: Aristocles: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.

There are so many odd memes here:
-  must be a paid troll
-  he disagrees with me, so the person is a troll
-  there is more than one person who disagrees with me, so that must be an alt.

I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.

Forget it. You didn't pass someones "purity" test.


Then what was the point of the ball-gag at all... they told him it was a purity test.
 
2013-08-12 12:25:31 PM

mediablitz: The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?


The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.
 
2013-08-12 12:25:32 PM

hubiestubert: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

Nah, that's his new thing now. He's a Super Liberal. Who just happens to hate everything about the President, or anything that Democrats hold dear...


Maybe he's a classic liberal?
 
2013-08-12 12:28:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week


That's a whale of a story [cetacean needed].
 
2013-08-12 12:28:51 PM

firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and serious crime. ...


Did you miss the "classified information" part of your definition, or are you asserting that what Snowden leaked was not classified?
 
2013-08-12 12:29:19 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: sprgrss: SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?

Because there is no such thing.

It's like people are pig-ignorant about the law and get all their legal facts from half-remembered stoned conversations with their buddies from college. "Nah man, the cops totally have to tell you if they're an undercover cop! Or else it's entrapment."


I don't know who is worse, the idiots in jail who read Busted By the Feds or the Farkers with Legal GEDs.
 
2013-08-12 12:32:04 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Aristocles: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.

There are so many odd memes here:
-  must be a paid troll
-  he disagrees with me, so the person is a troll
-  there is more than one person who disagrees with me, so that must be an alt.

I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.


C'mon man... I know you can't resist....

57 states!

You didn't build that!

/No nukes! No nukes!
 
2013-08-12 12:32:19 PM

Marcus Aurelius: tenpoundsofcheese: I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week

That's a whale of a story [cetacean needed].


i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-12 12:33:49 PM
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN !
 
2013-08-12 12:36:17 PM

sprgrss: Obama's Reptiloid Master: sprgrss: SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?

Because there is no such thing.

It's like people are pig-ignorant about the law and get all their legal facts from half-remembered stoned conversations with their buddies from college. "Nah man, the cops totally have to tell you if they're an undercover cop! Or else it's entrapment."

I don't know who is worse, the idiots in jail who read Busted By the Feds or the Farkers with Legal GEDs.


Yeah, go ahead and report about all of our trade secrets or whatever. We'll totally protect you, and stuff.
 
2013-08-12 12:42:00 PM

qorkfiend: firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and se ...


I didn't miss it, the Vietnam Papers were also classified... frankly, misclassified... times when the government breaks the law or violates the constitution and public trust, then classifies it not because it is sensitive to national security, but because they know that it's embarassing and probably illegal. Mishandling classified information is a separate charge under the law with good reason, not every classified disclosure is an attempt to overthrow, wage war against, or otherwise harm the government, to the contrary, as Snowden, the Vietnam Papers, and numerous other leaks of classified information to the press (not so much disclosure to just adversaries) have shown, these leaks are often made in the efforts of securing a constitutional government, not bringing one down.

I'm farking tired of people like you purposely conflating disclosure of classified information like.. say giving nuclear missile plans to an enemy with something like disclosing unethical acts on the part of our government. These are not interchangeable concepts, and the differentiation is the reason different charges exist under the law. Even as aggressive as AG Holder and President Obama are, they have not accused, in a court, Mr. Snowden of Treason, nor is the guy named in this case accused of Treason... yet you farkers just throw the damned word around like its nothing at all... they did something you don't like, er go, Treason. It's a spurious line of reasoning that devalues actual treason and just makes the people who throw the word around lightly look like hyperbolic morons at best, and trolls at worst.
 
2013-08-12 12:45:28 PM
President Obama's assault on the First Amendment America continues
 
2013-08-12 12:52:31 PM
This Administration has a terrible track record on transparency and going after whistleblowers.  This and other holdover policies from the Bush years are going to be the worst part of Obama's legacy.
 
2013-08-12 12:52:50 PM

Brick-House: President Obama's assault on the First Amendment America continues


As a patriotic American, maybe you should 'stand your ground' since you are being assaulted and all.
 
2013-08-12 12:53:17 PM

Headso: ['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.


The secret is that we had such info. If you give out what info you know, you end up giving out that you have the ability to gather such info, and the ways you gathered them.
 
2013-08-12 12:55:10 PM

imontheinternet: This Administration has a terrible track record on transparency and going after whistleblowers.  This and other holdover policies from the Bush years are going to be the worst part of Obama's legacy.


It's like you try to go out of your way to be uninformed.
 
2013-08-12 12:56:55 PM

SlothB77: Given its significance, it is shocking how little publicity the Risen/Sterling case has yet received from major media outlets with a direct interest in its outcome.


The media is more interested in propping up Obama than it is in protecting their own craft.  This isn't surprising at all.


Yeah, the way the media's been scrutinizing and criticizing every single move President Obama makes under a microscope has been really flagrantly in his favor.
 
2013-08-12 12:59:47 PM
If the government can't keep its secrets from its citizens, what makes it think it can keep secrets from our enemies? If anything, these people are patriots for exposing the holes in our intelligence-gathering.

We're just trying to help Uncle Sam build a better intel-gathering regime.
 
2013-08-12 01:02:01 PM

firefly212: I'm farking tired of people like you purposely conflating disclosure of classified information like.. say giving nuclear missile plans to an enemy with something like disclosing unethical acts on the part of our government. These are not interchangeable concepts, and the differentiation is the reason different charges exist under the law. Even as aggressive as AG Holder and President Obama are, they have not accused, in a court, Mr. Snowden of Treason, nor is the guy named in this case accused of Treason... yet you farkers just throw the damned word around like its nothing at all... they did something you don't like, er go, Treason. It's a spurious line of reasoning that devalues actual treason and just makes the people who throw the word around lightly look like hyperbolic morons at best, and trolls at worst.


Okay, thank you for clarifying. I'm not a lawyer.
 
2013-08-12 01:02:55 PM

Aristocles: Obama.


Thank you, sir, for your brilliant and illuminating post.  I daresay the scales have been lifted from my eyes.
 
2013-08-12 01:03:51 PM

fluffy2097: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN !


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-12 01:04:15 PM

vpb: I don't have a problem with prosecuting leakers, but it might be a bit much to go after the reporter who receives the leak.  There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers) so it makes sense to have something similar for reporters.


The Obama administrations considers reporters who publish information it doesn't want published and leakers to be the exact same thing.
 
2013-08-12 01:05:09 PM

LasersHurt: imontheinternet: This Administration has a terrible track record on transparency and going after whistleblowers.  This and other holdover policies from the Bush years are going to be the worst part of Obama's legacy.

It's like you try to go out of your way to be uninformed.


Obama has failed to keep his promises on a host of transparency issues, like no bid contracts, having public negotiations of bills, keeping logs of meetings with White House staff, disclosure of lobbying information for federal contractor, etc.  Likewise, the pursuit of and PR war against Snowden and the treatment of Bradley Manning are very telling on the treatment of whistleblowers.

You can support a party or a side without sucking the president's dick on every single issue.  He promised the most transparent administration in history.  He hasn't delivered, not even close.
 
2013-08-12 01:11:09 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: imontheinternet: This Administration has a terrible track record on transparency and going after whistleblowers.  This and other holdover policies from the Bush years are going to be the worst part of Obama's legacy.

It's like you try to go out of your way to be uninformed.

Obama has failed to keep his promises on a host of transparency issues, like no bid contracts, having public negotiations of bills, keeping logs of meetings with White House staff, disclosure of lobbying information for federal contractor, etc.  Likewise, the pursuit of and PR war against Snowden and the treatment of Bradley Manning are very telling on the treatment of whistleblowers.

You can support a party or a side without sucking the president's dick on every single issue.  He promised the most transparent administration in history.  He hasn't delivered, not even close.


I supported him (voted for him twice)... to say that he failed to keep his promises is... a massive understatement in this particular topic... he didn't just not keep his promise, or delay implementation, he outright deleted the promises from his website at the start of the Snowden saga.

4.bp.blogspot.com

/the internet doesn't forget.
 
2013-08-12 01:11:37 PM

nmrsnr: How is this new?

Reporter Held in Contempt in Anthrax Case
New York Times reporter jailed

There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.


Came here to say this. "That sets a dangerous precedent..." must've been written by an editorial staff, no one else is both capable of forming sentences while being that profoundly ignorant at the same time.
 
2013-08-12 01:12:10 PM

imontheinternet: He hasn't delivered, not even close.


But he HAS. He just hasn't made transparent specifically everything YOU WANT. That doesn't mean he hasn't made an enormous amount of information available, historically more than ever before.

Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

I think you confuse "most transparent" with "completely transparent," and "whistleblower protections" with "complete protection of any and all leakers."

Granted you couldn't go a single post without making a dick-sucking joke so I doubt you're evaluating things rationally.
 
182
2013-08-12 01:12:45 PM

unlikely: nmrsnr: There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

Odds of folks clicking: Very low. So here's the copypasta:

1984, Richard Hargraves, Belleville, Ill. Newspaper reporter jailed over a weekend in connection with libel case. Released when source came forward.

1985, Chris Van Ness, California. Free-lancer subpoenaed in connection with John Belushi murder. Jailed for several hours; revealed source; released.

1986, Brad Stone, Detroit. TV reporter refused to reveal identities of gang members interviewed several weeks prior to cop killing. Jailed for one day; released pending appeal. Grand jury then dismissed.

1987, Roxana Kopetman, Los Angeles. Newspaper reporter jailed for six hours for resisting prosecution subpoena seeking eye witness testimony. Appealed; court ruled against her, but criminal case was long over.

1990, Brian Karem, San Antonio. TV reporter subpoenaed by defense and prosecution; refused to reveal name of individuals who arranged jailhouse interview. Jailed for 13 days. Released when sources came forward.

1990, Libby Averyt, Corpus Christi, Texas. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed for info about jailhouse interview. Jailed over a weekend; released when judge convinced she would never turn over the unpublished information sought.

1990, Tim Roche, Stuart, Fla. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed to reveal source for leaked court order supposed to have been sealed. Jailed briefly, released pending appeal. Later sentenced to 30 days for criminal contempt. Served 18 days in 1993, and was released.

1991, Sid Gaulden, Schuyler Kropf, Cindi Scoppe, Andrew Shain; Columbia, South Carolina. Jailed for eight hours; released for appeal, which they lost, but trial was over. Prosecutors sought unpublished conversations with state senator on trial for corruption.

1991, Felix Sanchez and James Campbell, Houston. Newspaper reporters locked in judges chambers for several hours; had refused to stand in the back of courtroom and identify possible eyewitnesses to crime. A ...


/thread over
 
2013-08-12 01:12:47 PM

firefly212: /the internet doesn't forget.


Nor does it differentiate shades of grey, apparently.
 
2013-08-12 01:12:52 PM

Brick-House: President Obama's assault on the First Amendment America continues


Did you copy that from a Fisher-Price "My First Blog" headline?
 
2013-08-12 01:15:41 PM

firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and serious crime. ...


You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.
 
2013-08-12 01:16:45 PM
Meh, I am actually a libby-mc liberson but I think it's completely fair to say Obama has been disappointing on the transparency/whistleblower issue.  The Derpers jumping up and down on this thread are pretty hilarious though, considering that the Republicans have pretty much said that his most recent modest attempts at transparency are going to far and may endanger national security.

Source:  http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0L E gRTZWVkGLCCpBMM/2013/08/09/house-speaker-john-boehner-on-obamas-nsa-an nounce

So yeah, Obama is shiatty on the NSA issue, the Republicans are still worse.  Watching ten pounds of derp try to make a charge from the left has been pretty darn amusing though.  Shine on you crazy diamond!
 
2013-08-12 01:17:12 PM

firefly212: I supported him (voted for him twice)... to say that he failed to keep his promises is... a massive understatement in this particular topic... he didn't just not keep his promise, or delay implementation, he outright deleted the promises from his website at the start of the Snowden saga.

4.bp.blogspot.com

/the internet doesn't forget.


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-08-12 01:21:17 PM

LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.


Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?
 
2013-08-12 01:21:37 PM
LasersHurt, if I were Obama I'd name you WH press secretary. You make Jay Carney look like Rush Limbaugh.
 
2013-08-12 01:21:38 PM

vygramul: firefly212:

vernonFL: You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.


The people who fight for a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution, who fight for a government that operates in an honest manner with the citizenry... calling them "traitors" would be a sort of wrong of the highest order. I cannot think of a superlative version of wrong, but that's what it is.

Then again, I suppose Washington, Jefferson, and the lot were a bunch of treasonous traitors, and the differentiation between whether you think someone is a traitor or someone working to improve government depends on whether or not you side with the Nobles or the bourgeois and serfs.
 
2013-08-12 01:24:31 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?


That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665
 
2013-08-12 01:24:42 PM
Greg Brock is unavailable for comment....
 
2013-08-12 01:25:27 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?


I fail to see how rejecting one specific thing is "reversing" his position when other protections he's passed remain, but okay.

As far as the second part, read this thread. Look at history. Duh. That's not getting into good or bad, but its nothing new or unusual.

1derful: LasersHurt, if I were Obama I'd name you WH press secretary. You make Jay Carney look like Rush Limbaugh.


Why, for knowing what words mean?
 
2013-08-12 01:27:12 PM

amiable: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?

That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665


I don't disagree that it is the current law... I disagree that the administration is enforcing this clearly bad idea instead of working to change the law. The guy got elected on a platform of change, yet he's been excessively pragmatic to the point that progress isn't just moving glacially, it isn't moving at all. He isn't changing things in the right direction, or any discernible direction at all, as best I can tell.
 
2013-08-12 01:27:45 PM

firefly212: vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.

The people who fight for a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution, who fight for a government that operates in an honest manner with the citizenry... calling them "traitors" would be a sort of wrong of the highest order. I cannot think of a superlative version of wrong, but that's what it is.

Then again, I suppose Washington, Jefferson, and the lot were a bunch of treasonous traitors, and the differentiation between whether you think someone is a traitor or someone working to improve government depends on whether or not you side with the Nobles or the bourgeois and serfs.


In the minds of the British they were traitors.  While Snowden is not a traitor, he is still a criminal and far from a hero.
 
2013-08-12 01:28:01 PM

LasersHurt: i

1derful: LasersHurt, if I were Obama I'd name you WH press secretary. You make Jay Carney look like Rush Limbaugh.

Why, for knowing what words mean?


Because you don't repeatedly and vociferously state that obama is an evil, Muslim dictator who is destroying america, duh.  You know, being fair and balanced.
 
2013-08-12 01:28:24 PM

firefly212: The guy got elected on a platform of change, yet


Whenever someone says this, they always follow it with "but here's one thing I still have a problem with."

There will never, ever, ever, ever be a chance when you can't make that argument. It's silly, and meaningless.
 
2013-08-12 01:28:58 PM

firefly212: amiable: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?

That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665

I don't disagree that it is the current law... I disagree that the administration is enforcing this clearly bad idea instead of working to change the law. The guy got elected on a platform of change, yet he's been excessively pragmatic to the point that progress isn't just moving glacially, it isn't moving at all. He isn't changing things in the right direction, or any discernible direction at all, as best I can tell.


Why should reporters and journalists get special protections under the law that I do not have?
 
2013-08-12 01:30:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.


This is a thing? When/where did this happen?
 
2013-08-12 01:32:01 PM

amiable: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?

That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665


... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.
 
2013-08-12 01:33:58 PM

imontheinternet: amiable: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?

That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665

... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.


sweet, someone opinion on why something is wrong when that person clearly doesn't understand what he is opining about.
 
2013-08-12 01:35:09 PM
imontheinternet:

... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.

I think the incorporation of the Second amendment as a fundamental right was wrong.  Even though I disagree with the decision I understand that once the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the law of the land, like it or lump it.  I don't yell at the administration about it, I understand that to change it will require an act of the law making body, Congress.
 
2013-08-12 01:35:45 PM

SlothB77: The media is more interested in propping up Obama pandering to the current administration, whomever that is, than it is in protecting their own craft. This isn't surprising at all.


FTFY

Recall the slavish reporting of Bush's drumbeat for war in Iraq? Sitting on the NSA story for a year? They don't want to risk a loss of access.
 
2013-08-12 01:35:51 PM
I think it's cute that the early Monday trolls are once again thinking that Obama has all the power of the gods to do whatever he wants.

Some House of Representatives and Senate Democrats would like a word (hopefully you can hear it over the creaking moan of "filibuster" leaking from Mitch's mouthhole).
 
