[Politech] Replies to Hiawatha Bray's response, and whether the law is really the law after all [fs]
Previous Politech messages:
http://www.politechbot.com/2006/05/22/hiawatha-brays-response/
http://www.politechbot.com/2006/05/22/perry-metzgers-call/
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Hiawatha Bray's response on wiretapping of
journalists: the law's the law [fs]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:31:36 -0500
From: Andy Ringsmuth
From the original article:
It can be argued by some who do not agree with me that the reporters
in question are somehow "helping the terrorists" by revealing things
like the fact that the US Government has SigInt operations, but in
fact anyone who isn't an idiot already knows we have SigInt
operations. What the reporters have done -- heroically, I might add --
is reveal that the government has far exceeded the bounds of legality
in performing such operations, even when legal methods existed to gain
the same information.
Declan,
One thing that routinely irks me about the media today is the
increasing trend towards editorializing in the news, particularly
when what is said is false. Perry Metzger says that "the government
has far exceeded the bounds of legality in performing such
operations" and says it as if it were fact. I don't know if Metzger
is a journalist or not, I will admit.
In truth, however, while there are some cases pending in various
courts and maybe a Senate investigation in the works, at this
juncture any claim as to whether or not the government has broken the
law is just that - a claim, and thus not fact. It may well be
Metzger's opinion that the government broke the law, but until that
has been proven or disproven in a court of law, it is merely an
allegation and nothing more.
I routinely see politicians and even the media referring to this
stuff in terms like "the illegal wiretapping issue" or "the illegal
NSA wiretapping," etc. Whether or not a law has been broken is for a
COURT to decide, not a politician or a journalist. It seems to me
that as journalists word things like they do, it is a subtle but
gross indication of their political bias, and thus a terrible
disservice as they mislead (intentional or otherwise) their readers/
viewers. Brian Ross and Richard Esposito get it right in their blog,
as they don't state allegations as fact.
Hiawatha Bray is correct in stating that " it's illegal for
journalists to knowingly publish classified information" as that is a
statement of fact. But if Bray were to say that "Scooter Libby
illegally leaked Valerie Plame's identity" it would be false. An
accurate statement would be "Scooter Libby allegedly leaked...."
There is a big difference there. Similarly, if Metzger had said "it
is alleged that the government has far exceeded the bounds of
legality in performing such operations" or "Some say the government
has far exceeded..." that would be legit. But to consider one's self
to be judge and jury just isn't right.
Respectfully,
-Andy Ringsmuth
andyring@inebraska.com
(OK to display my e-mail address if this makes it to your Politech list)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Hiawatha Bray's response on wiretapping of
journalists: the law's the law [fs]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:35:25 -0700 (MST)
From: terry@terrybressi.org
To: declan@well.com
Rubbish. Exactly what part of the First Amendment phrase, "Congress shall
make no law..." does Mr. Bray not fully grasp? While Congress may have the
legitimate authority to prohibit government employees from leaking
classified information, it most certainly doesn't have the legitimate
authority to make it a crime for the press to publish or report on
classified information.
Indeed, if Congress could pass such a law, there would be little to stop
the federal government from unconstitutionally spying on the American
people and making evidence of such an act classified in order to cover-up
the government's malfeasance.
Perhaps Mr. Bray should avail himself of a remedial class in Civics 101 so
as to better understand the checks and balances that exist within a
Constitutional Republic such as ours.
Terry Bressi
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Hiawatha Bray's Javertism
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:40:50 -0500
From: Jim Davidson
reporters. Still, the law's the law, and reporters are bound to it like everybody else.
Until the law is found to be unconstitutional or in conflict with
another law.
Besides, the implication is that the tracking is being done by the NSA.
I would
have thought it was the FBI's responsibility to investigate criminal leaks.
My own personal feeling is that it should not be possible for criminal
actions
to be deemed classified.
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Beck - http://pacanukeha.wordpress.com
The sad fact is that "national security" has become the root password to
the Constitution. -- Phil Karn
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Perry Metzger's call to action on Feds'
lawlessness, tapping [priv]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:37:04 -0600
From: Daniel Webb
Nonsense. As a journalist, I don't much like the idea. But anybody who's leaking classified data to reporters is in violation of the law. And it's perfectly legal for the government to tap the phones of suspected lawbreakers inside the intelligence community. In addition, it's illegal for journalists to knowingly publish classified information, according to a law passed back in 1950. I hope that provision is never enforced; I don't think the administration wants to enforce it. After all, they need only nail the leakers and thus avoid opening a huge can of worms by arresting reporters. Still, the law's the law, and reporters are bound to it like everybody else.
Two points:
1) The government should simply make a law that revealing government
lawbreaking is itself a serious crime, perhaps appending it to the treason
statute. I am quite confident that within my lifetime this will happen. I
assume you will not support such a law, but will you violate it? Will you
still say "the law's the law, and everybody has to follow it?"
2) Reading his message as a whole, I think the fear being described by Mr.
