FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Repubs want freedom of speech controlled





S3nd K3ys
Reuters wrote:
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Declaring that "loose lips" kill Americans, a top congressional Republican leader said on Wednesday the House of Representatives would debate a resolution condemning the U.S. media for exposing details of secret intelligence programs.

The move heaps more criticism on The New York Times and other newspapers that reported last week on a secret program by the U.S. Treasury Department that monitors private bank records in an effort to track terrorist organizations.

"What we're talking about is people who are leaking classified information. It's not news. It's classified information our government is using to fight terrorists," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, of Illinois.

"Loose lips kill American people," he added.

The nonbinding resolution, released later in the day, said the House "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program."

A floor vote is scheduled for Thursday, said a spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner.

News reports of the bank-monitoring program and a separate surveillance effort that monitors phone traffic without a court warrant have drawn criticism from President George W. Bush and other Republicans who say coverage of the programs undermines their effectiveness.

A New York Times spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment. The paper's executive editor has said the extraordinary reach of the bank-monitoring program "is a matter of public interest."

'TROOPS AT RISK'

Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning said on Fox News that those who wrote, published and leaked the story should be tried for treason.

"They have put all of our troops at risk and anyone who aids the enemy during a war and helps them should be held responsible," Bunning said.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, has asked the administration for a formal assessment of any damage to the secret programs caused by news coverage.

New York Republican Rep. Peter King, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, has asked the Justice Department to investigate The New York Times. Arizona Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth has demanded its reporters be stripped of their press passes, according to CQToday, a daily publication that covers Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers have no direct influence over press passes because they are administered by a group of reporters, not congressional officials.

Democrats said Republicans should not blame newspapers for holding the Bush administration accountable when Congress has failed to do so.

"We have had the last 5 1/2 years basically with no congressional oversight of anything," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told a news conference. "It's a little shortsighted to start attacking a newspaper."

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. David Obey said on the House floor that "both the Chinese Communist government and our own administration appear to be interested in doing almost anything in order to prevent legitimate news organizations from reporting activities on people who govern each country."

(Additional reporting by Amanda Beck, Bill Tarrant and Richard Cowan)


© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.





If the repubs think that no one knew financial monitoring was going on they need a reality check.....might as well resurrect McCarthyism while yer at it.
tidruG
Basically, anything that's damaging to the credibility of the govt is classified info (generally), and classified info should not be "leaked" to the press...

Hmm... interesting.
The Conspirator
As I said in another thread. The cracks in are freedom are growing.
This is what happens when you are willing to sacrifice your rights especially when your willing to sacrifice your rights on the name of a war on a abstract and subjective actions.
HoboPelican
Terrible to say but I am really worried at the changes taking place in the US and how little is being done about it. Just play the 9/11 card and it covers any situation. Crying or Very sad
suntzu3500
Security levels should represent matters of national security. The budget of your local police force, the number of officers it has, and what type of cars they use could theoretically be classified - It's just too easy to find out or guess on your own... We probably don't need to classify the fact that e-mail exists, granted, if terrorists don't know it exists it does put them at a disadvantage but somehow i think they've alreayd figured it out...

This falls under the category of too obvious to classify.
horseatingweeds
suntzu3500
HoboPelican
The Conspirator
tidruG

The choice is between freedom and safety indeed.

So, as long as we have a 9/11 and a 3/11 every year, then may our government attempt to protect us????

Perhaps their efforts are doing just that.

NO, du gubermets just tryna dag ur freedoms… Who gave the government the right to govern????
tidruG
horseatingweeds wrote:
The choice is between freedom and safety indeed.

Not that simple.
If you're choosing "safety" here, it's like choosing ignorance. Basically, when you're agreeing to not let any classified information be known to public, you're giving the government a free hand to hide anything it wants by classifying data. Yes, you can tell me that the government is not going to classify data such as policemen's pay or what cars they use or other such tiny things that I don't care about, but you can't tell me that you're not tempting the government to classify any information which may be damaging to its credibility. Sure, there could be a lot of information classified that, if obtained by terrorist organizations, could be dangerous, but that doesn't mean the government's only going to classify this type of information.

Quote:
NO, du gubermets just tryna dag ur freedoms… Who gave the government the right to govern????