2013-08-12 01:37:10 PM

LasersHurt: firefly212: The guy got elected on a platform of change, yet

Whenever someone says this, they always follow it with "but here's one thing I still have a problem with."

There will never, ever, ever, ever be a chance when you can't make that argument. It's silly, and meaningless.


I voted for the guy when he was for a public option, when he was pro-whistleblower, when he said he was going to go toe-to-toe with Chiina when they violated our trade agreements, when he said he was against free speech zones conceptually because the whole country was supposed to be one...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU
... That guy... so tell me... he said he was going to change it, that the government would be more transparent, that he was going to have a government that could stand up to sunlight... yet he's prosecuted far more people for leaking, and run a far more information-controlled government than even Bush... so... I guess it's silly and meaningless to say that on the stuff that mattered to me, on the reasons I voted for him, he's been woefully ineffective.
 
2013-08-12 01:37:30 PM

LasersHurt: I fail to see how rejecting one specific thing is "reversing" his position when other protections he's passed remain, but okay.


I like how you completely ignore that the Administration has admittedly reversed its position on this issue.

LasersHurt: As far as the second part, read this thread. Look at history. Duh. That's not getting into good or bad, but its nothing new or unusual.


My point is that continuing Bush policies will be the worst part of Obama's legacy.  Your counter is that this was a Bush policy that Obama is continuing.
 
2013-08-12 01:38:12 PM

MisterRonbo: SlothB77: The media is more interested in propping up Obama pandering to the current administration, whomever that is, than it is in protecting their own craft. This isn't surprising at all.

FTFY

Recall the slavish reporting of Bush's drumbeat for war in Iraq? Sitting on the NSA story for a year? They don't want to risk a loss of access.


This has been one of the subplots of the first 4 episodes of The Newsroom this season.  You press too hard and you get booted from the playing field.
 
2013-08-12 01:38:18 PM

firefly212: vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.

The people who fight for a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution, who fight for a government that operates in an honest manner with the citizenry... calling them "traitors" would be a sort of wrong of the highest order. I cannot think of a superlative version of wrong, but that's what it is.


That would make sense if that's what's going on here. But there's a shiatload of confirmation bias based on a guy whose statements are contradictory and aren't supported by the documentation he's released. I don't grab my torch and pitchfork without farking evidence, and the word of a liar doesn't qualify.

But beyond that, even were we to stipulate it, that doesn't then enable Snowden to do things that aren't defensible. For example, letting the Russians know we tried to bug Medvedev's cell phone during the G-8 has absolutely no legitimate defense. Even if one believes he did the public a big favor on the domestic spying front, he then followed it up by betraying the public on the foreign spying front. Not to mention his hostage-taking of information. He has more that he THREATENS to release. Oh, really? So either that info is HELPFUL to the people and he's a dickbag for withholding it from us, or it's NOT helpful but it is DAMAGING, in which case, he's a dickbag for threatening us with harm.

No, the guy's a farktard who took-in the entire farking country because he "confirmed" what everyone already thought and because he got so far as getting an NSA gig for three months, and that keeps all the knee-jerk people from looking too closely at him because they already know the truth anyway.

Then again, I suppose Washington, Jefferson, and the lot were a bunch of treasonous traitors, and the differentiation between whether you think someone is a traitor or someone working to improve government depends on whether or not you side with the Nobles or the bourgeois and serfs.

You must think Timothy McVeigh is a patriot, then. Or are you siding with the government? Because, as you point out, those are the only two possibilities, right?
 
2013-08-12 01:40:04 PM

amiable: imontheinternet:

... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.

I think the incorporation of the Second amendment as a fundamental right was wrong.  Even though I disagree with the decision I understand that once the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the law of the land, like it or lump it.  I don't yell at the administration about it, I understand that to change it will require an act of the law making body, Congress.


Why is incorporation of the 2nd Amendment wrong, whilst incorporation of elements of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th  Amendments are not wrong?
 
2013-08-12 01:40:40 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: I fail to see how rejecting one specific thing is "reversing" his position when other protections he's passed remain, but okay.

I like how you completely ignore that the Administration has admittedly reversed its position on this issue.

LasersHurt: As far as the second part, read this thread. Look at history. Duh. That's not getting into good or bad, but its nothing new or unusual.

My point is that continuing Bush policies will be the worst part of Obama's legacy.  Your counter is that this was a Bush policy that Obama is continuing.


And are you saying that because of a few things we don't like about Obama, we should long for the days of Bush or yearn for the clusterf*ckery of a Romney presidency (which would have had nearly all Bush advisers)?  What would be your point?  That Obama isn't perfect?  No sh*t.  That we're white-knighting him because we still throw Bush under the bus? African-American, please.
 
2013-08-12 01:41:11 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: I fail to see how rejecting one specific thing is "reversing" his position when other protections he's passed remain, but okay.

I like how you completely ignore that the Administration has admittedly reversed its position on this issue.

LasersHurt: As far as the second part, read this thread. Look at history. Duh. That's not getting into good or bad, but its nothing new or unusual.

My point is that continuing Bush policies will be the worst part of Obama's legacy.  Your counter is that this was a Bush policy that Obama is continuing.


Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.

And no, again, he didn't  "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.

I'm not arguing the guy's infallible or perfect, just that you should know what you're talking about and hold him accountable for reality, not your feverish dreams.
 
2013-08-12 01:41:43 PM

amiable: imontheinternet:

... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.

I think the incorporation of the Second amendment as a fundamental right was wrong.  Even though I disagree with the decision I understand that once the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the law of the land, like it or lump it.  I don't yell at the administration about it, I understand that to change it will require an act of the law making body, Congress.


There are multiple interpretations of the law, and courts don't always get them right.  I recognize that after a Court ruling, that opinion technically becomes the law.  It doesn't mean that all other interpretations should be forgotten, or that an administration interested in transparency can't change its stance or at least not push the wrong interpretation so doggedly.
 
2013-08-12 01:42:06 PM
"Perfect is the enemy of good" has rarely been so relevant as is has lately.
 
2013-08-12 01:42:35 PM

sprgrss: amiable: imontheinternet:

... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.

I think the incorporation of the Second amendment as a fundamental right was wrong.  Even though I disagree with the decision I understand that once the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the law of the land, like it or lump it.  I don't yell at the administration about it, I understand that to change it will require an act of the law making body, Congress.

Why is incorporation of the 2nd Amendment wrong, whilst incorporation of elements of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th  Amendments are not wrong?


I would argue that the language of the constitution and the framers original intent did not envision the right to bear arms as an individual right, but rather as part of maintaining well-regulated militias.  But I understand that I have lost that argument.
 
2013-08-12 01:44:42 PM

Cletus C.: The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.


You are commenting in the wrong thread. This story is about a reporter refusing to divulge his source, as directed by a court of law. This thread includes dozens of examples of this happening in the past, long before evil Obama came along.

I realize staying "on topic" isn't your thing, because it requires you to admit facts, but can you at least try?
 
2013-08-12 01:44:54 PM

coeyagi: And are you saying that because of a few things we don't like about Obama, we should long for the days of Bush or yearn for the clusterf*ckery of a Romney presidency (which would have had nearly all Bush advisers)?  What would be your point?  That Obama isn't perfect?  No sh*t.  That we're white-knighting him because we still throw Bush under the bus? African-American, please.


The point is that you call bullsh*t when there's bullsh*t, even if a guy on your team is doing it.  It doesn't mean that you automatically support the other team.  Some people care more about issues than teams.
 
2013-08-12 01:46:07 PM

imontheinternet: My point is that continuing Bush policies will be the worst part of Obama's legacy. Your counter is that this was a Bush policy that Obama is continuing.


A ruling dating back to 1974 is Obama continuing Bush policies?
 
2013-08-12 01:46:16 PM
imontheinternet:

The point is that you call bullsh*t when there's bullsh*t, even if a guy on your team is doing it.  It doesn't mean that you automatically support the other team.  Some people care more about issues than teams.

And many of us folks who are libs have called bullsh*t.  What else do you want, a cookie?
 
2013-08-12 01:46:55 PM
It's for national security, you don't want a second 9/11 do you?

If you think about it, the GOP-controlled congress didn't do anything about it. Blame the Republicans, Obama is the victim here.
 
2013-08-12 01:48:08 PM
wow, all our little trolls are out.  I can't see them, but I know they're here!
 
2013-08-12 01:49:00 PM

LasersHurt: And no, again, he didn't "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.


He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower.  He's throwing reporters in jail.  How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

LasersHurt: Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.


Are you not capable of understanding that it's a policy handed down from his predecessor that he's continuing at the detriment of his legacy?
 
2013-08-12 01:50:09 PM
I'm not even going to bother, I see this is futile.
 
2013-08-12 01:51:18 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Triple Oak: I think it's cute that the early Monday trolls are once again thinking that Obama has all the power of the gods to do whatever he wants.

I think it is cute that people like you use this as an excuse for Obama's performance.

You are the Limbaugh Theory personified.


I haven't made any excuses on it, but thanks for throwing me under your wheel of girth. Go ahead and be mad that he didn't wave his hand and fix everything to your liking, though.

Also funny: something Limbaugh theorized could be used in a rational conversation.
 
2013-08-12 01:51:21 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: And no, again, he didn't "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.

He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower.  He's throwing reporters in jail.  How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

LasersHurt: Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.

Are you not capable of understanding that it's a policy handed down from his predecessor that he's continuing at the detriment of his legacy?


The law used to justify Obama's policies were not - in fact - passed during his presidency. Which means that you are not allowed to theses policies on the President. Which means Obama didn't start anything that is wrong, which means you have nothing to complain about.

See? Problem solved.
 
2013-08-12 01:53:02 PM
Rights are for the government and the companies that own it, not for mere citizens.

Rights:
Forging mortgage papers and using courts to take people's homes.
Using police to jail debtors.
Right to government privacy when using secret courts.
Right to detain people unilaterally and indefinitely without public trial.
Offshoring profit and onshoring losses so you can collect billions of tax dollars.

Not rights:
Protesting at any public event (HR 347, Free Speech Zone )
Fair trials where your public defender is qualified, or even awake.
Privacy when making a phone call or sending an email to a friend or family member.
Free Travel (You can be listed on a no-fly list for no stated reason at all).
Decent free public education.
 
2013-08-12 01:53:06 PM

imontheinternet: coeyagi: And are you saying that because of a few things we don't like about Obama, we should long for the days of Bush or yearn for the clusterf*ckery of a Romney presidency (which would have had nearly all Bush advisers)?  What would be your point?  That Obama isn't perfect?  No sh*t.  That we're white-knighting him because we still throw Bush under the bus? African-American, please.

The point is that you call bullsh*t when there's bullsh*t, even if a guy on your team is doing it.  It doesn't mean that you automatically support the other team.  Some people care more about issues than teams.


No, um, the other team is f*cking vile, evil and despicable in 2013.  You automatically assume such until someone within their ranks proves otherwise.  They've cried wolf over absolute bullsh*t so many times, they've nearly caused us to DEFAULT on our credit with their russian roulette horsesh*t tactics, they lie much more than the other side, they have theofascist candidates basically saying "Be a Christian or go f*ck yourself".... why should I give them a critical look again?

But yes, we can still be critical of the other team too.  It's our duty to be, and we have been critical. But unless Obama rapes my mother in front of me or starts a f*cking war based on no evidence just so he can enrich his buddies, I'm more prepared to give him and his team the benefit of the doubt than the other one.
 
2013-08-12 01:53:48 PM
So, apparently, Obama used his time machine AGAIN?

Dammit!
 
2013-08-12 01:53:56 PM

super_grass: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: And no, again, he didn't "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.

He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower.  He's throwing reporters in jail.  How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

LasersHurt: Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.

Are you not capable of understanding that it's a policy handed down from his predecessor that he's continuing at the detriment of his legacy?

The law used to justify Obama's policies were not - in fact - passed during his presidency. Which means that you are not allowed to theses policies on the President. Which means Obama didn't start anything that is wrong, which means you have nothing to complain about.

See? Problem solved.


I never said he started it.  The entire argument is premised on the fact that he didn't start it.  He didn't start drone strikes or NSA surveillance either.  It doesn't mean he's not responsible for continuing it.
 
2013-08-12 01:57:01 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: And no, again, he didn't "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.

He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower.  He's throwing reporters in jail.  How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

LasersHurt: Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.

Are you not capable of understanding that it's a policy handed down from his predecessor that he's continuing at the detriment of his legacy?


I get what you are saying, but there are a few separate issues here.

1.  Is it fair to blame the administration for the DOJ stating that reporters do not have privilege in regards to revealing their sources.  No, that is settled law decided by the Supreme Court, haranguing the DOJ for enforcing it is silly.

2.  Is it fair to blame the administration for not doing enough to promote new laws to deal with reporters privilege and whistleblower protection?  Yes, this is an issue Obama campaigned on and so far his response has been pretty weak tea.

3.  Are the Presidnets opponents better on this issue then the president?  Clearly no, as the majority leader in Congress has stated that even Obama's modest proposal last Friday may be going to far.

4.  Can I not like this policy and others by the President (eg, drones) and still support him and his party?  Obviously yes, no party is exactly going to reflect my belief system and I choose to support the party that best reflects my ideology.  That doesn't make me a shill, that makes me an adult who understands I am never going to get 100% of what I want.  If I did right now Christina Hendricks would be under my desk.
 
2013-08-12 01:57:11 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: And no, again, he didn't "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.

He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower.  He's throwing reporters in jail.  How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

LasersHurt: Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.

Are you not capable of understanding that it's a policy handed down from his predecessor that he's continuing at the detriment of his legacy?


1.  Snowden is not a whistleblower.  No matter how much you want to dress him up in that costume he is not.

2.  The Obama administration is not holding journalists in jail.  Journalists who go to jail for refusing to testify are being put there by the courts for being in contempt of court.
 
2013-08-12 01:57:37 PM

imontheinternet: super_grass: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: And no, again, he didn't "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.

He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower.  He's throwing reporters in jail.  How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

LasersHurt: Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.

Are you not capable of understanding that it's a policy handed down from his predecessor that he's continuing at the detriment of his legacy?

The law used to justify Obama's policies were not - in fact - passed during his presidency. Which means that you are not allowed to theses policies on the President. Which means Obama didn't start anything that is wrong, which means you have nothing to complain about.

See? Problem solved.

I never said he started it.  The entire argument is premised on the fact that he didn't start it.  He didn't start drone strikes or NSA surveillance either.  It doesn't mean he's not responsible for continuing it.


I'm actually not all that sure on the second one. It's still a seekret.
 
2013-08-12 02:02:31 PM

imontheinternet: He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower. He's throwing reporters in jail. How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?


There's a process for whistleblowers that has indeed been strengthened under Obama. Obama never made any promise to extend legal protections to people who leak classified information.

Even if you're personally of the opinion that Snowden's a "whistleblower", you've got to at least understand that the issue here isn't that Obama made some promise to go easy on people like Snowden and failed to keep it - it's that Obama never considered people like this to be "whistleblowers" to begin with.
 
2013-08-12 02:07:29 PM

LasersHurt: I'm not even going to bother, I see this is futile.


It's futile because you are trying to argue a point that does not involve this story.

I have been very outspoken about the Obama admin going after whistleblowers. THIS ARTICLE has nothing to do with that. You seem completely unwilling to admit this particular issue goes back 40 years, and involves a ton of legal precedent. It's NOT about Obama.
 
2013-08-12 02:08:03 PM

mediablitz: LasersHurt: I'm not even going to bother, I see this is futile.

It's futile because you are trying to argue a point that does not involve this story.

I have been very outspoken about the Obama admin going after whistleblowers. THIS ARTICLE has nothing to do with that. You seem completely unwilling to admit this particular issue goes back 40 years, and involves a ton of legal precedent. It's NOT about Obama.


I think you're confusing me with someone else entirely?
 
2013-08-12 02:08:11 PM

vpb: There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers)


What's the difference?

/srsly.  What's the difference?
 
2013-08-12 02:08:32 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower. He's throwing reporters in jail. How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

There's a process for whistleblowers that has indeed been strengthened under Obama. Obama never made any promise to extend legal protections to people who leak classified information.

Even if you're personally of the opinion that Snowden's a "whistleblower", you've got to at least understand that the issue here isn't that Obama made some promise to go easy on people like Snowden and failed to keep it - it's that Obama never considered people like this to be "whistleblowers" to begin with.