Metzger is not so much legitimate phone tapping and warrants, but the
wholesale and illegal surveillance going on now. For example, assume a
reporter can now be identified any time after the fact because the NSA is
keeping phone logs of every phone call made in the United States. Once
identified, "legitimate" warrants can be used to gain information used
against
them in court. This is the fear I have: that we will create a system where
Constitutional protections still exist on paper, but are meaningless in
practice. I believe that will be the result of the fourth amendment if the
current administration gets away with breaking the law. Bush broke the law
and is still breaking the law. Everyone involved with that operation should
be prosecuted, yet they are boldly defiant and calling for the heads of
those
brave enough to out them breaking the law. So pardon me if I don't see
blind
devotion to the law as the highest ideal in this case, especially when
the law
is only applied to those who criticise the government and not the government
itself.
Daniel Webb
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Hiawatha Bray's response on wiretapping of
journalists: the law's the law [fs]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 22:41:50 -0700
From: Thomas Leavitt
Previous Politech message: Nonsense. As a journalist, I don't much like the idea. But anybody who's leaking classified data to reporters is in violation of the law. And it's perfectly legal for the government to tap the phones of suspected lawbreakers inside the intelligence community. In addition, it's illegal for journalists to knowingly publish classified information, according to a law passed back in 1950. I hope that provision is never enforced; I don't think the administration wants to enforce it. After all, they need only nail the leakers and thus avoid opening a huge can of worms by arresting reporters. Still, the law's the law, and reporters are bound to it like everybody else.
I'm not a trained journalist. But I am a consumer of the products of journalism. The public doesn't have the CIA to find out facts. But we need information to make decisions. The collective "free press" provides that information: Like the CIA, they have to engage in a few "covert ops" to obtain information. As someone just recently pointed out on a TV talk show (didn't get their name), nearly everything the CIA does abroad is a violation of the host countries' laws. Spying is illegal in nearly every country. The public needs to know the truth, and needs to have access to facts in order to make decisions that are essential to Democracy. I agree that the law is the law. I rather identify with John Adams, who was greatly disturbed the by the French Revolution because it seemed to be anarchy, a destruction of the rule of law. In contrast, though Adams was a revolutionary, he was not an anarchist. I think the law in this case is meant to protect against harms to national security. The rub is what is "national security"? I argue that making newsworthy information public does not harm the national security. The publishing of the Pentagon Papers did no harm to the national security. Rather, this act greatly helped the national security. The exposure of Watergate brought down the President, but it did not harm the national security. Nor did the exposure harm the Presidency. The harm was caused by Nixon and his aides. The exposure was in the interest of national security. Likewise, I've seen nothing revealed so far that has been harmful to the national security, and I read the New York Times every day, frequently read the Boston Globe, and more occasionally the Wall Street Journal. The "National Security" is not "that which makes Bush and Company look good". It is that which makes the public actually secure in their liberties, and protects Democracy, which is public control of the government. I was greatly moved by Moussaoui's response to the families of the victims. After the families testified what pain he had caused, he took the stand to respond about the pain and death the US had caused abroad. I've just read "Rogue State" by William Blum. Engaging in secret wars for the benefit of US corporate profits is a terrible vulture that will come home to rest. In today's New York Times, Ted Koppel argues for (or perhaps alerts us to) the possibility that Corporations should be allowed to hire their own mercenaries to fight their battles and protect their foreign interests. I suspect that in fact, Corporations already do operate mercenary armies, and have for a long time. Last year, Margaret Thatcher's son was arrested in Zimbabwe for leading a mercenary army to overthrow the Central African Republic. Why? Oil seems likely. [There is a new oil pipeline in Chad, and there is Oil in Darfur, which also puts the "genocide" in a different light. Just look at the map and follow the Oil.] Exposing these misdeeds is in the national interest, and promotes national security and democratic public control of government. The acts of reporters have not been to sell secrets to the Chinese, or to terrorists for that matter. The acts have been to make relevant facts public. Facts which are relevant to the public discourse, and to the right of the public to have the information it needs to make decisions. Anything else is not a Democracy. The goal of national security is to preserve the Democracy, not the Presidency. Or even the President. Just as the Secret Service should take a bullet to protect the President, the President (and everyone below him) may need to put their own life and future at risk to protect the Democracy. That is what they swore an oath to protect: To protect and defend the Constition, not their own butts. Any classified information that essentially puts their "butts to the fire" probably better serves the national security by publication than by secrecy. I am a strong proponent of rule by law. But I think the lawfulness of this publication of classified information is rather similar to the notion of justifiable homicide, or perhaps trespass in public necessity. In tort law there is a defense against trespass called "Privileged Invasion of Another's Land or Chattels as a Public Necessity". Essentially, it means there are circumstances when trespass is necessary to avert a disaster, or because a highway is obstructed. Of course, the media is generally excluded in this, so perhaps it isn't a good example. But I think the lack of relevent information could create a public disaster. Indeed, I think the Iraq War (and perhaps the Vietnam War), was a public disaster caused by lack of public information. In Vietnam, the government repeatedly told the public that "we know things, and we're doing the right thing". We now know what it was they knew, and they didn't know anything then that would have made their decisions correct. National security would plainly have been better served by having that information made public. Sometimes there are good and just reasons to break the law. I absolutely see that its a hard call in a gray area. A call that, correctly made, distinguishes the professionals from the amateurs. But that's why we have professional journalists, and that's why we have judges and juries, and not robots. Freedom isn't risk free. For anyone, journalists included. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
participants (1)
-
Declan McCullagh