http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002157186

Quote :

"Reporters who write about government surveillance could be prosecuted under proposed legislation that would solidify the administration's eavesdropping authority, according to some legal analysts who are concerned about dramatic changes in U.S. law. But an aide to the bill's chief author, Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said that is not the intention of the legislation. "It in no way applies to reporters — in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made." The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the legislation, which could be introduced as soon as next week. The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law. Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. "The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact," said Martin, a civil liberties advocate. DeWine is co-sponsoring the bill with Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The White House and Republican Senate leaders have indicated general support, but the bill could face changes as it works its way through Congress. Existing U.S. law makes it a crime to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person, generally putting the burden on government officials to protect the information. But a special provision exists to provide added protections for highly classified electronic — or "signals" — intelligence. That would include U.S. intelligence codes or systems used to break them. David Tomlin, the AP's assistant general counsel, said government officials with security clearances would be potential targets under DeWine's bill. "But so would anyone else who received an illegal disclosure under the proposed act, knew what it was and deliberately disclosed it to others. That's what some reporters do, often to great public benefit," he said. Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the language would allow anyone — "if you read a story in the paper and pass it along to your brother-in-law" — to be prosecuted. "As a practical matter, would they use this to try to punish any newspaper or any broadcast? It essentially makes coverage of any of these surveillance programs illegal," she said. "I'm sorry, that's just not constitutional.""

3/23/2006 11:41:50 AM

Hey. What we don't know can't surveil us...

3/23/2006 11:51:25 AM

Quote :

"The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" "

Not that I really support this but doesn't this line basicaly say it's already illegal, they're just adding more penalties?

3/23/2006 11:53:44 AM

Only the guilty have something to hide.

3/23/2006 12:46:14 PM

^ with this law, it does makes it easier to hide.

3/23/2006 1:50:13 PM

Quote :

"GGMon: Only the guilty have something to hide."

Speaking of which...just what is up with Bush's nearly-20-year old SEC investigation anyway? And his continuous use of executive privilege regarding the domestic spying scandal and other topics?

3/23/2006 3:26:24 PM

i love being right about this fucking administration

fucking gestapo shit

3/23/2006 5:01:34 PM

^ have a cookie

3/23/2006 6:18:46 PM

How did we go from this:

Quote :

"Existing U.S. law makes it a crime to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person, generally putting the burden on government officials to protect the information."

To this:

Quote :

"The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law."

I suspect that the changes being made in our government are the direct result of rising populations and the internet. There's too many of us to begin with, and too many of us are logged in to the truth. This is unnerving.

3/23/2006 6:28:08 PM

Quote :

"I suspect that the changes being made in our government are the direct result of rising populations and the internet."

could you ellaborate on this? What difference does it matter whether there are 300 million Americans or 30 million? Secrecy is important to megalomaniacs no matter how many people they are keeping the secret from. You could blame it on the rise of the Internet, and I guess you could blame the rise of the internet on there being so many people, was this your reasoning?

3/23/2006 9:12:53 PM

What I was referring to was disallusionment. Jesus, I don't even know if I spelled that right. I'll try to make it clear without big words I don't quite understand...

I made a mistake by referring only to increasing populations. I should have focused on increasingly large communities.

The larger our communities get, the more difficult it is for everyone to feel included.

I believe larger communities yield disaffected communities of people who see no point in going along with the bullshit.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 10:41 PM. Reason : sss]

3/23/2006 10:37:58 PM

I think you meant disillusionment

3/23/2006 10:40:20 PM

3/23/2006 10:41:50 PM

thanks

3/23/2006 11:09:15 PM

It would speed things up and make it easier for all involved if they would just pass a law instead that said it was illegal to question the gov't.

Then we could sleep at night without all that stuff clogging up our pretty little heads.

3/24/2006 12:40:36 AM

Quote :

"I believe larger communities yield disaffected communities of people who see no point in going along with the bullshit."

Ok. well, your opinion is still off, I believe. I don't see much of a difference between the US population being 300 million, as today, and 100 million as 50 years ago. Once you have a sufficiently large society, it just becomes more of the same. Another 10,000 people? Just another sky-scraper among hundreds.

So, I suspect the "not going along with the bullshit" statement is also backwards. People put up with more at different points in history. Governments lose and gain trust, just like people. The internet may make it easier to spy on the government, but it is still dependent on the people in society wanting to do so.

It is entirely possible to have a society of 1.3 billion people and for it not to be common knowledge that military tanks just 10 years were used against a group of protesters (see China).

3/24/2006 1:23:29 AM

Quote :

"It is entirely possible to have a society of 1.3 billion people and for it not to be common knowledge that military tanks just 10 years were used against a group of protesters (see China)."

Because of laws like the one being proposed here.

Quote :

"Ok. well, your opinion is still off, I believe. I don't see much of a difference between the US population being 300 million, as today, and 100 million as 50 years ago. Once you have a sufficiently large society, it just becomes more of the same. Another 10,000 people? Just another sky-scraper among hundreds. So, I suspect the "not going along with the bullshit" statement is also backwards. People put up with more at different points in history. Governments lose and gain trust, just like people. The internet may make it easier to spy on the government, but it is still dependent on the people in society wanting to do so."

I suspect you may be right about my "more people" statement not being relevant. Also, in some ways, the internet could be viewed as a tool to connect disaffected members of society. Connected in what though?

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 12:56 PM. Reason : sss]

3/24/2006 12:53:48 PM

well, probably the Establishment view is that it would connect people in their working against the Establishment

3/24/2006 1:03:54 PM

They connect to each other, probably.