If you're referring to the people electing the government and bringing it to power (democracy), then you should also realize that the people have the right to remove a certain party from power for fraudulent pratices or if the people are not satisfied... and unless the mis-actions (for lack of a better term) of the current govt are brought into the lime-light, the people will remain ignorant of the govt's mistakes (again, lack of a better word) and thus be happy and satisfied in their blissfull ignorance.
HoboPelican
Unless a situation arises that is very different than what exists now (or ever existed in the US) I think very little that our government does should be hidden. It is just to easy for them to hold up "national security" and tell you to go f**k yourself.

Here's a crazy idea. For info to be deemed sensitive enough to be classified, it has to be approved by a judge, similar to a warrant. Not foolproof either way, but better than nothing.
damj
HoboPelican wrote:
Terrible to say but I am really worried at the changes taking place in the US and how little is being done about it. Just play the 9/11 card and it covers any situation. Crying or Very sad


Scary isn't it ... what's more scary is how quickly people are willing to give up their rights for "security", and how sheep-like people are when it comes to questioning their own government, so the beat goes on, and the Feds keep grabbing more and more power. How much longer until we abandon the Constitution altogether in order to keep us "safe", and won't the terrorists just love that?!?
S3nd K3ys
tidruG wrote:

Not that simple.


Yes, that simple.

Quote:


If you're choosing "safety" here, it's like choosing ignorance. Basically, when you're agreeing to not let any classified information be known to public, you're giving the government a free hand to hide anything it wants by classifying data. Yes, you can tell me that the government is not going to classify data such as policemen's pay or what cars they use or other such tiny things that I don't care about, but you can't tell me that you're not tempting the government to classify any information which may be damaging to its credibility. Sure, there could be a lot of information classified that, if obtained by terrorist organizations, could be dangerous, but that doesn't mean the government's only going to classify this type of information..


HuH?

Classified?

Bank Transaction Records?

INTERNATINOAL Bank Transaction Records?

Classified?

Dude... They're NOT CLASSIFIED. Any idiot can get that information if they want to/need to. It's not as easy as a google search, but it's there for ANY investigator, public or private.

Again, the media is not telling the truth.

Just like the phone records. Yes, the I-N-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L phone records which were (and still are) called D-O-M-E-S-T-I-C by the media. These are INTERNATIONAL transactions, and they are NOT CLASSIFIED.
Soulfire
This is a old, tired issue by now. We do have freedom of speech, but you can't hide under that forever. Yes, we are free, but free to expose government secrets? To me, that's not right. The point I'm trying to make is that we are free, but where is there a limit to that freedom?

I mean, should I be free to go kill someone because that's my pursuit of happiness? (Not serious, but just trying to show you that some of our "Core Democratic Values" (including Free Speech) need to be mildly limited).
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:
...Yes, we are free, but free to expose government secrets? To me, that's not right. The point I'm trying to make is that we are free, but where is there a limit to that freedom?r


I think the issue is what do we do when a government decides to classify information as secret with out just cause. How do we know they aren't hiding scandals, illegal break-ins, political hit squads, etc under the cover of national security. When I was growing up, people tended to trust the government more, but the last 40 years have had so many scandals, we have good reason not to trust them.

I simply don't have any faith in our current government to do the right thing anymore.
Soulfire
Well there's two options here:
1) You can trust your government.
2) Because of past people and mistakes, you can loose all faith in your government and always expect the worst.

For me, I generally trust the government. Do I always agree with what they are doing? Certainly not. But then again, as the saying goes, you can't please everyone. What if people expose things that were meant to be secrets - ways to, I don't know, ruin our nation perhaps? Things like that...

Besides, how would you feel if someone went around spreading all of your deepest, darkest secrets (assuming you have some, I wouldn't know obviously). It probably wouldn't make you feel very great, and you'd probably act out against that someone spreading the secrets.... So the government tries to act out against the people spreading its secrets.

I watched a show a couple nights ago about how liberal-biased media was exposing our government secrets and going to be responsible for the destruction of America. It was insanely biased, but still comical. It has not much relevancy here, I just remembered it while typing this and thought I'd share.
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:
Well there's two options here:
1) You can trust your government.
2) Because of past people and mistakes, you can loose all faith in your government and always expect the worst.

For me, I generally trust the government. Do I always agree with what they are doing? Certainly not. But then again, as the saying goes, you can't please everyone.


Well, I wish I could trust our elected officials as you do, but it isn't just past excesses and errors. It is a continuing series of issues that break my trust.

The question still stands, though. Our nation was built on a series of checks and balances. I think that was a great idea and probably has helped the US in lasting as long as we have. But if the executive branch can hide anything it wants under "national security" without any sort of checks, what is there to keep them honest?
horseatingweeds
tidruG wrote:

If you're choosing "safety" here, it's like choosing ignorance.


