Bush declares war on freedom of the press

Yes I know Doug Thompson from Capitol Hill Blue wrote it, some of you may take it as crap, oh well.

Bush declares war on freedom of the press

By DOUG THOMPSON

Using many of the questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President George W. Bush has launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his "war on terrorism."

Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use "whatever means at your disposal" to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems "detrimental to the war on terror."

Reporters for The New York Times, which along with Capitol Hill Blue revealed use of the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of Americans, say FBI agents have interviewed them and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department admit they are laying "the groundwork for a grand jury that could lead to criminal charges,"

~~

Political scientist George Harleigh, who worked in the Nixon administration, says such use of federal law enforcement authority was illegal when Nixon tried it and still so today.

"We're talking about a basic violation of the Constitutional guarantee of a free press as well as a violation of the rights of privacy of American citizens," Harleigh says. "I had hoped we would have learned our lessons from the Nixon era. Sadly, it appears we have not."

[edit on 7/3/2006 by Sauron]

Mod edit: fixed link


[edit on 9-3-2006 by TheBandit795]

Hi, do you have a link that works?

Bush says to wiretap anyone who writes badly about him?

There aren't that many people in the NSA.

This is beyond paranoia.

This is some form of hoax, there is something about this in another thread.

Sorry about the dead link guys, and yes I think it has been posted before.Link

and from Artic Beacon

Journalists To Be Jailed For Speaking Out Against "Little Hitler Bush;" Slats Grobnik Gets National Security Letter, Too!
Doug Thompson reported how he was sent a letter by the FBI to turn over records about his popular Capitol Hill Blue web site. Thompson's response was short and to the point, as Slats Grobnik from Chicago says his deer rifle is locked and loaded if they come after him.

www.arcticbeacon.com...

[edit on 8/3/2006 by Sauron]

For those who believe this is a hoax, check the video from MSNBC

Click here to watch Bush-Attacking-The-Media-NBC

This video is a segment from Monday's MSNBC Countdown. Craig Crawford discusses the chilling effect this attack has on the ability to report information about the government. In effect, we are quickly getting to the point where only official information released by the government can be reported by the media.

Source / download www.bradblog.com...

Leaking classified information is illegal first and foremost. Furthermore leaking classified information with National Security implications is very dangerous, especially in a time of war. These “Whistle-blowers” are breaking the law and should be punished accordingly. The President has every right and authority to protect classified documents or programs of the United States.

If what they have to say is for the better of thing then they should report to congress or other investigating bodies instead of going to the NY Times. Reporting to the proper agencies or congress is the right and legal way to deal with such cases, going to the national media is not, you are doing more harm than good by taking such action.

No offense Westpoint 23 but do you think these reporters are breaking into the whitehouse or hacking the govt? Where do you think these leaks come from but from inside the whitehouse. We have already seen plenty of proof, in the Valerie Plame case, that the Whitehouse "leaks" exactly what they want the press to run with. By definition an investigative reporter does just that, they investigate information that we as citizens have a right to know.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Leaking classified information is illegal first and foremost. Furthermore leaking classified information with National Security implications is very dangerous, especially in a time of war. These “Whistle-blowers” are breaking the law and should be punished accordingly. The President has every right and authority to protect classified documents or programs of the United States.

A big 10-4 on that. This story is a big distortion and distraction from what the real problem is and that is espionage. Journalists are big crybabies who think the law doesn't apply to them. Receiving classified information and printing it should be illegal, even if it isn't.

A big 10-4 on that. This story is a big distortion and distraction from what the real problem is and that is espionage. Journalists are big crybabies who think the law doesn't apply to them. Receiving classified information and printing it should be illegal, even if it isn't.
Grady

Awww, anything that makes Bush look bad is just a bunch of cry baby hooplah? Its ok, Bush can't sodomize the country forever, he has to die eventually, even if it is after his 40 year rule as dictator since he has people like you and Westpoint calling people who tell the truth about a corrupt politician spies and big cry babies.

Originally posted by DevinS
...even if it is after his 40 year rule as dictator...

Maybe you're on to something, but I won't believe it until 2009.

The media is mostly left-wing and they have been attacking the white house non-stop for 2 years now and had nothing good to say. they are starting to make a lot of people sick.

Freedom of the press is one thing and freedom to release information that results in the deaths of innocent people is something else all together. A good example would be the recent deaths caused by the publication of the cartoons that attacked the Muslim faith. It is negligent homicide at the very least. Those that published it after they knew the results are guilty of premeditated murder as they knew it would result in deaths. Then they don't even have the decency to appologize to the families of their victims. I don't buy the argument that the authors are not responsible for the actions of the terrorists. Its the same as releasing a lion from the zoo and then saying its not your fault that it killed a few people before being caught. In what way did trashing someones faith benefit society? The source does not appear to be very credible anyway. No publication worth reading would ever use profanity in an article to make a point. "____ you" is not a news item. It is proof that the authors credibility should be in question. Why have no copies of these letters been released to be authenticated. If they have no problem releasing documents that could cause the death of American Soldiers, why would they hesitate to publish one of these letters. I suspect only a handfull of deserving people received these letters anyway. Guilty people always claim to be innocent dont they?

[edit on 9-3-2006 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Leaking classified information is illegal first and foremost. Furthermore leaking classified information with National Security implications is very dangerous, especially in a time of war. These “Whistle-blowers” are breaking the law and should be punished accordingly. The President has every right and authority to protect classified documents or programs of the United States.