Pretty much this.  You can't just "expose" a secret command / mission given to you by the military because you don't like it.  If it is a lawful command, working within the framework of whatever military action being undertaken at the time, and not conflicting with any treaties (e.g, Geneva), you can just eat a big ole helping of STFU.  You aren't blowing a whistle. You are blowing smoke up your own ass.

Snowden, "noble" as his intentions may be (debatable), isn't blowing the whistle, he's exposing a secret but lawful action that Congress signed off on.
 
2013-08-12 02:09:48 PM

BeesNuts: vpb: There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers)

What's the difference?

/srsly.  What's the difference?


There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)
 
2013-08-12 02:09:57 PM

BeesNuts: vpb: There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers)

What's the difference?

/srsly.  What's the difference?


Whistle blowers expose some unlawful activity.

Leakers leak sh*t that MAY be unlawful but is usually secret sh*t that is lawful but may be disconcerting or displeasing to John Q. Voter.
 
2013-08-12 02:12:04 PM

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: vpb: There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers)

What's the difference?

/srsly.  What's the difference?

There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)


What if the process was rigged to make it nearly impossible to blow the whistle legally and initialize judicial review at the same time?

DUN DUN DUNNNNN
 
2013-08-12 02:14:03 PM

super_grass: There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)

What if the process was rigged to make it nearly impossible to blow the whistle legally and initialize judicial review at the same time?

DUN DUN DUNNNNN


I dunno, what if? What if my aunt had balls? She'd be my uncle.
 
2013-08-12 02:19:23 PM

BeesNuts: vpb: There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers)

What's the difference?

/srsly.  What's the difference?


Whistleblowers generally are revealing unlawful and/or unethical practices in business or government organizations.
Leakers are just revealing classified data.
 
2013-08-12 02:19:29 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)

What if the process was rigged to make it nearly impossible to blow the whistle legally and initialize judicial review at the same time?

DUN DUN DUNNNNN

I dunno, what if? What if my aunt had balls? She'd be my uncle.


That's a rhetorical question.

There's a lot of people who feel that the whistleblowing process is being neutered so that organizations can still do whatever they want with little constraint and consequences but still maintain the image of being bound by the judicial process. It makes the whole "you should've followed the process" argument bullshiat because "the process" was a ruse to begin with.
 
2013-08-12 02:20:55 PM

nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret.


Cute that the citizens of a government formed by the citizens have no privilege to secrecy and yet the government asserts that it has many.
 
2013-08-12 02:22:02 PM

super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)

What if the process was rigged to make it nearly impossible to blow the whistle legally and initialize judicial review at the same time?

DUN DUN DUNNNNN

I dunno, what if? What if my aunt had balls? She'd be my uncle.

That's a rhetorical question.

There's a lot of people who feel that the whistleblowing process is being neutered so that organizations can still do whatever they want with little constraint and consequences but still maintain the image of being bound by the judicial process. It makes the whole "you should've followed the process" argument bullshiat because "the process" was a ruse to begin with.


People are free to think whatever they want, I guess, but Whistleblower protections (capital "W" proper whistleblowing) have been expanded. If there are solid reasons for their concern, that would be one thing, but I haven't seen any actual news that would indicate that it's somehow become a farce.
 
2013-08-12 02:23:13 PM

chrismurphy: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret.

Cute that the citizens of a government formed by the citizens have no privilege to secrecy and yet the government asserts that it has many.


Its almost as if some portion of the sentence is complete bull poops.
 
2013-08-12 02:24:32 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: And no, again, he didn't "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.

He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower.  He's throwing reporters in jail.  How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?


I missed the part where Obama is forcably throwing reporters in jail by royal decree and not a court for being in contempt 

LasersHurt: Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.

Are you not capable of understanding that it's a policy handed down from his predecessor that he's continuing at the detriment of his legacy?

A policy predating bush is a policy handed from bush?  My brain hurts.
 
2013-08-12 02:24:51 PM

chrismurphy: Cute that the citizens of a government formed by the citizens have no privilege to secrecy


Why are you under the impression that private citizens have ever had any protection (outside the 5th Amendment barring self-incrimination) against being subpoena'd for documents or otherwise being compelled to testify?
 
2013-08-12 02:26:10 PM

qorkfiend: chrismurphy: Cute that the citizens of a government formed by the citizens have no privilege to secrecy

Why are you under the impression that private citizens have ever had any protection (outside the 5th Amendment barring self-incrimination) against being subpoena'd for documents or otherwise being compelled to testify?


I'll give you 3 guesses but you'll only need one.

Hint:  Rhymes with Schmox Schmooze.
 
2013-08-12 02:26:24 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)

What if the process was rigged to make it nearly impossible to blow the whistle legally and initialize judicial review at the same time?

DUN DUN DUNNNNN

I dunno, what if? What if my aunt had balls? She'd be my uncle.

That's a rhetorical question.

There's a lot of people who feel that the whistleblowing process is being neutered so that organizations can still do whatever they want with little constraint and consequences but still maintain the image of being bound by the judicial process. It makes the whole "you should've followed the process" argument bullshiat because "the process" was a ruse to begin with.

People are free to think whatever they want, I guess, but Whistleblower protections (capital "W" proper whistleblowing) have been expanded. If there are solid reasons for their concern, that would be one thing, but I haven't seen any actual news that would indicate that it's somehow become a farce.


You mean aside from secret courts, secret interpretations of the law, secret legal rulings, and the complete lack of outside review of the process? You need judicial review that is more than a rubber stamp be worth a damn. If you think rule of law is just guys in black moo-moos with ambiguous pants wearage, you're missing out.
 
2013-08-12 02:29:55 PM

BeesNuts: vpb: There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers)

What's the difference?

/srsly.  What's the difference?


A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.
 
2013-08-12 02:30:51 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)

What if the process was rigged to make it nearly impossible to blow the whistle legally and initialize judicial review at the same time?

DUN DUN DUNNNNN

I dunno, what if? What if my aunt had balls? She'd be my uncle.


I'll be the first... the process is totally rigged, this isn't a question of "What if?".... the government is classifying things because of embarrassment levels, not necessity, and has rigged the process at every point to prevent any meaningful review into fixing potential problems.
 
2013-08-12 02:32:30 PM

super_grass: You mean aside from secret courts, secret interpretations of the law, secret legal rulings, and the complete lack of outside review of the process? You need judicial review that is more than a rubber stamp be worth a damn. If you think rule of law is just guys in black moo-moos with ambiguous pants wearage, you're missing out.


What does the NSA stuff have to do with Whisteblower protections? It seems like you're conflating entirely different things.

firefly212: I'll be the first... the process is totally rigged, this isn't a question of "What if?".... the government is classifying things because of embarrassment levels, not necessity, and has rigged the process at every point to prevent any meaningful review into fixing potential problems.


I'll gladly take any proof you have of this.
 
2013-08-12 02:32:45 PM

firefly212: LasersHurt: super_grass: There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)

What if the process was rigged to make it nearly impossible to blow the whistle legally and initialize judicial review at the same time?

DUN DUN DUNNNNN

I dunno, what if? What if my aunt had balls? She'd be my uncle.

I'll be the first... the process is totally rigged, this isn't a question of "What if?".... the government is classifying things because of embarrassment levels, not necessity, and has rigged the process at every point to prevent any meaningful review into fixing potential problems.


I've heard similar things being "diarrhea'd" out of Sean Hannity's mouth.  "According to" was not one of those things being "diarrhea'd" out in the same breath.
 
2013-08-12 02:33:07 PM

factoryconnection: This is a very important concern, but would it have killed the columnist's message to even briefly explain the basis for the ruling against James Risen invoking reporter's privilege?  That is a fairly significant piece of the story!


That'd require reporters to actually, I don't know, do their jobs and report something instead of putting only half the story in the article and relying on cheap histrionics to make the real case here. Can't do that now, no way you could blog a nuanced argument like that or tweet it properly.
/damn goddamn I hate "modern" journalism
 
2013-08-12 02:33:14 PM

Headso: ['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.


While I tend to agree that most stuff that is classified is of limited value for the information it actually contains.  What most "Spy" agencies are protecting is not the information itself, but the circumstances and information that could potentially identify the source for that information.

Ok, let's say that there's classified info that Gaddafi had a big-tittied blonde nurse and that they did certain "things" together from time to time.  Gaddafi knew that information, as did his intelligence service, but what they didn't know was the general time frame in which it was reported, the details of exactly what was reported, etc.  It's that sort of information which would allow Gaddafi and his operatives to likely ferret out the identity of the person who was/is providing the information.  (Whether it be the nurse herself, a trusted aid/servant, a mole, or someone in the inner circle who blabbed the info for whatever reason.)

That was the important part of the Valerie Plame debacle, it really wasn't that important that her cover was blown given that she was practically retired at that point anyway.  But what was important is that every enemy intelligence agency now had something to look at and the means of identifying those who either knew her or did business with her "phony" front company.  From that information, undoubtedly they were able to identify those who had been "sources" or even "double agents" and could now take retaliatory steps against them.
 
2013-08-12 02:35:41 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: You mean aside from secret courts, secret interpretations of the law, secret legal rulings, and the complete lack of outside review of the process? You need judicial review that is more than a rubber stamp be worth a damn. If you think rule of law is just guys in black moo-moos with ambiguous pants wearage, you're missing out.

What does the NSA stuff have to do with Whisteblower protections? It seems like you're conflating entirely different things.


I was talking about the entire Whistleblowing process, and how it is slowly becoming a symbolic, yet useless, process.
 
2013-08-12 02:35:59 PM

firefly212: the process is totally rigged, this isn't a question of "What if?".... the government is classifying things because of embarrassment levels, not necessity, and has rigged the process at every point to prevent any meaningful review into fixing potential problems.


That was well put, which makes me wonder why you ever decided to be a Farker.
 
2013-08-12 02:38:30 PM

super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: You mean aside from secret courts, secret interpretations of the law, secret legal rulings, and the complete lack of outside review of the process? You need judicial review that is more than a rubber stamp be worth a damn. If you think rule of law is just guys in black moo-moos with ambiguous pants wearage, you're missing out.

What does the NSA stuff have to do with Whisteblower protections? It seems like you're conflating entirely different things.

I was talking about the entire Whistleblowing process, and how it is slowly becoming a symbolic, yet useless, process.


I welcome any specific proof, citations, or information you have that support that.
 
2013-08-12 02:39:31 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: There's a specific legal process for whistleblowing, which is the act of pointing out illegal acts. Leaking avoids the process and gives the direct information to an outside source (and sometimes is not about illegal acts so much as whatever information they should choose.)

What if the process was rigged to make it nearly impossible to blow the whistle legally and initialize judicial review at the same time?

DUN DUN DUNNNNN

I dunno, what if? What if my aunt had balls? She'd be my uncle.

That's a rhetorical question.

There's a lot of people who feel that the whistleblowing process is being neutered so that organizations can still do whatever they want with little constraint and consequences but still maintain the image of being bound by the judicial process. It makes the whole "you should've followed the process" argument bullshiat because "the process" was a ruse to begin with.

People are free to think whatever they want, I guess, but Whistleblower protections (capital "W" proper whistleblowing) have been expanded. If there are solid reasons for their concern, that would be one thing, but I haven't seen any actual news that would indicate that it's somehow become a farce.


It's important to distinguish between Whistleblowing protections related to your employer (which have expanded) and those related to the government (which haven't properly been tested in ... decades)

It's interesting to me that the determination of whether the activity being revealed, leaked or otherwise, is legal or not is often made after we decide what to call the source of information.

I think we kind of have to make that judgment in hindsight, was my more general point.
 
2013-08-12 02:41:04 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower. He's throwing reporters in jail. How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

There's a process for whistleblowers that has indeed been strengthened under Obama. Obama never made any promise to extend legal protections to people who leak classified information.

Even if you're personally of the opinion that Snowden's a "whistleblower", you've got to at least understand that the issue here isn't that Obama made some promise to go easy on people like Snowden and failed to keep it - it's that Obama never considered people like this to be "whistleblowers" to begin with.


I'm not saying leaking classified information isn't illegal.  I'm not even saying that he can't be prosecuted.  I'm saying that the tremendous efforts to get Snowden, condemning Russia and China, waylaying the plane of the president of Bolivia, etc., and the PR campaign against him have been extreme.  This Administration takes a hard line on whistleblowers or leakers, whatever you want to call it, that goes above and beyond simply enforcing the law.
 
2013-08-12 02:41:53 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: You mean aside from secret courts, secret interpretations of the law, secret legal rulings, and the complete lack of outside review of the process? You need judicial review that is more than a rubber stamp be worth a damn. If you think rule of law is just guys in black moo-moos with ambiguous pants wearage, you're missing out.

What does the NSA stuff have to do with Whisteblower protections? It seems like you're conflating entirely different things.

I was talking about the entire Whistleblowing process, and how it is slowly becoming a symbolic, yet useless, process.

I welcome any specific proof, citations, or information you have that support that.


See my previous post about the secretive review process.
 
2013-08-12 02:42:26 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: You mean aside from secret courts, secret interpretations of the law, secret legal rulings, and the complete lack of outside review of the process? You need judicial review that is more than a rubber stamp be worth a damn. If you think rule of law is just guys in black moo-moos with ambiguous pants wearage, you're missing out.

What does the NSA stuff have to do with Whisteblower protections? It seems like you're conflating entirely different things.

I was talking about the entire Whistleblowing process, and how it is slowly becoming a symbolic, yet useless, process.

I welcome any specific proof, citations, or information you have that support that.


It's illegal to disclose any classified information, regardless of the legality of the activity discussed within.  There number of classified documents grows every year.  Therefore the accessibility of whistleblower protections is diminished.  Every year.
 
2013-08-12 02:46:53 PM

super_grass: See my previous post about the secretive review process.


That's just a sentence you said, that's not evidence of anything.

BeesNuts: It's illegal to disclose any classified information, regardless of the legality of the activity discussed within.  There number of classified documents grows every year.  Therefore the accessibility of whistleblower protections is diminished.  Every year.


That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? It's illegal to leak it, not to Whistleblow.

BeesNuts: It's important to distinguish between Whistleblowing protections related to your employer (which have expanded) and those related to the government (which haven't properly been tested in ... decades)


Obama specifically granted new Whistleblower protections to people working for the Government.
 
2013-08-12 02:48:09 PM

vygramul: A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.


Agreed.  The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.  Classified info = automatic crime.  Therefore, no whistleblowing is actually whistleblowing when it comes to the government.  If it's public domain, you can talk about it.  If it's classified, you simply can't.  And we've seen from the Assange days that most of this classified shiat was classified out of an extreme overabundance of caution.
 
2013-08-12 02:48:19 PM

lawboy87: Headso: ['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.

While I tend to agree that most stuff that is classified is of limited value for the information it actually contains.  What most "Spy" agencies are protecting is not the information itself, but the circumstances and information that could potentially identify the source for that information.

Ok, let's say that there's classified info that Gaddafi had a big-tittied blonde nurse and that they did certain "things" together from time to time.  Gaddafi knew that information, as did his intelligence service, but what they didn't know was the general time frame in which it was reported, the details of exactly what was reported, etc.  It's that sort of information which would allow Gaddafi and his operatives to likely ferret out the identity of the person who was/is providing the information.  (Whether it be the nurse herself, a trusted aid/servant, a mole, or someone in the inner circle who blabbed the info for whatever reason.)

That was the important part of the Valerie Plame debacle, it really wasn't that important that her cover was blown given that she was practically retired at that point anyway.  But what was important is that every enemy intelligence agency now had something to look at and the means of identifying those who either knew her or did business with her "phony" front company.  From that information, undoubtedly they were able to identify those who had been "sources" or even "double agents" and could now take retaliatory steps against them.


Most people really have a hard time grasping why things are classified. It's actually kind of scary how many people I ran into who had clearances who just didn't get it. One of the top violations is people thinking they can talk about something just because it's now on CNN, or that some government official said it.
 
2013-08-12 02:48:30 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: See my previous post about the secretive review process.

That's just a sentence you said, that's not evidence of anything.

BeesNuts: It's illegal to disclose any classified information, regardless of the legality of the activity discussed within.  There number of classified documents grows every year.  Therefore the accessibility of whistleblower protections is diminished.  Every year.

That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? It's illegal to leak it, not to Whistleblow.

BeesNuts: It's important to distinguish between Whistleblowing protections related to your employer (which have expanded) and those related to the government (which haven't properly been tested in ... decades)

Obama specifically granted new Whistleblower protections to people working for the Government.


One might say "You're whistleblowing Fox News talking points about whistleblowing".
 