I think most of us here are familiar with the balancing role the media plays in democracy, the old dance of how much this way or that. The trouble is that we are at an interesting point in time. Many of our societies are experiencing greater freedoms than have ever been experienced, we have technologies younger than ten years operating essential systems and a resourceful enemy willing to us anything in any way to harm us.

Our governments are charged with the responsibility to protect us. If we are harmed, it is their fault. If they attempt to protect us from this harm they are taking away our rights.

So where would you like to be? Are you willing to trade some more citizens and another huge chunk of economic productivity along with another land mark so you don’t have to worry about the gov’t googling your INTERNATIONAL phone records and INTERNATIONAL financial transactions?

The danger it the slippery slope, however, we are at war and need to act like it. An no, I don’t think martial law is in order but I do realize that a very effective way of stopping terrorists is to take away their goat milk money.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Again, the media is not telling the truth.

NONONONONONONONONONONONONOONONONONONO Crying or Very sad
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:

So where would you like to be? Are you willing to trade some more citizens and another huge chunk of economic productivity along with another land mark so you don’t have to worry about the gov’t googling your INTERNATIONAL phone records and INTERNATIONAL financial transactions?


As long as you're asking...
YES!
horseatingweeds
Dandy!

Now vote accordingly and understand that your fellow society members may be unwilling. If they do you must accept this encroachment on your personal international calls and international financial transactions.
HoboPelican
Whatever gets passed we will live with. That is so obvious is doesn't need saying. But it shouldn't stop me from arguing that it is wrong or trying to change it. Not sure what your point was with that post.

Im not trying to sound callous, I just believe in the quote attributed to Franklin.

Quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


I think we should be strong enough as a people to accept some pain to keep as many freedoms as we can. When you start giving them up, you've let the bastards win.
horseatingweeds
I’m really tired of people bringing up that Franklin saying. HE SAID IT WILST CONVINCING THE AMERICAN CONTINENTALS TO GO TO WAR WITH ENGLAND. Not directed at you in particular HoboPelican.

It’s just a bit annoying. His point was that if we fear fighting for our freedom we will loose it and that which we feared loosing due to the fighting. The Bush administration could use this quote more accurately.

My point from the earlier post is that it is unlikely that the majority holds their privacy with regard to international phone calls and financial transaction higher than the safety of its citizens and institutions.

Privacy rights are important but in this case it is only applicable using slippery slope theory. This is just media stupidity, another big crack in its credibility. If the media continues like this its function as a balance in the democratic system will only be weakened. If the president wasn’t “stomping on the constitution” they would be on his back for not doing more.
Soulfire
Quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

International phone calls aren't essential liberty, but that is my humble opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree.

And I think you've used the quote out of context, but that's already been stated, and I won't repeat the reasoning - that'd be redundant.
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:
I’m really tired of people bringing up that Franklin saying. HE SAID IT WILST CONVINCING THE AMERICAN CONTINENTALS TO GO TO WAR WITH ENGLAND. Not directed at you in particular HoboPelican.

It’s just a bit annoying. His point was that if we fear fighting for our freedom we will loose it and that which we feared loosing due to the fighting. The Bush administration could use this quote more accurately.

My point from the earlier post is that it is unlikely that the majority holds their privacy with regard to international phone calls and financial transaction higher than the safety of its citizens and institutions.

Privacy rights are important but in this case it is only applicable using slippery slope theory. This is just media stupidity, another big crack in its credibility. If the media continues like this its function as a balance in the democratic system will only be weakened. If the president wasn’t “stomping on the constitution” they would be on his back for not doing more.


Well, actually there is a lot of debate about whether Franklin or R. Jackson coined it. That's why I said "attributed to" and not "said". Apparently its first appearance was in a note to the Gov of Penn. from the assembly. I cant find that document right now so I dont know the intent. If you do, I'd like to see it.

But that is not the point, really. Even if he did say it and meant exactly what I want it to, it is just one more voice. Meaningless. It's use in my post is just a more elegant way to say what I feel.

And you are right, the majority most likely do not think it is an issue. I, however, do not discount the slippery slope and feel our current president wants to see just how far he can go. And is it fair to label the media, and me since I agree, as stupid because you dont agree with them?
horseatingweeds
I’m not labeling anyone stupid for disagreeing with me that would be stupid. I am labeling the media stupid because they blow every little thing they can find out of proportion that might discredit the president or possibly just ratings, stupid because it reduces their credibility.

