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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report