2013-08-12 02:48:55 PM

firefly212: The people who fight for a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution, who fight for a government that operates in an honest manner with the citizenry... calling them "traitors" would be a sort of wrong of the highest order. I cannot think of a superlative version of wrong, but that's what it is.


The word you are looking for is "badong".
 
2013-08-12 02:49:42 PM

lawboy87: Headso: ['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.

While I tend to agree that most stuff that is classified is of limited value for the information it actually contains.  What most "Spy" agencies are protecting is not the information itself, but the circumstances and information that could potentially identify the source for that information.


It was ambassador correspondence iirc. Their correspondence with eachother is classified by default so it's added to the unwieldy mountain of data that must be "protected". They should figure out what actually needs to be classified  instead of chasing down horses that already ran out of the barn.
 
2013-08-12 02:50:02 PM

coeyagi: One might say "You're whistleblowing Fox News talking points about whistleblowing".


It gets frustrating sounding like I'm defending the government all the time just because I want evidence of stuff before I form strong opinions on it.
 
2013-08-12 02:50:20 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: See my previous post about the secretive review process.

That's just a sentence you said, that's not evidence of anything.

BeesNuts: It's illegal to disclose any classified information, regardless of the legality of the activity discussed within.  There number of classified documents grows every year.  Therefore the accessibility of whistleblower protections is diminished.  Every year.

That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? It's illegal to leak it, not to Whistleblow.

BeesNuts: It's important to distinguish between Whistleblowing protections related to your employer (which have expanded) and those related to the government (which haven't properly been tested in ... decades)

Obama specifically granted new Whistleblower protections to people working for the Government.


A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak.  If the program wasn't classified, you wouldn't be whistleblowing because you wouldn't be revealing new information.

B: I was aware of the additional employee protections about being laid off/fired for calling OSHA and stuff.  I believe you, but I'm curious to know what bill/order/whatever you're referring to?
 
2013-08-12 02:52:31 PM

BeesNuts: A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak.


You misunderstand. Whistleblowing is an internal process - even IF it's classified, as long as you were supposed to be able to get that info because of your job, you can report the issue to the proper channels. That's not illegal, it's specifically protected.

BeesNuts: B: I was aware of the additional employee protections about being laid off/fired for calling OSHA and stuff.  I believe you, but I'm curious to know what bill/order/whatever you're referring to?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

Specifically he extended it to the Intelligence Community, where they had not been before. It's particularly relevant.
 
2013-08-12 02:53:26 PM

LasersHurt: coeyagi: One might say "You're whistleblowing Fox News talking points about whistleblowing".

It gets frustrating sounding like I'm defending the government all the time just because I want evidence of stuff before I form strong opinions on it.


It's worth mentioning that my opinion on the individual cases, Manning, Assange and Snowden aren't very strong.  I lean towards, "probably some good and some bad, definitely illegal, ethically questionable."

In general, I think your assertion that you can reveal information about classified programs and be called a Whistleblower under *any* current circumstances is ridiculous.
 
2013-08-12 02:54:48 PM

BeesNuts: LasersHurt: coeyagi: One might say "You're whistleblowing Fox News talking points about whistleblowing".

It gets frustrating sounding like I'm defending the government all the time just because I want evidence of stuff before I form strong opinions on it.

It's worth mentioning that my opinion on the individual cases, Manning, Assange and Snowden aren't very strong.  I lean towards, "probably some good and some bad, definitely illegal, ethically questionable."

In general, I think your assertion that you can reveal information about classified programs and be called a Whistleblower under *any* current circumstances is ridiculous.


I find your assertion that that was actually his assertion... ridiculous.
 
2013-08-12 02:58:18 PM

BeesNuts: vygramul: A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.

Agreed.  The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.  Classified info = automatic crime.  Therefore, no whistleblowing is actually whistleblowing when it comes to the government.  If it's public domain, you can talk about it.  If it's classified, you simply can't.  And we've seen from the Assange days that most of this classified shiat was classified out of an extreme overabundance of caution.


There are a host of disincentives to classifying something unnecessarily. At least, where I worked there was. The document tracking alone can give you headaches. Writing something classified in a notebook accidentally could be really problematic. One tried to avoid that. "Is that number classified?" would be a question one might ask before writing it down.

Bottom line: don't create classified information if you can help it.

So I have some difficulty believing that there's a trivial approach to classifying information. All too often, people look at the content and judge it by that. But sometimes, something that looks otherwise trivial is classified not because of its content, but because of the implications of how we got it. It may look trivial to the casual observer, but to the people who generated the information to begin with, it might tell of a mole in their organization.
 
2013-08-12 03:03:52 PM
Damn you George Bush!
 
2013-08-12 03:04:59 PM

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak.

You misunderstand. Whistleblowing is an internal process - even IF it's classified, as long as you were supposed to be able to get that info because of your job, you can report the issue to the proper channels. That's not illegal, it's specifically protected.


I apparently do misunderstand.  I think most people would think that "Whistleblowing" requires an audience who wasn't aware of the information you're revealing.  That sounds like the catch 22 that makes the process superficial to me.  What does telling the guy above you that you think what he's asking you to do is illegal accomplish?

BeesNuts: B: I was aware of the additional employee protections about being laid off/fired for calling OSHA and stuff.  I believe you, but I'm curious to know what bill/order/whatever you're referring to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

Specifically he extended it to the Intelligence Community, where they had not been before. It's particularly relevant.


That I didn't know.  Neat.  But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

In our current hyper-classified age, doesn't that restrict protections to basically financial information?  Which... while good, isn't exactly what American's think of when they think Whistleblower.  I suppose FDA corruption could be uncovered because of this.
 
2013-08-12 03:07:17 PM

BeesNuts: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak.

You misunderstand. Whistleblowing is an internal process - even IF it's classified, as long as you were supposed to be able to get that info because of your job, you can report the issue to the proper channels. That's not illegal, it's specifically protected.

I apparently do misunderstand.  I think most people would think that "Whistleblowing" requires an audience who wasn't aware of the information you're revealing.  That sounds like the catch 22 that makes the process superficial to me.  What does telling the guy above you that you think what he's asking you to do is illegal accomplish?

BeesNuts: B: I was aware of the additional employee protections about being laid off/fired for calling OSHA and stuff.  I believe you, but I'm curious to know what bill/order/whatever you're referring to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

Specifically he extended it to the Intelligence Community, where they had not been before. It's particularly relevant.

That I didn't know.  Neat.  But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

In our current hyper-classified age, doesn't that restrict protections to basically financial information?  Which... while good, isn't exactly what American's think of when they think Whistleblower.  I suppose FDA corruption could be uncovered because of this.


You know they can still protect it, right?  If they go through proper channels and redact things and use proper protocol, they can protect classified info AND bust illegal activity.  It's almost like they've thought of these things before.
 
2013-08-12 03:07:57 PM

BeesNuts: A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak. If the program wasn't classified, you wouldn't be whistleblowing because you wouldn't be revealing new information.


You're conflating "not classified" with "publicly available information". If, for instance, there was criminal misconduct being done by someone in a government organization, that information would neither be classified nor would it (before it came to light, anyway) be public knowledge. This is actually the main kind of thing that whistleblowing protections are for. Think Abu Ghraib, for example - if someone alerted the relevant authorities about something like that happening then that person would without doubt be a whistleblower.

The problem now is that some people have this idea that whistleblower protections should be extended to people "blowing the whistle" on legal government programs that they personally feel are unconstitutional, or some even vaguer sense of a program that they think "goes too far" or makes them uncomfortable in some way. There's no coherent way to incorporate this idea into the official whistleblower process because it's a silly idea to begin with.
 
2013-08-12 03:10:26 PM

BeesNuts: The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.


When the Snowden thing first happened, I considered the possibility the NSA had crossed a line. People who spend too much time looking for bad guys eventually see bad guys everywhere. And then they want to do a whole bunch of shiat to protect us, even if it isn't really justifiable. The endless warnings and tips and "credible" sources can be relentless.

But Snowden said several things that totally did not mesh with my experience and I started paying attention. Then it turned out he lied. He didn't work there years, he worked there three months. He didn't make $200k he made only a little more than half that. Oh, of course, there are explanations, but wonderfully vague. "I meant career high salary." But he was careful not to tell us WHERE lest we be able to actually CHECK on his claim. Then there's the contradictions. On the one hand, the government collects EVERYTHING. But then he says he could authorize a wiretap on someone's email. Wait - I thought we already collected that. Doesn't he mean he could do a database query to retrieve their email? What's this about wiretap?

One you start paying attention to the details and look at the slides without preconceptions as to what they say, the story all this tells is very different.
 
2013-08-12 03:12:11 PM

BeesNuts: What does telling the guy above you that you think what he's asking you to do is illegal accomplish?


Gets you fired, usually.
 
2013-08-12 03:12:36 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-08-12 03:13:22 PM

chrismurphy: BeesNuts: What does telling the guy above you that you think what he's asking you to do is illegal accomplish?

Gets you fired, usually.


That's why there are usually formal channels outside the immediate chain of command.
 
2013-08-12 03:14:16 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Holy cow that's a distortion that Salvador Dali would consider extreme.
 
2013-08-12 03:15:26 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Are you posting this ironically, or is this one of those things that easily labels an idiot?
 
2013-08-12 03:17:16 PM

BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."


Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.
 
2013-08-12 03:17:26 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


And God saideth unto Moses: "Believeth all the dumb sh*t your see on Facebook.  You Jews gotta make a living some how."
 
2013-08-12 03:17:47 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


If you only read the capitalized words it says "criticize failed party party parties praise party".. seekrit illuminati programing
 
2013-08-12 03:18:20 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


This is 100% correct. However, it doesn't really have to do with this thread.
 
2013-08-12 03:19:18 PM

Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

If you only read the capitalized words it says "criticize failed party party parties praise party".. seekrit illuminati programing


Capitalization is like cat nip for retards Republicans.
 
2013-08-12 03:21:07 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Um, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Did you accidentally Benghazi on the floor because you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time?
 
2013-08-12 03:22:56 PM

vygramul: BeesNuts: vygramul: A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.

Agreed.  The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.  Classified info = automatic crime.  Therefore, no whistleblowing is actually whistleblowing when it comes to the government.  If it's public domain, you can talk about it.  If it's classified, you simply can't.  And we've seen from the Assange days that most of this classified shiat was classified out of an extreme overabundance of caution.

There are a host of disincentives to classifying something unnecessarily. At least, where I worked there was. The document tracking alone can give you headaches. Writing something classified in a notebook accidentally could be really problematic. One tried to avoid that. "Is that number classified?" would be a question one might ask before writing it down.

Bottom line: don't create classified information if you can help it.

So I have some difficulty believing that there's a trivial approach to classifying information. All too often, people look at the content and judge it by that. But sometimes, something that looks otherwise trivial is classified not because of its content, but because of the implications of how we got it. It may look trivial to the casual observer, but to the people who generated the information to begin with, it might tell of a mole in their organization.


Or it might be classified to prevent public relations problems between a program the government feels is valuable but doesn't trust the public to support.  It's absolutely been confirmed in the past.  Over and over again.  You have mountains of documents with a mundane, but valid reason to be classified.  you have reams of paper about financial records that are classified for less apparent reasons, and then you have the stuff that's classified simply to limit exposure temporarily while the work is done.

See also:  Moynihan Secrecy Commission.  Which determined in the 90's that the American people were not properly equipped with the information necessary to engage their government in debate.

I'm not even sure what I'm arguing anymore.  I know you asserted that the system wasn't rigged.  Can I take that to mean you think the classification system, as well as the protections present to those who choose to reveal classified information are adequate, sensible and otherwise satisfactory?

There's a lot rolled up into this debate.
 
2013-08-12 03:24:49 PM

vygramul: chrismurphy:Gets you fired, usually.

That's why there are usually formal channels outside the immediate chain of command.


Well except in the Snowden case everyone in that chain of command up to the president has defended the government keeping secrets. And once ratted out, they're all slowly starting to come around, in one form or another, and admit changes are needed (while being vague and circumspect on the details of such changes). Changes are needed is the whole premise of blowing the whistle in the first place.
 
2013-08-12 03:25:06 PM

someonelse: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

Um, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Did you accidentally Benghazi on the floor because you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time?


Snowden, or Snow-den.  Another word for Igloo.  Eskimos lives in Igloos.  Eskimo Pussy is Might Fine - R. Lee Ermy.  Who was also in Toy Soldiers with Sean Astin.  Who was in Lord of the Rings with Sir Ian McKellan.  Who is gay.  Just like Ambassador Stevens. Benghazi!
 
2013-08-12 03:26:40 PM

BeesNuts: Which... while good, isn't exactly what American's think of when they think Whistleblower.



The movie "The Whistleblower" was about a former tobacco-company employee, so what the American people might think of when they hear the term is kind of nebulous.
 
2013-08-12 03:28:32 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").


I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.
 
2013-08-12 03:29:56 PM

vygramul: BeesNuts: The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.

When the Snowden thing first happened, I considered the possibility the NSA had crossed a line. People who spend too much time looking for bad guys eventually see bad guys everywhere. And then they want to do a whole bunch of shiat to protect us, even if it isn't really justifiable. The endless warnings and tips and "credible" sources can be relentless.

But Snowden said several things that totally did not mesh with my experience and I started paying attention. Then it turned out he lied. He didn't work there years, he worked there three months. He didn't make $200k he made only a little more than half that. Oh, of course, there are explanations, but wonderfully vague. "I meant career high salary." But he was careful not to tell us WHERE lest we be able to actually CHECK on his claim. Then there's the contradictions. On the one hand, the government collects EVERYTHING. But then he says he could authorize a wiretap on someone's email. Wait - I thought we already collected that. Doesn't he mean he could do a database query to retrieve their email? What's this about wiretap?

One you start paying attention to the details and look at the slides without preconceptions as to what they say, the story all this tells is very different.


What do all those discrepencies have to do with the difference between leaking and whistleblowing?  I thought it was about whether the activities disclosed were legal?  And also who the information was given to?

So is Prism constitutional?  I think the jury's still out on that.  The other half of the question is who should he have brought that to?

I don't see where the amount of time he worked there or claimed to work there fits into the discussion of whether what he did was illegal or not.  It calls his credibility into question, but we're not arguing about that.
 
2013-08-12 03:31:40 PM

imontheinternet: BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.


But Obama expanding his rights to whistleblow in 2010 so that's impossible.
 
2013-08-12 03:33:54 PM

coeyagi: someonelse: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

Um, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Did you accidentally Benghazi on the floor because you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time?

Snowden, or Snow-den.  Another word for Igloo.  Eskimos lives in Igloos.  Eskimo Pussy is Might Fine - R. Lee Ermy.  Who was also in Toy Soldiers with Sean Astin.  Who was in Lord of the Rings with Sir Ian McKellan.  Who is gay.  Just like Ambassador Stevens. Benghazi!


I KNEW IT!

Beckian reasoning exposes another consipracy.
 
2013-08-12 03:42:48 PM

someonelse: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

Um, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Did you accidentally Benghazi on the floor because you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time?


Yep, when you gotta Benghazi, you gotta Benghazi.
 
2013-08-12 03:47:18 PM

BeesNuts: imontheinternet: BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.

But Obama expanding his rights to whistleblow in 2010 so that's impossible.


Drake's "whistleblowing" occurred during the Bush administration so unless Obama let him borrow his time machine there's no way he could have taken advantage of the new whistleblower process. Beyond that, I have no idea what imontheinternet is talking about, since the Wikipedia page he linked to says all the major charges were dropped in 2011, with Drake ultimately pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and getting sentenced to a year of community service and probation.
 
2013-08-12 03:48:16 PM

BeesNuts: imontheinternet: BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.

But Obama expanding his rights to whistleblow in 2010 so that's impossible.


Are you trying to be obtuse or do you still not understand how the Whistleblowing thing works (in an official sense)?
 
2013-08-12 04:01:25 PM

Biological Ali: BeesNuts: imontheinternet: BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.

But Obama expanding his rights to whistleblow in 2010 so that's impossible.

Drake's "whistleblowing" occurred during the Bush administration so unless Obama let him borrow his time machine there's no way he could have taken advantage of the new whistleblower process.


The leak took place during the Bush Administration, but the Obama Administration prosecuted him.  He was indicted in 2010.

Drake pled down to a misdemeanor, because the charges against him were so shaky that the prosecution had to drop them at the last minute.  The DOJ, Obama's DOJ, was going for 35 years in prison.  Drake lost his job and was financially ruined by the ordeal.  It's just another case of attacking whistleblowers to create a chilling effect that prevents future ones.

But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.
 