I agree that in these subjects the slippery slope theory is applicable here. I don’t think we are slipping now though. I think the current administration is just trying to keep another disaster from happening. If one does they will look like idiot hard core.

But what happens once we do start slipping? Will we still have the mechanism of the people’s press to warn us? Or will our population hear “Oh nooo, our civil rights are being trampled upon!!!!!” and think to them selves, “oh no, whoopty-doo, we’re all in a hand-basket to hell, ya ya ya”.

As for the quote, I just always remember it when reading about the decision process in the continental congress. You’re the second person interested so once my laziness wears off I’ll look it up.
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:


...
But what happens once we do start slipping? Will we still have the mechanism of the people’s press to warn us? Or will our population hear “Oh nooo, our civil rights are being trampled upon!!!!!” and think to them selves, “oh no, whoopty-doo, we’re all in a hand-basket to hell, ya ya ya”.
...


This is actually a good point. Crying wolf and all. Its a tough call since I agree with them. But you're absolutely right that many people already ignore their warnings.

Heck, all we are doing here is farting in in the wind anyway. We aren't going to change a thing but at least we feel like we had our say. Wink
horseatingweeds
Well now here your wrong. President George W Bush is a regular on frihost.

S3nd K3ys is not just a member of the 29% you know. Wink
Soulfire
horseatingweeds wrote:
Well now here your wrong. President George W Bush is a regular on frihost.

S3nd K3ys is not just a member of the 29% you know. Wink

I almost agree, lol. Just FYI, his approval rating (according to an article at LA Times) has stabilized and increased to 41%.

And 41% of the 2 million people that vote in this country (of 300 million) isn't all too bad I suppose.
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Well now here your wrong. President George W Bush is a regular on frihost.

S3nd K3ys is not just a member of the 29% you know. Wink

I almost agree, lol. Just FYI, his approval rating (according to an article at LA Times) has stabilized and increased to 41%.

And 41% of the 2 million people that vote in this country (of 300 million) isn't all too bad I suppose.


Maybe more telling, his 'Disapproval' ratings are down a bit, also. Dang! I was already for a impeachment Laughing

Here is a good link if you care about Bush popularity polls.
<http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm>
diverden
Yes, we have given the enemy state secrets that were alluded to on the White House web page. Funny that when the President or VP give classified information to the press for political purposes it it instantly no longer classified since they just de-classified it. I realize the two men I have quoted below may be considered radicals or at least left wing liberals, according to their statements. The problem with the unofficial war on terrorists is how to know when it is over or when we have won. Is there actually a winner in a war on faceless people who are being born every day. Until the reasons for terrorism are dead, killing the terrorists will do not good. Until people have clean water, shelter, rights to run their own country, health care, enough food to support their families, jobs, etc... then more terrorists will be born every day and we can kill some each day but they will not be defeated until there is no longer a reason to be a terrorist.


Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. B. Franklin


If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. G. Washington
horseatingweeds
CNN got my balls blown off. G.I. Joe
Biodiesel
S3nd K3ys wrote:
tidruG wrote:

Not that simple.


Yes, that simple.


Simpleton
smalls
Thomas Jefferson in 1787 wrote:
The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Good old T.J. had it spot on!
rwojick
First off, free speech is controlled. You cannot lie about someone and you cannot lie in Court. Purjury, Conspiracy, Slander, Liable and others are all controlls on free speech. Also, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre.

So, the question is not should it be controlled but rather how and where.

Bush has a dangerous little trick in that he likes to criticise the press for telling the truth, as they did when he was tapping phones.

Playing the game on the false side of the law and justifying it with claims that he is protecting people is really just bad form. If Bush gets half his information legally and the other half illegally then really he is just creating the "cost" of separating it out and filtering the information should he ever want to use it later.

Of course, trying to talk to someone about costs when they are 10 Trillion dollars in debt is kind of like trying to teach a bunch of babboons at the zoo about the inherent wisdoms of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...
Related topics
Freedom of speech? Sure! Just watch what you say!
Justification for War in Iraq
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Man Convicted for Anti Religious Hate Speech
The Supreme court rules
collapse of USA
Incredible fact against the free speech in the net
9/11: 5 Years On...
PSP GTA Liberty City Stories
Can Wiki also be strictly controlled?
Vista for Free and 100% Legal
Campaign for Real Science - Religion&Freedom of Speech
Positions of power
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.