The internet is a great tool for many things. Circumventing oppresive government censorship is one application. However, this pre-supposes that the government is trying to censor in the first place. It also pre-supposes that a segment of society finds the censorship intollerable (outlawing political dissent on an issue no-one would bother talking about anyway is one example).

If china really wanted to control its people, it could just outlaw the internet itself, people would have to go back to holding secret meetings.

As for this thread, Bush is not smart and has done reparable harm to this country.

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/24/2006 1:05:16 PM

Quote :

"If china really wanted to control its people, it could just outlaw the internet itself, people would have to go back to holding secret meetings."

Maybe this would have worked in the past.

But not now.

Outlaw the internet?

That would be asking for mass protest.

Quote :

"As for this thread, Bush is not smart and has done reparable harm to this country."

I'm trying to figure out why they would attempt to pass a law like this. Is it really just delusional power-tripping and the state of not being "smart"?

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 1:10 PM. Reason : sss]

3/24/2006 1:08:26 PM

Quote :

"I'm trying to figure out why they would attempt to pass a law like this. Is it really just delusional power-tripping and the state of not being "smart"?"

I suspect so. Come the next presidential election, such laws will be among the first to go, I suspect.

3/24/2006 1:20:53 PM

Quote :

"As for this thread, Bush is not smart and has done reparable harm to this country."

at least its not irreparable harm.

3/24/2006 1:21:39 PM

^ That was not a typo. The vast majority of the damage bush has wraught could be easily repaired after the next presidential election (most of which was done through executive orders anyway).

3/24/2006 5:23:21 PM

So does nobody care about this? Is is it just assumed that these changes will not be passed so they aren't worth discussing anyway? Even if they won't pass, is it still not worth discussing? What's going on here, guys?

[Edited on March 25, 2006 at 12:37 AM. Reason : sss]

3/25/2006 12:37:08 AM

3/25/2006 12:45:36 AM

My condemnation for such lunacy has passed. It is sort of like yelling for a year or so that the levy is going to break if so-and-so policy is continued. Well, the levy broke yesterday, does it really behoove us to keep harping on it? The time to move on has passed. This administration is a lost cause. Come back in '08.

3/25/2006 1:06:54 AM

Quote :

"So does nobody care about this? Is is it just assumed that these changes will not be passed so they aren't worth discussing anyway? Even if they won't pass, is it still not worth discussing? What's going on here, guys? "

There are 3 things needed before any meaningful discussion about this can happen:

1) The actual text of the proposed law, not the paraphrased over the top shit in the article.

2) The text of the current law on the issue at hand

3) The answer to this question:

Quote :

" doesn't this line basicaly say it's already illegal, they're just adding more penalties?"

3/25/2006 10:51:10 AM

^For starters, TSB has never required that much information in order to form a discussion.

As far as your question goes, I already answered it based on the article. Since you formed your question around the article, I'm not sure why you couldn't read the rest of the article to find the answer. Also, if you require those two others things, why'd you ask the question in the first place? It's not worth discussing, right? Answer to your question (in the form of my post):

Quote :

" How did we go from this: Quote: "Existing U.S. law makes it a crime to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person, generally putting the burden on government officials to protect the information." To this: Quote: "The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law." "

[Edited on March 25, 2006 at 2:08 PM. Reason : sss]

3/25/2006 2:08:02 PM

The article doesn't really answer the question. Well to be more accurate it does, but it pretends the answer is the opposite. Observe:

Quote :

"Existing U.S. law makes it a crime to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person, generally putting the burden on government officials to protect the information. "The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.""

If we look at the text of the article one way, it say quite clearly that it's already illegal and the proposed law increases the penalties.

However, if we look at the comparison that the two statements make about the type of information adressed we get a different picture:

Quote :

"Existing U.S. law makes it a crime to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person, generally putting the burden on government officials to protect the information." The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law." "

In this case it appears (using the same text) that the existing law and the new law focus on two seperate sets of information. In otherwords the written text of each phrase does not coincide with the implication of the two statements nor the opening paragraph of the article.

That's why I'm asking for the text, because the article as a whole implies that it isn't already illegal while the relevant words indicate that it's already illegal and the penalties are being increased.

3/25/2006 2:38:02 PM

^Nah, I feel ya. I noticed that too. Sorry for making you type it all out.

I guess I'll look up the law today (if it's online). Otherwise, it'll be tomorrow since I'm gonna be at the library anyway.

How does one access the current language of potential bills?

[Edited on March 25, 2006 at 3:03 PM. Reason : sss]

3/25/2006 2:57:38 PM

do you mean bills yet to be voted on, or still in committee, or what?

3/25/2006 3:11:51 PM

^Both, I guess...since I'm not sure what stage this one is at...

If it's in committee, we wouldn't have access to it, would we?

[Edited on March 25, 2006 at 3:18 PM. Reason : sss]

3/25/2006 3:17:34 PM

actually we might

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html

[Edited on March 25, 2006 at 3:28 PM. Reason : try this]

3/25/2006 3:28:36 PM

Quote :

""

subtle
but i like it

3/25/2006 3:36:36 PM

^Very subtle...I just now noticed it! I digs.

3/25/2006 7:21:09 PM

Yeah, uhhhh...I made another empty promise to the Soap Box. There's no way I'm gonna look up this law or go to the library today. I gots games to watch.

3/26/2006 2:03:41 PM

ok, don't even look at the link I put in

3/26/2006 4:09:39 PM

^

3/26/2006 5:32:49 PM

bttt

3/26/2006 10:38:13 PM