2013-08-12 04:04:35 PM

vygramul: BeesNuts: vygramul: A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.

Agreed.  The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.  Classified info = automatic crime.  Therefore, no whistleblowing is actually whistleblowing when it comes to the government.  If it's public domain, you can talk about it.  If it's classified, you simply can't.  And we've seen from the Assange days that most of this classified shiat was classified out of an extreme overabundance of caution.

There are a host of disincentives to classifying something unnecessarily. At least, where I worked there was. The document tracking alone can give you headaches. Writing something classified in a notebook accidentally could be really problematic. One tried to avoid that. "Is that number classified?" would be a question one might ask before writing it down.

Bottom line: don't create classified information if you can help it.

So I have some difficulty believing that there's a trivial approach to classifying information. All too often, people look at the content and judge it by that. But sometimes, something that looks otherwise trivial is classified not because of its content, but because of the implications of how we got it. It may look trivial to the casual observer, but to the people who generated the information to begin with, it might tell of a mole in their organization.


Having worked with some of the agencies before, and having had clearance... I can attest that there are times where classification is the default, and agencies demand a compelling reason not to classify things. Without speaking to any particular topic, I've written reports based on publicly available data that ended up getting classified, though even I can't for the life of me figure out why. There is a culture within some parts of the government, not just intelligence parts, where they feel like the less that is public, the less they'll get criticized for by politicians... ultimately a lot of the classification process in many parts of the government ends up being a function of PR more than security.

The problem with this approach is that it actually harms security. In order to access relatively benign and useless information, because of rampant over-classifying, there are tens of thousands of people who have security clearances that they really shouldn't have. They get issued the clearances because they need that benign information to do their job, but it also gives them access to a litany of data that was rightly classified.

The consequential problem to these two is that you can't talk about the problem of classification with any real specificity in a public manner... I can't say "My work with regard to _______ is classified even though it shouldn't be" because if I actually filled in the blank so you could see how frickin ass-backward the classification system is, I'd be breaking the law. Beyond even that, the way the law works, even if something classified is... say published in the Guardian or NYT like in this case... if you have a clearance and want to keep it, you must treat that information as though it is still classified... so you end up with people who wrote documents that are available in the newspaper making statements like "I can't confirm or deny the existence of that" when the published document indicates clearly that they authored it.

Overall, it's a clusterfark of a system that is so badly beyond repair that it actually harms those who would try to repair it. The classification system probably started with the best intentions, of keeping the nation safe, making sure people knew what they couldn't talk about publicly, and keeping battle plans against guys like Hitler from getting out and costing us wars... but now, there's as much, if not more, political muscle involved, as security... despite some public ends of the classified information, like Nuns, elderly people, and babies being on the no-fly list, there will be no fixes, there won't be a real discussion, and there won't be as long as people like Obama and Holder are in charge... they're more concerned with protecting the existing system than reforming it and making it reasonable, efficient, and secure.
 
2013-08-12 04:06:50 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?


Really, would you mind explaining one time I've lied? And your quote actually comes from the thread where you said, and I quote: "But just curious, does anyone really post here without getting paid? Why would you do that?"

It was an epic thread.
 
2013-08-12 04:08:31 PM

imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.


Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?
 
2013-08-12 04:10:22 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?


I feel like I keep having to say this. Coming from you that's comedy gold.
 
2013-08-12 04:16:20 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.

Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?


I'm honestly not sure in his particular case. It feels that way, but he might also be a real-world fool.
 
2013-08-12 04:17:43 PM

vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and serious crime. ...

You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.


Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.
 
2013-08-12 04:17:46 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.

Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?


How does the judge's final sentence change anything?  The DOJ ruined his life and tried to throw him in jail for 35 years for something the administration says it supports.

This is what people do when they don't have an argument.  Focus on some tiny detail to draw focus from what's actually happening.  The Obama Administration is hostile to whistleblowers.  It is secretive and lashes out at anyone who tries to impose transparency, even through the methods it says it approves.  This was one of the Bush Administration's worse policies, and the Obama Administration has adopted it.

Attacking individual whistleblowers isn't even the point; the point is the chilling effect it creates.  Here's an article from that conservitard rag, HuffPo, if you care to read about Drake and other cases and how journailsts are reacting to all this.  Of course, you can also feel free to ignore the article itself and go line-by-line to find some minor detail that helps your point.
 
2013-08-12 04:18:30 PM

imontheinternet: Biological Ali: imontheinternet: He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower. He's throwing reporters in jail. How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

There's a process for whistleblowers that has indeed been strengthened under Obama. Obama never made any promise to extend legal protections to people who leak classified information.

Even if you're personally of the opinion that Snowden's a "whistleblower", you've got to at least understand that the issue here isn't that Obama made some promise to go easy on people like Snowden and failed to keep it - it's that Obama never considered people like this to be "whistleblowers" to begin with.

I'm not saying leaking classified information isn't illegal.  I'm not even saying that he can't be prosecuted.  I'm saying that the tremendous efforts to get Snowden, condemning Russia and China, waylaying the plane of the president of Bolivia, etc., and the PR campaign against him have been extreme.  This Administration takes a hard line on whistleblowers or leakers, whatever you want to call it, that goes above and beyond simply enforcing the law.


The term "whistleblower" being used here demonstrates a huge failure on the part of those using it- whistleblowing exposes a crime, and everything the NSA has been doing is perfectly legal and has been for some time even before the Patriot Acts (and frankly no one in the court system- whose opinions are the only ones that count, who can order you arrested by law enforcement officers and the like- disagrees with the Supreme Court on this. No one cares that you don't respect that fact; people with MP5s and badges do). I'll agree with you that PRISM's existence is a huge failure of the government to fulfill its promise to create a better society for us all, and that it would appear to give the finger to the many general concepts presented in the Constitution, but just because a law should not be a law does not mean it isn't an actual law, and that government acting in compliance with it constitutes something that needs "whistleblowing"; you can expose perfectly legal yet terrible practices to the public and this would NOT be whistleblowing, even though you're still a concerned citizen trying to make the world a better place.
 
2013-08-12 04:20:12 PM

coyo: vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a r ...


I think where the story goes is that a loyalist to the constitution can still be considered a traitor to the government once the government has strayed far enough from the constitution.
 
2013-08-12 04:21:49 PM

coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.


Yeah but Snowden didn't expose anything illegal, cuz it's impossible to challenge them in court with them being secret and whatnot.

...until someone leaked their existence, the bastard!
 
2013-08-12 04:21:53 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?


Do you have any proof that you are the libbiest lib who ever libbed?
 
2013-08-12 04:23:46 PM

coyo: vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a r ...


The Supreme Court has not ruled that PRISM/etc. violates the letter of the law (agreed with you that it violates the spirit of the Constitution at least), but failing an act of Congress do you really think there is any legal mechanism that can be used to get rid of it? Challenge: don't forget that Congress will stoop to any new low depth to hurt the President on any petty thing they can even when he's doing something awesome.
 
2013-08-12 04:26:09 PM

imontheinternet: Biological Ali: imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.

Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?

How does the judge's final sentence change anything?  The DOJ ruined his life and tried to throw him in jail for 35 years for something the administration says it supports.


The Obama administration has never said it supported exposing the entirely legal operation of its surveillance programs no matter how unethical they may be. FAIL
 
2013-08-12 04:27:53 PM

super_grass: coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

Yeah but Snowden didn't expose anything illegal, cuz it's impossible to challenge them in court with them being secret and whatnot.

...until someone leaked their existence, the bastard!


OK finally a legally sound reason to bash the administration! Despite my other posts in this thread I approve!
 
2013-08-12 04:28:10 PM

PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.


Wait!   People get PAID to post on FARK?!

What have I been doing all this time??!!??

Who are the idiots enterprising businesses who would pay for play on Fark?
 
2013-08-12 04:29:39 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: imontheinternet: Biological Ali: imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.

Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?

How does the judge's final sentence change anything?  The DOJ ruined his life and tried to throw him in jail for 35 years for something the administration says it supports.

The Obama administration has never said it supported exposing the entirely legal operation of its surveillance programs no matter how unethical they may be. FAIL


Drake never gave out any classified information, and his leaks were also about waste and fraud.  The official position was not to retaliate against people who protect classified information while revealing things like waste, fraud, and abuse.  When it actually came time to have principles, they ruined his life and tried to send him to jail for the rest of his life to make him an example.
 
2013-08-12 04:32:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.


What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.
 
2013-08-12 04:36:58 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: super_grass: coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

Yeah but Snowden didn't expose anything illegal, cuz it's impossible to challenge them in court with them being secret and whatnot.

...until someone leaked their existence, the bastard!

OK finally a legally sound reason to bash the administration! Despite my other posts in this thread I approve!


Massive invasions of privacy.

Done.

And don't give me that "legally sound" crap. One of the reasons why these surveillance programs are so obnoxious is the wall of shady legal technicalities used to shield them from scrutiny.
 
2013-08-12 04:38:07 PM

imontheinternet: The Obama Administration is hostile to whistleblowers.


The administration is not hostile towards whistleblowers, nor has it "reversed its position" on whistleblower protections as you earlier claimed. Indeed, whistleblower protections have actually been enhanced under the administration.

The problem is, you seem to be operating under some novel definition of "whistleblower" that would be foreign to many people (I suspect most people, but it's hard to say). Certainly the Obama administration never subscribed by this definition that you're putting forward.

Drake and the others may have been whistleblowers in 2002 when they followed the proper channels, but if you're suggesting that he was prosecuted for whistleblowing you either need to read up on what he was actually charged with (the fact that the charges were dropped and may have been inappropriate doesn't have any bearing on the basic fact of what he was prosecuted for), or be up-front about what exactly you mean when you say "whistleblower", because clearly it's something very different from the commonly-accepted meaning of the term.
 
2013-08-12 04:38:18 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?

Really, would you mind explaining one time I've lied? And your quote actually comes from the thread where you said, and I quote: "But just curious, does anyone really post here without getting paid? Why would you do that?"

It was an epic thread.

You lied in this thread.
You said I am getting paid to post.
I am not.
The fact that I asked a question does not mean that I am getting paid.  For some reason people think people who disagree with them must be getting paid for those posts because there is no other reason people could possibly disagree with them.

Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.


...I really have absolutely no idea how to respond to someone this delusional.
 
2013-08-12 04:41:14 PM

mediablitz: Cletus C.: The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.

You are commenting in the wrong thread. This story is about a reporter refusing to divulge his source, as directed by a court of law. This thread includes dozens of examples of this happening in the past, long before evil Obama came along.

I realize staying "on topic" isn't your thing, because it requires you to admit facts, but can you at least try?


Huh? I was responding to a comment. You might have included that. And this is a story about a reporter facing jail unless he testifies in an illegal disclosure case. How is it not on topic?

I know you're trying to play a variation of the Bush card but you're making no sense, dude.
 
2013-08-12 04:44:06 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: super_grass: coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

Yeah but Snowden didn't expose anything illegal, cuz it's impossible to challenge them in court with them being secret and whatnot.

...until someone leaked their existence, the bastard!

OK finally a legally sound reason to bash the administration! Despite my other posts in this thread I approve!


Well, not really. The "can't challenge in court" refers to the ACLU case about warrantless wiretaps of foreign communications which was dismissed due to lack of standing. The information Snowden leaked (as far as I can see) was about different surveillance mechanisms and programs entirely, and the legal distinctions between content and metadata are such that no court challenge  is likely to do particularly well regardless of how much classified information related to it is leaked.
 
2013-08-12 04:44:44 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.


Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").


Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk
 
2013-08-12 04:44:55 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: The Obama Administration is hostile to whistleblowers.

The administration is not hostile towards whistleblowers, nor has it "reversed its position" on whistleblower protections as you earlier claimed. Indeed, whistleblower protections have actually been enhanced under the administration.

The problem is, you seem to be operating under some novel definition of "whistleblower" that would be foreign to many people (I suspect most people, but it's hard to say). Certainly the Obama administration never subscribed by this definition that you're putting forward.

Drake and the others may have been whistleblowers in 2002 when they followed the proper channels, but if you're suggesting that he was prosecuted for whistleblowing you either need to read up on what he was actually charged with (the fact that the charges were dropped and may have been inappropriate doesn't have any bearing on the basic fact of what he was prosecuted for), or be up-front about what exactly you mean when you say "whistleblower", because clearly it's something very different from the commonly-accepted meaning of the term.


When I hear whistleblower, someone who points out wrongdoing comes to mind. However, whistleblowing is not really relevant here. What is relevant is the extent of survelance that is taking place that certainly violates the spirit if the bill of rights. That is where we must focus on. Any distraction from that is a tacit acceptance of the violations.
 
2013-08-12 04:46:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.


http://www.fark.com/comments/7883683/85861477#c85861477
 
2013-08-12 04:46:17 PM

Zafler: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk


Well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or not...it was even  in the comment quoted. Holy hell, this is amazing.
 
2013-08-12 04:46:43 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: The Obama Administration is hostile to whistleblowers.

The administration is not hostile towards whistleblowers, nor has it "reversed its position" on whistleblower protections as you earlier claimed. Indeed, whistleblower protections have actually been enhanced under the administration.

The problem is, you seem to be operating under some novel definition of "whistleblower" that would be foreign to many people (I suspect most people, but it's hard to say). Certainly the Obama administration never subscribed by this definition that you're putting forward.

Drake and the others may have been whistleblowers in 2002 when they followed the proper channels, but if you're suggesting that he was prosecuted for whistleblowing you either need to read up on what he was actually charged with (the fact that the charges were dropped and may have been inappropriate doesn't have any bearing on the basic fact of what he was prosecuted for), or be up-front about what exactly you mean when you say "whistleblower", because clearly it's something very different from the commonly-accepted meaning of the term.


No, it didn't reverse position, it just deleted it.

Seriously, the lengths people will go to defend this idiocy is just beyond me. Obama heavily criticized Bush for not being transparent, and said he would change things to encourage, not discourage whistleblowing... that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue... the idea that he has been consistent on this is... as Condoleeza Rice would say, counter-factual.
 
2013-08-12 04:48:01 PM

Zafler: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk


I expect it will all go down the memory hole soon.
 
2013-08-12 04:48:51 PM

firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue


And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.
 
2013-08-12 04:50:27 PM

firefly212: No, it didn't reverse position, it just deleted it.

Seriously, the lengths people will go to defend this idiocy is just beyond me. Obama heavily criticized Bush for not being transparent, and said he would change things to encourage, not discourage whistleblowing... that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue... the idea that he has been consistent on this is... as Condoleeza Rice would say, counter-factual.


You're not referring to that thing where Obama's 2008 campaign website was taken down in its entirety, are you? Because it would be silly if you were.
 
2013-08-12 04:51:46 PM

Biological Ali: The administration is not hostile towards whistleblowers, nor has it "reversed its position" on whistleblower protections as you earlier claimed. Indeed, whistleblower protections have actually been enhanced under the administration.


The Administration publicly says it will protect whistleblowers and even supported legislation doing so, but when it comes to actual practice, it does everything it can to deter it, including undermining the same protections it once said it supported.

Please note that these stories of lack of transparency and lashing out at reporters and their sources is not coming from American Thinker or Blaze, it's coming from NYT, HuffPo, Mother Jones, and other leftist sources.  These are not partisan goons looking for points to score.
 
2013-08-12 04:52:13 PM

LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.


You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.

Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs, and even he's starting to offer concessions to make things right(er).
 
2013-08-12 04:53:30 PM

super_grass: LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.

You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.


Ah, the old "psh duh common sense" gambit.

super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs


"Programs"?
 
2013-08-12 04:54:40 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.

You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.

Ah, the old "psh duh common sense" gambit.

super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs

"Programs"?


Pogroms?
 
2013-08-12 04:55:24 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7883683/85861477#c85861477

Thank you for proving I never said "the libbiest lib who ever libbed "
Got anything else?


Yeah. My paraphrase was pithier. Now why don't you take this little mental breakdown you're having and get it over with as quickly as possible?
 
2013-08-12 04:56:12 PM

PsiChick: Well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or not...it was even  in the comment quoted. Holy hell, this is amazing.


someonelse: I expect it will all go down the memory hole soon.



Bwahahahah, now he's going for exact wording. As if the understanding of the 2 statements weren't precisely aligned. This troll has gone plaid.
 
2013-08-12 04:56:22 PM
The trolls have pretty much threadjacked this thread.
 
2013-08-12 04:57:58 PM
Oh, and on a side note, this is 5th or 6th person I've been accused of being an alt of, even though my log-in is 5 years+ older than most of them, and I have a fairly unique grammatical structure and turn of phrase.
 
