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?
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").
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.
vygramul: chrismurphy:Gets you fired, usually.That's why there are usually formal channels outside the immediate chain of command.
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?
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?
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.
LasersHurt: firefly212: The guy got elected on a platform of change, yetWhenever 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.
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.
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 ...
vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.
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...
SphericalTime: WTF? Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?
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.
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!
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.
nmrsnr: There's even a handy list going back to 1984.
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?
If you like these links, you'll love
All the submissions, none of the calories.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Nov 23 2017 03:41:44
Runtime: 0.529 sec (529 ms)