2013-08-12 04:58:48 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: Zafler: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk

Well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or not...it was even  in the comment quoted. Holy hell, this is amazing.

You really are not doing a good job with your alt management.  you keep responding to the wrong ones.

In the commented quote it did not say "the libbiest lib who ever libbed"  someone who libbed is not necessarily a liberal.


I don't know what's up with you but describing yourself as a liberal was weird. Please explain why you did that, if you don't mind.
 
2013-08-12 04:59:37 PM

RexTalionis: The trolls have pretty much threadjacked this thread.


Sorry, between his initial offering in the thread and his continued denial of it, I'm getting great amusement out of this particular instance of someone owning themselves. Usually only get to laugh at those in climate change threads.
 
2013-08-12 04:59:44 PM

Cletus C.: I don't know what's up with you


He's an obvious troll who will ALWAYS say whatever will annoy the most people/get the biggest rise?
 
2013-08-12 05:00:09 PM

chrismurphy: vygramul: chrismurphy:Gets you fired, usually.

That's why there are usually formal channels outside the immediate chain of command.

Well except in the Snowden case everyone in that chain of command up to the president has defended the government keeping secrets. And once ratted out, they're all slowly starting to come around, in one form or another, and admit changes are needed (while being vague and circumspect on the details of such changes). Changes are needed is the whole premise of blowing the whistle in the first place.


There's a difference between saying that you need more transparency to prove what you're doing is lawful, and admitting what you're doing is unlawful. Snowden didn't make the former accusation, he made the latter. And, frankly, I think Snowden is just an idiot and doesn't even understand what he was looking at.
 
2013-08-12 05:00:24 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.

You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.

Ah, the old "psh duh common sense" gambit.

super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs

"Programs"?


Flank?

I think you're looking for the Joe Biden steak thread.
 
2013-08-12 05:00:29 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.

You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.

Ah, the old "psh duh common sense" gambit.

super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs

"Programs"?


Are you being dense on purpose or what?

Domestic surveillance was a huge slap to the face for a whole swath of privacy advocates, including Obama circa '08, who promised to rein this kind of stuff in. Despite the quibbling and the playing dumb and the technicalities, what the government did was not okay with the public.

The administration saw that. It decided to pull down statements that would be used to contradict its current stances.
 
2013-08-12 05:02:08 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someone who libbed is not necessarily a liberal.

 
2013-08-12 05:02:42 PM

Cletus C.: super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs

"Programs"?

Flank?

I think you're looking for the Joe Biden steak thread.


D'oh!

super_grass: Domestic surveillance


Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."
 
2013-08-12 05:03:02 PM

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: I don't know what's up with you

He's an obvious troll who will ALWAYS say whatever will annoy the most people/get the biggest rise?


I've been accused of being a troll and having alts, as well. Those accusations are kind of a go-to thing with some around here.

But this guy, who goes far right on most of what he said, described himself as very liberal today. It was odd, for sure.
 
2013-08-12 05:03:29 PM
Sorry, I just had to quote that to make sure it was real.
 
2013-08-12 05:04:28 PM

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: I don't know what's up with you

He's an obvious troll who will ALWAYS say whatever will annoy the most people/get the biggest rise?

I've been accused of being a troll and having alts, as well. Those accusations are kind of a go-to thing with some around here.

But this guy, who goes far right on most of what he said, described himself as very liberal today. It was odd, for sure.


Lots of people get accused of being trolls, sure. But some actually, you know, ARE.
 
2013-08-12 05:04:46 PM

imontheinternet: The Administration publicly says it will protect whistleblowers and even supported legislation doing so, but when it comes to actual practice, it does everything it can to deter it, including undermining the same protections it once said it supported.


First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case - are you conceding the arguments you were making about those things before moving onto this new one?

And, with regards to the link you've just posted: Insinuating that Obama's somehow responsible for court rulings is silly. I mean, I'm sure it's an interesting and controversial topic but framing it as "Obama Poised to Deliver Another Blow to Whistleblower Protections" is really very silly and does a great disservice to anybody trying to encourage meaningful discourse on these topics.
 
2013-08-12 05:04:59 PM

RexTalionis: The trolls have pretty much threadjacked this thread.


I mean, this "cheese claims to be a liberal" thing can no longer be ignored.
 
2013-08-12 05:05:50 PM
Guys, you are missing the whole point. Its ok that this is happening. Its not a Republican who is doing it, its a Democrat, and you know we can trust them to always do the right thing.
 
2013-08-12 05:07:01 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: Domestic surveillance

Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."


I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were about the bigger trend in how government is subverting transparency and rule of law under Obama. You're the one who insists on focusing on legal labels rather than the big picture.
 
2013-08-12 05:07:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: Zafler: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk

Well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or not...it was even  in the comment quoted. Holy hell, this is amazing.

You really are not doing a good job with your alt management.  you keep responding to the wrong ones.

In the commented quote it did not say "the libbiest lib who ever libbed"  someone who libbed is not necessarily a liberal.


Dude. I don't have alts--and how the hell is 'someone who libbed not necessarily a liberal'?

Zafler: Oh, and on a side note, this is 5th or 6th person I've been accused of being an alt of, even though my log-in is 5 years+ older than most of them, and I have a fairly unique grammatical structure and turn of phrase.


I get accused of having alts almost every time someone agrees with me. I think my writing patterns are too average. :p
 
2013-08-12 05:07:15 PM
cman: Stupid butthurt crap I made up to imply a double standard
 
2013-08-12 05:08:07 PM

LasersHurt: cman: Stupid butthurt crap I made up to imply a double standard


LOL OMG YOU ARE farkING FUNNY
 
2013-08-12 05:08:26 PM

Biological Ali: First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case ...


Amanda Bynes really did ask for it, which makes a huge difference.


Is that trolling or just joking around?
 
2013-08-12 05:08:50 PM

super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: Domestic surveillance

Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."

I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were about the bigger trend in how government is subverting transparency and rule of law under Obama. You're the one who insists on focusing on legal labels rather than the big picture.


No, I insist on accurate and honest discussion. Constantly going asking "wheres the change Obama removed promises about whistleblowers etc" and using NSA spying (which BTW is not a Domestic Spying Program anyway) is disingenuous and distracting. The two are not one in the same, and "well I wouldn't put it past them with the recent news" is not proof of anything.
 
2013-08-12 05:10:21 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: Domestic surveillance

Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."

I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were about the bigger trend in how government is subverting transparency and rule of law under Obama. You're the one who insists on focusing on legal labels rather than the big picture.

No, I insist on accurate and honest discussion. Constantly going asking "wheres the change Obama removed promises about whistleblowers etc" and using NSA spying (which BTW is not a Domestic Spying Program anyway) is disingenuous and distracting. The two are not one in the same, and "well I wouldn't put it past them with the recent news" is not proof of anything.


We get it. He's a Democrat.
 
2013-08-12 05:11:50 PM

cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.


I'd love to know why you think that matters.
 
2013-08-12 05:11:53 PM

BeesNuts: vygramul: BeesNuts: The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.

When the Snowden thing first happened, I considered the possibility the NSA had crossed a line. People who spend too much time looking for bad guys eventually see bad guys everywhere. And then they want to do a whole bunch of shiat to protect us, even if it isn't really justifiable. The endless warnings and tips and "credible" sources can be relentless.

But Snowden said several things that totally did not mesh with my experience and I started paying attention. Then it turned out he lied. He didn't work there years, he worked there three months. He didn't make $200k he made only a little more than half that. Oh, of course, there are explanations, but wonderfully vague. "I meant career high salary." But he was careful not to tell us WHERE lest we be able to actually CHECK on his claim. Then there's the contradictions. On the one hand, the government collects EVERYTHING. But then he says he could authorize a wiretap on someone's email. Wait - I thought we already collected that. Doesn't he mean he could do a database query to retrieve their email? What's this about wiretap?

One you start paying attention to the details and look at the slides without preconceptions as to what they say, the story all this tells is very different.

What do all those discrepencies have to do with the difference between leaking and whistleblowing?  I thought it was about whether the activities disclosed were legal?  And also who the information was given to?

So is Prism constitutional?  I think the jury's still out on that.  The other half of the question is who should he have brought that to?

I don't see where the amount of time he worked there or claimed to work there fits into the discussion of whether what he did was illegal or not.  It calls his credibility into question, but we're not arguing about that.


Whistleblowing definitionally assumes illegality, so whether what's going on is illegal even in spirit is important to whether Snowden even qualifies as a whistleblower to begin with.

The question of his claims goes to credibility. If he lies about some things, why believe him on ANY thing?
 
2013-08-12 05:12:04 PM

Cletus C.: Biological Ali: First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case ...

Amanda Bynes really did ask for it, which makes a huge difference.


Is that trolling or just joking around?


Amanda who? What's all this then?
 
2013-08-12 05:14:40 PM

LasersHurt: cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.

I'd love to know why you think that matters.


I doubt you would be saying the same things if it wasn't
 
2013-08-12 05:16:03 PM

vygramul: BeesNuts: vygramul: BeesNuts: The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.

When the Snowden thing first happened, I considered the possibility the NSA had crossed a line. People who spend too much time looking for bad guys eventually see bad guys everywhere. And then they want to do a whole bunch of shiat to protect us, even if it isn't really justifiable. The endless warnings and tips and "credible" sources can be relentless.

But Snowden said several things that totally did not mesh with my experience and I started paying attention. Then it turned out he lied. He didn't work there years, he worked there three months. He didn't make $200k he made only a little more than half that. Oh, of course, there are explanations, but wonderfully vague. "I meant career high salary." But he was careful not to tell us WHERE lest we be able to actually CHECK on his claim. Then there's the contradictions. On the one hand, the government collects EVERYTHING. But then he says he could authorize a wiretap on someone's email. Wait - I thought we already collected that. Doesn't he mean he could do a database query to retrieve their email? What's this about wiretap?

One you start paying attention to the details and look at the slides without preconceptions as to what they say, the story all this tells is very different.

What do all those discrepencies have to do with the difference between leaking and whistleblowing?  I thought it was about whether the activities disclosed were legal?  And also who the information was given to?

So is Prism constitutional?  I think the jury's still out on that.  The other half of the question is who should he have brought that to?

I don't see where the amount of time he worked there or claimed to work there fits into the discussion of whether what he did was illegal or not.  It calls his credibility into question, but we're not arguing about that.

Whistleblowing definitionally assumes illegality, so whether what's going on is illegal even in spirit is important to whether Snowden even qualifies as a whistleblower to begin with.

The question of his claims goes to credibility. If he lies about some things, why believe him on ANY thing?


Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!
 
2013-08-12 05:16:25 PM

cman: LasersHurt: cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.

I'd love to know why you think that matters.

I doubt you would be saying the same things if it wasn't


So, like I said - butthurt crap to imply a double standard.
 
2013-08-12 05:19:14 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: Domestic surveillance

Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."

I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were about the bigger trend in how government is subverting transparency and rule of law under Obama. You're the one who insists on focusing on legal labels rather than the big picture.

No, I insist on accurate and honest discussion. Constantly going asking "wheres the change Obama removed promises about whistleblowers etc" and using NSA spying (which BTW is not a Domestic Spying Program anyway) is disingenuous and distracting. The two are not one in the same, and "well I wouldn't put it past them with the recent news" is not proof of anything.


I didn't want to argue the legal merits of Snowden's whistleblower claim, so I talked about whether or not the secrets he leaked really deserved protection.

Neither of these issues are mentioned in the headline of course.
 
2013-08-12 05:20:52 PM

coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy.


Ok. That has to do with Snowden, how?

It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

That would be true if, well, true. But Snowden certainly didn't demonstrate any such thing.
 
2013-08-12 05:21:33 PM

firefly212: I think where the story goes is that a loyalist to the constitution can still be considered a traitor to the government once the government has strayed far enough from the constitution.


Not in my book.
 
2013-08-12 05:21:48 PM

Biological Ali: First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case - are you conceding the arguments you were making about those things before moving onto this new one?


The argument I've made all along is that Obama has continued Bush's policies of lack of transparency.  Other cases are just more evidence of that.  Going after whistleblowers and being as aggressive as they are against leakers, going so far as to detain the president of Bolivia suspecting that he's carrying Snowden, are indicative of a broader policy of secrecy and creating a chilling effect to deter anybody who would reveal information about the bad things the administration is doing.

Biological Ali: And, with regards to the link you've just posted: Insinuating that Obama's somehow responsible for court rulings is silly. I mean, I'm sure it's an interesting and controversial topic but framing it as "Obama Poised to Deliver Another Blow to Whistleblower Protections" is really very silly and does a great disservice to anybody trying to encourage meaningful discourse on these topics.


The case went up because agencies within the Administration brought them there.  In order for there to be a case, a party has to be pushing from both sides.  Whistleblower advocates and free press advocates push for protection, while the Administration pushes against them   The DOJ is about to throw a reporter in jail.  The Court's findings are irrelevant to the fact that the Obama Administration is challenging these protections in court and trying to get them thrown out or diminished, while claiming to be pro-transparency.
 
2013-08-12 05:23:45 PM

LasersHurt: cman: LasersHurt: cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.

I'd love to know why you think that matters.

I doubt you would be saying the same things if it wasn't

So, like I said - butthurt crap to imply a double standard.


LasersHurt: cman: LasersHurt: cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.

I'd love to know why you think that matters.

I doubt you would be saying the same things if it wasn't

So, like I said - butthurt crap to imply a double standard.


Whatever
 
2013-08-12 05:25:58 PM

coyo: Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!


That IS a question. But that's not what we've been talking about all thread.
 
2013-08-12 05:27:52 PM

Cletus C.: mediablitz: The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.


No. That is not what the administration has ruled. Please stop lying.
 
2013-08-12 05:29:29 PM
huuuurrr durrr iz it tyme yet sheeping???

t.qkme.me
 
2013-08-12 05:41:24 PM

firefly212: Having worked with some of the agencies before, and having had clearance... I can attest that there are times where classification is the default, and agencies demand a compelling reason not to classify things. Without speaking to any particular topic, I've written reports based on publicly available data that ended up getting classified, though even I can't for the life of me figure out why. There is a culture within some parts of the government, not just intelligence parts, where they feel like the less that is public, the less they'll get criticized for by politicians... ultimately a lot of the classification process in many parts of the government ends up being a function of PR more than security.


It must be quite dependent on agency. These all DoD clearances, BTW? Just wondering because DoS has (had?) its own and now HHS, apparently, has one, and they're independently administered.

firefly212: The problem with this approach is that it actually harms security. In order to access relatively benign and useless information, because of rampant over-classifying, there are tens of thousands of people who have security clearances that they really shouldn't have. They get issued the clearances because they need that benign information to do their job, but it also gives them access to a litany of data that was rightly classified.


It's weird because that hasn't been my experience at all. You couldn't get a TS unless you no kidding needed it. Then again, my secret came with a universal need to know, so there's that.

I did find it amusing that there was stuff that was literally marked, "For Soviet Eyes Only." (For our how audience, this was usually stuff required by treaty.)
 
2013-08-12 05:41:59 PM
*home* audience
 
2013-08-12 05:43:09 PM

imontheinternet: The argument I've made all along is that Obama has continued Bush's policies of lack of transparency. Other cases are just more evidence of that. Going after whistleblowers and being as aggressive as they are against leakers, going so far as to detain the president of Bolivia suspecting that he's carrying Snowden, are indicative of a broader policy of secrecy and creating a chilling effect to deter anybody who would reveal information about the bad things the administration is doing.


If you want to prove a point, you'd be better off sticking with just one point of fact and making a coherent argument out of it. Throwing out a whole bunch of half-formed arguments about different stories isn't going to accomplish that, even if you've got many of them. That kind of thing really only works on people more interested in being outraged than in being informed or having meaningful discussion.


The case went up because agencies within the Administration brought them there.  In order for there to be a case, a party has to be pushing from both sides.  Whistleblower advocates and free press advocates push for protection, while the Administration pushes against them   The DOJ is about to throw a reporter in jail.  The Court's findings are irrelevant to the fact that the Obama Administration is challenging these protections in court and trying to get them thrown out or diminished, while claiming to be pro-transparency.

I don't think you've understood what was actually happening in the case in question. It had nothing to do with whistleblowing; it was an employee dismissal that was being challenged, and the court ruled that a certain class of employees in "noncritical sensitive" positions couldn't have their dismissals and demotions reviewed the same way that other government employees could. Obviously, the Obama administration can't order courts not to set new precedents - the guy can't just tell courts how to rule.

Even "whistleblower advocates" acknowledge this, as per your article (but it's buried way below the misleadingly sensational headline):

Whistleblower advocates say the court ruling and the president's memo spell a major rewiring of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. "It's not thatOPM and DOJ are arguing thatwhistleblowers in sensitive positions shouldn't have access to protections. It's an unintended consequence that they have not tried to prevent," says Angela Canterbury, public policy director at the Project on Government Oversight, where I used to work.

Unless you're going to say that the administration should just never defend itself in court at all, lest the court ruling sets some precedent that has "unintended consequences", there's really not a lot to say here.
 
2013-08-12 05:46:31 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: mediablitz: The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.

No. That is not what the administration has ruled. Please stop lying.


Ruled? This is not a monarchy.

You see, the point was that court rulings establish law but in this case the administration has no legal obligation to push every law to its extreme. In fact, the administration could ignore leaks of classified information, establish some sort of personnel policies that result in termination or myriad other methods of dealing with leaks.

A court of appeals panel has agreed with the administration that it can compel a reporter to testify in a case being brought against a leaker. The administration does not have to force that testimony. The court did not say they must.

The administration has been very aggressive against leakers. Perhaps you've missed the stories. There was the Fox reporter who Holder was threatening. There's this guy. Both have been threatened with jail time.
 
2013-08-12 05:48:24 PM

LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.


Fortunately for President Obama, there was nothing to override, as he had done absolutely nothing to strengthen whistleblower protections in the first place... deleting the promise, as much as you'd like to pretend it was never there in the first place, was just the finishing touch on a half decade of abject failure to even attempt to fulfill the promise.
 
2013-08-12 05:51:51 PM

firefly212: deleting the promise


In case you missed my earlier comment:

You're not referring to that thing where Obama's 2008 campaign website was taken down in its entirety, are you? Because it would be silly if you were.
 
2013-08-12 05:52:06 PM

firefly212: he had done absolutely nothing to strengthen whistleblower protections in the first place


LasersHurt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

 
2013-08-12 05:53:23 PM

super_grass: Massive invasions of privacy.

Done.

And don't give me that "legally sound" crap. One of the reasons why these surveillance programs are so obnoxious is the wall of shady legal technicalities used to shield them from scrutiny.


Find a law broken and file your court motion if you have the legal standing then buddy.

coyo:When I hear whistleblower, someone who points out wrongdoing comes to mind. However, whistleblowing is not really relevant here. What is relevant is the extent of survelance that is taking place that certainly violates the spirit if the bill of rights. That is where we must focus on. Any distraction from that is a tacit acceptance of the violations.

Indeed. PRISM is totally legal, and totally WRONG. Why can't people accept something as totally wrong being totally legal and taking action appropriately? Trying to convince the Supreme Court that you're the greater legal eagle seems like an idiot's resolution to this issue to me.

I also wish there were not so many child-like adults who can't accept that legal and right have very different definitions.
 
2013-08-12 05:55:09 PM

Cletus C.: administration has no legal obligation


Arguing that the administration has "no legal obligation" to do something is very different from suggesting that the administration made some commitment or promise not to do it, which is how that particular exchange started.
 
2013-08-12 05:56:17 PM

Biological Ali: Cletus C.: administration has no legal obligation

Arguing that the administration has "no legal obligation" to do something is very different from suggesting that the administration made some commitment or promise not to do it, which is how that particular exchange started.


Sure, it started with the whole "I was promised change" thing. That wasn't me.
 
2013-08-12 05:59:14 PM

vygramul: coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy.

Ok. That has to do with Snowden, how?

It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

That would be true if, well, true. But Snowden certainly didn't demonstrate any such thing.


Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.
 
2013-08-12 05:59:44 PM

Cletus C.: Biological Ali: Cletus C.: administration has no legal obligation

Arguing that the administration has "no legal obligation" to do something is very different from suggesting that the administration made some commitment or promise not to do it, which is how that particular exchange started.

Sure, it started with the whole "I was promised change" thing. That wasn't me.


I know that wasn't you. I'm just pointing out that you're (apparently) not actually disagreeing with anyone there - there's no point getting this thread cluttered up any further with people talking past each other.
 
2013-08-12 06:00:24 PM

vygramul: coyo: Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!

That IS a question. But that's not what we've been talking about all thread.


It's what should be discussed. It is far more important.
 
2013-08-12 06:03:59 PM

coyo: vygramul: coyo: Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!

That IS a question. But that's not what we've been talking about all thread.

It's what should be discussed. It is far more important.


We might disagree on where the line lies WRT security versus oversight but I think we can agree that Snowden really screwed the pooch on this one.
 
2013-08-12 06:04:25 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: mediablitz: The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.

No. That is not what the administration has ruled. Please stop lying.

Ruled? This is not a monarchy.

You see, the point was that court rulings establish law but in this case the administration has no legal obligation to push every law to its extreme. In fact, the administration could ignore leaks of classified information, establish some sort of personnel policies that result in termination or myriad other methods of dealing with leaks.

A court of appeals panel has agreed with the administration that it can compel a reporter to testify in a case being brought against a leaker. The administration does not have to force that testimony. The court did not say they must.

The administration has been very aggressive against leakers. Perhaps you've missed the stories. There was the Fox reporter who Holder was threatening. There's this guy. Both have been threatened with jail time.


*yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.
 
2013-08-12 06:06:20 PM

Cletus C.: Biological Ali: Cletus C.: administration has no legal obligation

Arguing that the administration has "no legal obligation" to do something is very different from suggesting that the administration made some commitment or promise not to do it, which is how that particular exchange started.

Sure, it started with the whole "I was promised change" thing. That wasn't me.


I love how "Hope and Change" has been trotted out like it is some bad thing.
 
2013-08-12 06:10:10 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: (farky'd as: 7375133, 7324714 Waahh! Libruls Blaem Amurka First)


Ohh darn, now I gotta add another thread number.
 
2013-08-12 06:11:17 PM

Biological Ali: I don't think you've understood what was actually happening in the case in question. It had nothing to do with whistleblowing; it was an employee dismissal that was being challenged, and the court ruled that a certain class of employees in "noncritical sensitive" positions couldn't have their dismissals and demotions reviewed the same way that other government employees could. Obviously, the Obama administration can't order courts not to set new precedents - the guy can't just tell courts how to rule.

Even "whistleblower advocates" acknowledge this, as per your article (but it's buried way below the misleadingly sensational headline):


I don't think you understand the judicial process.

The case is being appealed, and the Administration is seeking to have that ruling upheld.

Biological Ali: Unless you're going to say that the administration should just never defend itself in court at all, lest the court ruling sets some precedent that has "unintended consequences", there's really not a lot to say here.


Again, you're not getting it.  The Administration picks and chooses which issues it pursues.  While the Bush DOJ might not challenge state abortion restrictions, the Obama DOJ does.  A Tea Party DOJ might try to challenge rule changes that give more access to the polls.  Just because it's possible to bring a case doesn't mean that you do it.  Just because you CAN throw a reporter in jail doesn't mean you should do it.
 
2013-08-12 06:11:38 PM

Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.


Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.
 
2013-08-12 06:14:10 PM

coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?


You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.
 
2013-08-12 06:21:50 PM

vygramul: firefly212: Having worked with some of the agencies before, and having had clearance... I can attest that there are times where classification is the default, and agencies demand a compelling reason not to classify things. Without speaking to any particular topic, I've written reports based on publicly available data that ended up getting classified, though even I can't for the life of me figure out why. There is a culture within some parts of the government, not just intelligence parts, where they feel like the less that is public, the less they'll get criticized for by politicians... ultimately a lot of the classification process in many parts of the government ends up being a function of PR more than security.

It must be quite dependent on agency. These all DoD clearances, BTW? Just wondering because DoS has (had?) its own and now HHS, apparently, has one, and they're independently administered.

firefly212: The problem with this approach is that it actually harms security. In order to access relatively benign and useless information, because of rampant over-classifying, there are tens of thousands of people who have security clearances that they really shouldn't have. They get issued the clearances because they need that benign information to do their job, but it also gives them access to a litany of data that was rightly classified.

It's weird because that hasn't been my experience at all. You couldn't get a TS unless you no kidding needed it. Then again, my secret came with a universal need to know, so there's that.

I did find it amusing that there was stuff that was literally marked, "For Soviet Eyes Only." (For our how audience, this was usually stuff required by treaty.)


I cannot speak to all agencies, and I'm not sure if I can identify the one for which I wrote without breaking the rules. I can say that in the agency I was working with, that I had access to things I didn't need access to (I never used that access, but it was there)... I had that access because I got my clearance, a clearance that was necessitated by the (imho) improper classification of stuff with no discernible security value whatsoever. I cannot imagine, within DoD (to include NSA) organizational ratings, there are decent safeguards... lost in the hay of the Manning case, with everyone debating right/wrong and the merits of the case... nobody in the press or elsewhere seemed to ask wtf a private first class was doing with access to so much data... frankly, nobody asks why anyone needed access to that volume of data. There needs to be a centralized, standardized system of classification, but beyond that, even people with say... a Secret clearance, should be filtered, such that they don't have unnecessary access to secret documents not relevant to their job/assignment.

The issue with universal (within any given level) clearances are numerous, but the biggest issue is that there are far too many of them. At the classified level, a total of 4.2 MILLION people have a classified security clearance (DNI 2010, published, not classified information...http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/clearance.pdf  ) The meaning of "classified" has largely changed... when we say something is classified... it's damned hard to take it seriously when "classified" quite literally translates to "a population the entire size of the DC metro area has access to this." The combination of over-classification and over-certification leads to a system that is more of a punchline than a security apparatus.
 
2013-08-12 06:23:23 PM

LasersHurt: firefly212: he had done absolutely nothing to strengthen whistleblower protections in the first place

LasersHurt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html


rofls, and what directives does he issue when the doors are closed. Seriously, it's not even an EO... this directive carries all the weight of daydreaming about the US building a starship to battle space pirates.
 
2013-08-12 06:24:15 PM

firefly212: LasersHurt: firefly212: he had done absolutely nothing to strengthen whistleblower protections in the first place

LasersHurt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

rofls, and what directives does he issue when the doors are closed. Seriously, it's not even an EO... this directive carries all the weight of daydreaming about the US building a starship to battle space pirates.


So I prove you wrong, and your response is "nuh uh." Mature, and classy.
 
2013-08-12 06:25:21 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.


Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.
 
2013-08-12 06:29:04 PM

imontheinternet: Again, you're not getting it. The Administration picks and chooses which issues it pursues. While the Bush DOJ might not challenge state abortion restrictions, the Obama DOJ does. A Tea Party DOJ might try to challenge rule changes that give more access to the polls. Just because it's possible to bring a case doesn't mean that you do it. Just because you CAN throw a reporter in jail doesn't mean you should do it.


Again, it doesn't seem as though you know what the case is actually about, or how the thing you seem to be objecting to about has come about. The case itself has nothing to do with whistleblowing - it's about particular employees who think they were terminated unfairly, and the administration obviously disagrees. And the judiciary seems to agree with the administration on that count.

What you're apparently expecting them to do is to essentially try to "throw" this case about the dismissal of particular government employees (which they've already won) because the court possibly set a precedent that you don't like. The administration is just trying to win its case about the dismissed employees - it can't tell the court how to rule, which is why holding the administration responsible for "unintended consequences" arising out of a court ruling is silly. Even if the administration had known ahead of time that this is how the judges are going to rule, the only way for them to avoid this ruling would be to concede every single employee dismissal case that would be heard by those particular judges, and that's a ludicrously high burden to place on them.

I'd advise you not to put too much stock in this misleading headline from Mother Jones, which they themselves seem to disavow later into the piece. The AP version of the story (also cited in the article) puts it in a much more straightforward and accurate way: "Appeals court removes key civil service protection".
 
2013-08-12 06:29:34 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: coyo: vygramul: coyo: Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!

That IS a question. But that's not what we've been talking about all thread.

It's what should be discussed. It is far more important.

We might disagree on where the line lies WRT security versus oversight but I think we can agree that Snowden really screwed the pooch on this one.


I don't care if he did; it's irrelevant.

We as a people need to be more active in government and find out just what powers we have allowed it to have over us. The Nsa is not automatically a bad actor here, it can't just be given a blank check and be immune from public scrutiny.
 
2013-08-12 06:33:03 PM

vygramul: coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.


The crucial difference between stealth fighters and this survalance is that the survalance directly impacts the voters as it targets them and violates thre spirit of the fourth amendment.
 
2013-08-12 06:35:35 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.


See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.
 
2013-08-12 06:38:29 PM

Biological Ali: What you're apparently expecting them to do is to essentially try to "throw" this case about the dismissal of particular government employees (which they've already won) because the court possibly set a precedent that you don't like.


It's not just a ruling that I don't like, it's a ruling that goes against the supposed position of the administration, hence the problem people have with it.  The administration is seeking to make law that hurts whistleblower protection, and that's just one instance in a pattern of anti-whistleblower behavior, in spite of a supposed contrary position.  The administration gets hit every time this happens, because it's been an ongoing problem.
 
2013-08-12 06:49:19 PM

imontheinternet: Biological Ali: What you're apparently expecting them to do is to essentially try to "throw" this case about the dismissal of particular government employees (which they've already won) because the court possibly set a precedent that you don't like.

It's not just a ruling that I don't like, it's a ruling that goes against the supposed position of the administration [1], hence the problem people have with it.  The administration is seeking to make law that hurts whistleblower protection [2], and that's just one instance in a pattern of anti-whistleblower behavior [3] in spite of a supposed contrary position.  The administration gets hit every time this happens, because it's been an ongoing problem.


1 - Which is why, if you have a problem with the ruling, you should take it up with the court. What you're upset about has been an action by the judicial branch, and your attempts to somehow hold the executive branch responsible for this aren't making much sense.

2 - Nothing of the sort is happening. The administration is trying to win a case regarding the dismissal of a couple DoD employees for reasons completely unrelated to whistleblowing. It is being speculated that a precedent set in the court ruling could conceivably - as an unintended consequence - allow retaliatory dismissal or demotion of whistleblowers in the future. There's just no rational way to get from what actually happened to "The administration is seeking to make law that hurts whistleblower protection".

3 - You may think you see a pattern, but none of the arguments you've presented so far have held up under scrutiny - you've basically argued one thing for a little while, then eventually dropped it and started with something else. Weak arguments don't magically turn into good ones if you gather enough of them together.
 
2013-08-12 06:52:59 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.


Thats all good reason to try the guy, but I don't really see what's so compelling about this particular story that we need to go after associated journalists and bully them into being a witness anyways. I mean, if we let the government coerce unwilling people into testifying, what does it really say about the fairness of the trial for the defendant. Freedom of speech should include the freedom to not speak... my problem isn't with the government attempting to prosecute the leaker, but in this case, with their threatening witnesses.
 
2013-08-12 07:03:02 PM

coyo: vygramul: coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.

The crucial difference between stealth fighters and this survalance is that the survalance directly impacts the voters as it targets them and violates thre spirit of the fourth amendment.


Not foreign surveillance. And we kept the fact we were listening to Ultra and Purple from the voters.
 
2013-08-12 07:18:16 PM

vygramul: coyo: vygramul: coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.

The crucial difference between stealth fighters and this survalance is that the survalance directly impacts the voters as it targets them and violates thre spirit of the fourth amendment.

Not foreign surveillance. And we kept the fact we were listening to Ultra and Purple from the voters.


That's what gets me about this... I don't care about foreign surveillance... but what the FISA court has authorized, by saying anyone three steps out is that if A talks to B, and party A is foreign, and connected to a national security issue, that conversation is covered (I'm ok with that so far)... but then it goes further, even if B is American, it says that the NSA can listen to all calls between B and C, even if there is no evidence of knowledge or participation by B.... then it goes even further, the NSA can listen to conversations between parties C and D under the three steps out rule... C and D can both be American, and even if neither of them is aware of the existence of A, the NSA can record their conversations. What we've effectively constructed under those ospices is a system where the NSA can take any two parties (including domestically), record their conversations, then try to retroactively connect them to some other party, then try to connect that party to someone in one of their investigations... and voila, it's legit!

I know the argument has been made by President Obama, and some here on fark, that it isn't a domestic spying program, it's a foreign spying program that just *happens* to capture all your internet and phone data domestically... but the effect, if not the tortured reasoning behind it, is incredibly Orwellian, and just plain wrong... the net effect is that we are all, in the eyes of our own government, suspects, not citizens.
 
2013-08-12 07:36:34 PM
Bottom line - you can't pick and choose what is classified and what is whistleblower.

If D Day would have been leaked, would that have been OK?

How about the date and time for getting bin Laden?
 
2013-08-12 07:37:48 PM

vygramul: coyo: vygramul: coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.

The crucial difference between stealth fighters and this survalance is that the survalance directly impacts the voters as it targets them and violates thre spirit of the fourth amendment.

Not foreign surveillance. And we kept the fact we were listening to Ultra and Purple from the voters.


Seems that this is only "foreign survalance" if you really stretch definitions.
 
2013-08-12 07:40:32 PM

firefly212: That's what gets me about this... I don't care about foreign surveillance... but what the FISA court has authorized, by saying anyone three steps out is that if A talks to B, and party A is foreign, and connected to a national security issue, that conversation is covered (I'm ok with that so far)... but then it goes further, even if B is American, it says that the NSA can listen to all calls between B and C, even if there is no evidence of knowledge or participation by B.... then it goes even further, the NSA can listen to conversations between parties C and D under the three steps out rule... C and D can both be American, and even if neither of them is aware of the existence of A, the NSA can record their conversations. What we've effectively constructed under those ospices is a system where the NSA can take any two parties (including domestically), record their conversations, then try to retroactively connect them to some other party, then try to connect that party to someone in one of their investigations... and voila, it's legit!

I know the argument has been made by President Obama, and some here on fark, that it isn't a domestic spying program, it's a foreign spying program that just *happens* to capture all your internet and phone data domestically... but the effect, if not the tortured reasoning behind it, is incredibly Orwellian, and just plain wrong... the net effect is that we are all, in the eyes of our own government, suspects, not citizens.


This is what really bothers me about short-sightedness in government. That Supreme Court ruling from DECADES ago, that phone metadata is not private, is now coming around to truly bite us in the ass.
 
2013-08-12 07:48:29 PM

vygramul: firefly212: That's what gets me about this... I don't care about foreign surveillance... but what the FISA court has authorized, by saying anyone three steps out is that if A talks to B, and party A is foreign, and connected to a national security issue, that conversation is covered (I'm ok with that so far)... but then it goes further, even if B is American, it says that the NSA can listen to all calls between B and C, even if there is no evidence of knowledge or participation by B.... then it goes even further, the NSA can listen to conversations between parties C and D under the three steps out rule... C and D can both be American, and even if neither of them is aware of the existence of A, the NSA can record their conversations. What we've effectively constructed under those ospices is a system where the NSA can take any two parties (including domestically), record their conversations, then try to retroactively connect them to some other party, then try to connect that party to someone in one of their investigations... and voila, it's legit!

I know the argument has been made by President Obama, and some here on fark, that it isn't a domestic spying program, it's a foreign spying program that just *happens* to capture all your internet and phone data domestically... but the effect, if not the tortured reasoning behind it, is incredibly Orwellian, and just plain wrong... the net effect is that we are all, in the eyes of our own government, suspects, not citizens.

This is what really bothers me about short-sightedness in government. That Supreme Court ruling from DECADES ago, that phone metadata is not private, is now coming around to truly bite us in the ass.


I agree with you on that.

When I am feeling cynical, I think that the laws are only followed when it's convenient, and that justice is mostly a luxury item that can be counterfeited for the right price.
 
2013-08-12 07:57:10 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: super_grass: Massive invasions of privacy.

Done.

And don't give me that "legally sound" crap. One of the reasons why these surveillance programs are so obnoxious is the wall of shady legal technicalities used to shield them from scrutiny.

Find a law broken and file your court motion if you have the legal standing then buddy.


The ACLU and like a dozen other organizations already did.
 
2013-08-12 08:03:43 PM

coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.


No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.
 
2013-08-12 08:16:23 PM
firefly212:

 I can say that in the agency I was working with, that I had access to things I didn't need access to (I never used that access, but it was there)... I had that access because I got my clearance, a clearance that was necessitated by the (imho) improper classification of stuff with no discernible security value whatsoever. I cannot imagine, within DoD (to include NSA) organizational ratings, there are decent safeguards 

You 'had access' but you were not, I am quite sure, actually legally/by policy permitted to access material outside that required for the task you were retained to perform. If you went into another file using your access you would be potentially in deep shiat, regardless of 'clearance'. Clearance to a certain level is NOT in any way equivalent to authorisation to access (let alone release/duplicate) all information at that level. Is anything about that incorrect?

Inadequate monitoring of actual access to prevent simple criminal theft (manning) or just plain excessive access/snooping (snowden) is a potentially serious issue, but not the issue being actually highlighted and complained about by anyone at all.

I have a key/security code to this building and access to all rooms and servers. I have the necessary credentials to access/manipulate all data. However accessing my colleagues (or even worse, customers) personnel files or wage records would be both illegal and an instant dismissal offense.
 
2013-08-12 08:28:36 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").


I'm sorry, but this was HILARIOUS. 5kg of dairy product a LIBERAL?! Man, I've seen everything.
 
2013-08-12 08:30:04 PM
That darn, darn Bush!
 
2013-08-12 08:31:59 PM

Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.


What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?
 
2013-08-12 08:35:44 PM

coyo: Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.

What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?


"Collateral damage".

The word is "collateral damage". And word gets out on the massacre, the enemy would know our troops' position, endangering American lives. We can't have that. It's best if he just went through the proper government channels and filed a complaint.
 
2013-08-12 08:40:23 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?

Do you have any proof that you are the libbiest lib who ever libbed?

I never said that so I need no proof.


Keep note of this, in case you ever slightly twist someone else's words to try and pin them with something. "I didn't say those exact words, so nah nah it's not true!" Just note this right here. We can look at this right here when you change someone else's words, so we can laugh at you even more.
 
2013-08-12 08:43:34 PM

super_grass: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.

What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?

"Collateral damage".

The word is "collateral damage". And word gets out on the massacre, the enemy would know our troops' position, endangering American lives. We can't have that. It's best if he just went through the proper government channels and filed a complaint.


How about a year after it happened?
 
2013-08-12 08:57:48 PM

coyo: super_grass: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.

What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?

"Collateral damage ...


No man, the troop movements are classified until the government decides to have it unclassified. During this time, any attempts to reveal this information will lead to classified charges.

Also, the classification of the information is also classified, and so is the de-classification process.

It's for your safety, who are you to think that you know better than government?
 
2013-08-12 09:21:33 PM

coyo: Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.

What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?


Let's look at it another way. If someone stole plans and secrets for a new stealth fighter, and gave it to another country, would that be legal or illegal? It is all based on intent.

We are not arguing that the guy who stole the classified information was guilty of a crime. We are talking about someone who is compelled to testify against someone who broke the law.
 
2013-08-12 09:57:38 PM

RexTalionis: factoryconnection: but would it have killed the columnist's message to even briefly explain the basis for the ruling against James Risen invoking reporter's privilege?

You can read the decision for yourself here, however, the crux of the issue pertaining to the Reporter's Privilege was that the 4th Circuit cited the 1972 Supreme Court Decision Branzburg v. Hayes, which stated that there is no general purpose reporter's privilege arising out of the First Amendment.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115028.p.pdf (a discussion of the common law reporter's privilege starts at around page 32.)


We go through this every time a reporter gets jailed for refusing to name sources.

It hasn't "killed" journalism; their own incompetence and inability to report on timely stories in a coherent manner has done that quite adequately for them.
 
2013-08-12 09:59:57 PM

vpb: Weaver95: Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!

Except that that's not what this guy did.  He revealed information on CIA operations against CIA operations against the Iranian nuclear program as revenge for his being fired.  He even said hat he was going to leak classified information to get revenge.  The reporter wrote a book about the CIA operations.

I don't think any country would grant immunity to someone like that.  This isn't even about getting the reporter to reveal his source, they already know that.  It's just about having him testify about a crime he witnessed.

Not what TFA claimed at all.


So the whistleblower is a bitter old prick.  Doesn't mean that the information isn't deserving of sunshine.

BTW, couldn't the reporter also claim a 5th Amendment protection?
 
2013-08-12 10:36:55 PM

pueblonative: vpb: Weaver95: Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!

Except that that's not what this guy did.  He revealed information on CIA operations against CIA operations against the Iranian nuclear program as revenge for his being fired.  He even said hat he was going to leak classified information to get revenge.  The reporter wrote a book about the CIA operations.

I don't think any country would grant immunity to someone like that.  This isn't even about getting the reporter to reveal his source, they already know that.  It's just about having him testify about a crime he witnessed.

Not what TFA claimed at all.

So the whistleblower is a bitter old prick.  Doesn't mean that the information isn't deserving of sunshine.

BTW, couldn't the reporter also claim a 5th Amendment protection?


Due process violation? Right not to self incriminate? How do you figure?
 
2013-08-12 11:12:24 PM
Maybe the GOPers in Congress can help.
 
2013-08-12 11:13:11 PM

SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?


Maybe the NYT should try a second amendment remedy.
 
2013-08-12 11:16:54 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Aristocles: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.

There are so many odd memes here:
-  must be a paid troll
-  he disagrees with me, so the person is a troll
-  there is more than one person who disagrees with me, so that must be an alt.

I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.


You got caught using the wrong screen name, but keep spinning.
 
2013-08-13 01:22:31 AM
Cats eat cheese.
 
2013-08-13 01:34:28 AM

Kittypie070: Cats eat cheese.


Is that before or after they cut it?
 
2013-08-13 01:42:13 AM
Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?
 
2013-08-13 01:48:11 AM

5Nickels: Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?


This is why we need single payer as soon as possible.
 
2013-08-13 01:48:46 AM

Bucky Katt: Kittypie070: Cats eat cheese.

Is that before or after they cut it?


Yes.
 
2013-08-13 01:53:20 AM

coyo: 5Nickels: Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?

This is why we need single payer as soon as possible.


Who is going to run it?  We know the government tract record is not great.  kicking the can (both parties) is not funding a program.  Sure you at least know SS was set up to be a retirement subsidy, Not farkking retirement funds to live on. But oh so many fell for it, and we are stuck with it, just like so many other things that just HAVE to be funded.
 
2013-08-13 01:53:35 AM

imontheinternet: Biological Ali: First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case - are you conceding the arguments you were making about those things before moving onto this new one?

The argument I've made all along is that Obama has continued Bush's policies of lack of transparency.  Other cases are just more evidence of that.  Going after whistleblowers and being as aggressive as they are against leakers, going so far as to detain the president of Bolivia suspecting that he's carrying Snowden, are indicative of a broader policy of secrecy and creating a chilling effect to deter anybody who would reveal information about the bad things the administration is doing.

Biological Ali: And, with regards to the link you've just posted: Insinuating that Obama's somehow responsible for court rulings is silly. I mean, I'm sure it's an interesting and controversial topic but framing it as "Obama Poised to Deliver Another Blow to Whistleblower Protections" is really very silly and does a great disservice to anybody trying to encourage meaningful discourse on these topics.

The case went up because agencies within the Administration brought them there.  In order for there to be a case, a party has to be pushing from both sides.  Whistleblower advocates and free press advocates push for protection, while the Administration pushes against them   The DOJ is about to throw a reporter in jail.  The Court's findings are irrelevant to the fact that the Obama Administration is challenging these protections in court and trying to get them thrown out or diminished, while claiming to be pro-transparency.


Dude ( or dudette ), I have been reading your arguments in this thread (I live in India under much worse surveillance for completely different reasons and don't have much of a dog in this game) and I think you are making a mighty fine case, but I am afraid you are in a lost cause against the true believers. If you are having to explain to a guy like biological ali (whose opinion I typically find sound on most issues), on how 'transparency' , 'whistle blowing' , 'ed snowden' and 'prosecution of a reporter by the DoJ' are connected to Obama's presidency and legacy, I think it is an issue of credulity, not comprehension.
 
2013-08-13 01:58:46 AM

coyo: 5Nickels: Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?

This is why we need single payer as soon as possible.


Agreed. Single payer is the way to go, but it will never be discussed because... umm.... SOCIALIZIMS. Or something.
 
2013-08-13 02:48:04 AM

Kittypie070: Cats eat cheese.


My cat helped me eat a cheeseburger today.
 
2013-08-13 02:50:32 AM
 
2013-08-13 02:52:25 AM

Kittypie070: angrily throws link across room to smash hole in three suceeding walls and a window


You want to come help me eat another cheeseburger?
 
2013-08-13 02:58:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: Kittypie070: angrily throws link across room to smash hole in three suceeding walls and a window

You want to come help me eat another cheeseburger?


Where would I go?

After this week is up, I'm done here for good.
I have to say goodbyes around here so people don't worry.
 
2013-08-13 06:08:11 AM

Triple Oak: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?

Do you have any proof that you are the libbiest lib who ever libbed?

I never said that so I need no proof.

Keep note of this, in case you ever slightly twist someone else's words to try and pin them with something. "I didn't say those exact words, so nah nah it's not true!" Just note this right here. We can look at this right here when you change someone else's words, so we can laugh at you even more.


There is no magic here, he posted form the wrong alt account and has been spending hours trying to spin away the mistake.  I mean, really, if you don't know tenpoundsofderp is a troll by now there really is no hope for you.
 
2013-08-13 07:47:50 AM

Kittypie070: angrily throws link across room to smash hole in three suceeding walls and a window


Why? Because that thread is dumber than this one? Or because Congress likes to pretend that it had no input on this?
 
2013-08-13 09:46:56 AM

Gyrfalcon: pueblonative: vpb: Weaver95: Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!

Except that that's not what this guy did.  He revealed information on CIA operations against CIA operations against the Iranian nuclear program as revenge for his being fired.  He even said hat he was going to leak classified information to get revenge.  The reporter wrote a book about the CIA operations.

I don't think any country would grant immunity to someone like that.  This isn't even about getting the reporter to reveal his source, they already know that.  It's just about having him testify about a crime he witnessed.

Not what TFA claimed at all.

So the whistleblower is a bitter old prick.  Doesn't mean that the information isn't deserving of sunshine.

BTW, couldn't the reporter also claim a 5th Amendment protection?

Due process violation? Right not to self incriminate? How do you figure?


Well, considering the fact that the Justice Department labeled him a "criminal co-conspirator"  I would figure it like that.  Granted, no journalist has been prosecuted yet and the justice department isn't "anticipating filing" anything against him, there's always a first time.
 
2013-08-13 11:04:41 AM
amiable:

There is no magic here, he posted form the wrong alt account and has been spending hours trying to spin away the mistake.  I mean, really, if you don't know tenpoundsofderp is a troll by now there really is no hope for you.

Oh I know, but I'm of the "feed them until they explode" notion instead of the "ignore them (they're not going away)" notion. It's funny to hear no counter-argument to it from the cheese, either.
 
2013-08-13 12:03:11 PM

5Nickels: coyo: 5Nickels: Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?

This is why we need single payer as soon as possible.

Who is going to run it?  We know the government tract record is not great.  kicking the can (both parties) is not funding a program.  Sure you at least know SS was set up to be a retirement subsidy, Not farkking retirement funds to live on. But oh so many fell for it, and we are stuck with it, just like so many other things that just HAVE to be funded.


Having lived overseas and experiencing government run healthcare vs privately run healthcare, the government did a *much* better job.
 
2013-08-13 01:43:49 PM

justaguy516: If you are having to explain to a guy like biological ali (whose opinion I typically find sound on most issues), on how 'transparency' , 'whistle blowing' , 'ed snowden' and 'prosecution of a reporter by the DoJ' are connected to Obama's presidency and legacy, I think it is an issue of credulity, not comprehension.


What does that even mean? My whole point in my exchanges with imontheinternet is that merely making a list of buzzwords and other assorted weak arguments that you haven't even bothered to defend properly, and then passing it off as a "pattern" isn't a particularly convincing way to debate. It doesn't matter how many things you have on your list if none of them actually hold up under scrutiny - this form of "argument" is more commonly known as a Gish Gallop, and that's not exactly a compliment.
 
2013-08-13 01:55:24 PM

pueblonative: Well, considering the fact that the Justice Department labeled him a "criminal co-conspirator" I would figure it like that. Granted, no journalist has been prosecuted yet and the justice department isn't "anticipating filing" anything against him, there's always a first time.


First of all, your links are about a completely different guy, though I know their names are a little similar. James Risen is the New York Times reporter mentioned in TFA, whereas James Rosen is with Fox News.

Second, in cases where a person's testimony is sought in court, as with Risen (as opposed to where a person is being investigated as a suspect, as with Rosen), immunity is typically offered in exchange for testimony, which negates the basis for "pleading the Fifth", for obvious reasons.
 
Displayed 337 of 337 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report