If what they have to say is for the better of thing then they should report to congress or other investigating bodies instead of going to the NY Times. Reporting to the proper agencies or congress is the right and legal way to deal with such cases, going to the national media is not, you are doing more harm than good by taking such action.

Depends on what the information is, if it shows that people like juranalysts
, human rights groups, or a plot or a cover up is being disclouse then I dont see the problem
Besides the leak comes from inside(some people inside think that it's a good thing to let it out)hmmm intresting why would they do that.
Regarding that signature with the danish flag, I belive it stands for the freedom of the press? I can see how things can aply just to some people to meet the needs.
Any criminal act if commited deservs disclosure no matter what law is broken.
If people from inside are starting to leak things I think there is something very rong there wouldnt you think so?


[edit on 10-3-2006 by pepsi78]

So what if they try and prosecute journalist. You can’t do illegal things such as wiretap American citizens and torture prisoners establish secret prisons and then classify it all and expect it to have any weight.
God you Bush supporters are nothing more then traitors to our constitution. You continually trade liberty for safety like a bunch of scared pansies!

While leaking confidential information is illegal, and it is understandable, many things, I suspect, are made confidential solely because it is BS and protects someones wallet.

Originally posted by godservant
While leaking confidential information is illegal, and it is understandable, many things, I suspect, are made confidential solely because it is BS and protects someones wallet.

I hope you're not in the Marine Corps, godservant. That's a dangerous attitude. I served a brief stint in the Marine Corps as a Secret and Confidential file clerk. My boss, a Lieutenant, handled the Top Secret and Crypto stuff.

I was surprised to learn that a lot of stuff classified Confidential is on the evening news, like the weather forecast. I didn't stay there long enough to find out why or even to care much, I was on my way to Vietnam via Las Pulgas.

I doubt I would have been prosecuted for discussing the weather, but losing one of those documents wouldn't have set well with my superiors. My Lieutenant thought he lost a Crypto document one time and I thought he was going to have a stroke before my very eyes. Leaking classified information is not cool, regardless of the reasons.

[edit on 2006/3/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by pepsi78
Besides the leak comes from inside(some people inside think that it's a good thing to let it out)hmmm intresting why would they do that.

I don't know, personally I don't care, if they continue to go to the media instead of Congress or other agencies then the are braking the law. Therefore they should be punished for doing so.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Regarding that signature with the Danish flag, I believe it stands for the freedom of the press? I can see how things can apply just to some people to meet the needs.

Actually it stands for all basic freedoms, now, just because there is freedom of the press it does not mean that the media has a blank check, there are exceptions. Classified National Security information is one of those exceptions. For example, do you think the Media should have reported the date and location of D-Day had it known it beforehand?

Originally posted by pepsi78
Any criminal act if commited deservs disclosure no matter what law is broken.
If people from inside are starting to leak things I think there is something very rong there wouldnt you think so?

Umm... except that instead of reporting said program to Congress to find out if indeed any laws were broken this person goes to the media and puts our National Security in jeopardy. Breaking the law and putting our nation at certain risk for something which you think might be illegal is very stupid and irresponsible.

Even if we play it your way, the person who leaked this information is still a criminal.
Until now no congressional or judicial ruling has stated that what the president did was illegal, what if they never do? What then? Still no repercussions for this person who broke the law to leak a classified program which in the eyes of congress and the courts is legitimate?

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
So what if they try and prosecute journalist. You can’t do illegal things such as wiretap American citizens and torture prisoners establish secret prisons and then classify it all and expect it to have any weight.

And how do we find out what was illegal and what wasn't? By leaking information to the NY Times or by reporting to the institutions designed to hold people accountable if indeed they determined something was illegal?

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
God you Bush supporters are nothing more then traitors to our constitution. You continually trade liberty for safety like a bunch of scared pansies!

Yes us Bush supporters, grow up. I am merely trying to establish a way by which legitimate concerns can be balanced with National Security. This person, had this been WWII would have been tried for treason if he had leaked the ways by which the US was keeping track of Japanese spies.

I don't know, personally I don't care, if they continue to go to the media instead of Congress or other agencies then the are braking the law. Therefore they should be punished for doing so.

They go to the media because they want the people to know.
If they go to congres it's burid there and no one will know

Actually it stands for all basic freedoms, now, just because there is freedom of the press it does not mean that the media has a blank check, there are exceptions. Classified National Security information is one of those exceptions. For example, do you think the Media should have reported the date and location of D-Day had it known it beforehand?

No of course not, but only things that are not legal are exposed and by who? by people inside.
How about the muslims put mohamed under national security?
Or cristians put christ under national security?
I am sorry to say but you sound like a comunist, i've seen them before.
How about they kill a bunch of inocent people and put it under national security, hmm what do you think then?
I guess not even the NSA workers trust bush anymore, remember they take an oath to defend the united states and if it means to defend it against
bush then thats what they will do, it's their dutty
If I make a law that says killing 100 people is legal, it does not mean it's the right thing.
Laws are ment to be broken if the information hiding behind them harm the people.


[edit on 11-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

1) The media is mostly left-wing

2) and had nothing good to say.

1) Talk about a news. But I agree with you.

2) Would you mind to just give us an example of what this admin really did good and well for the well being of the USA ? Did they sent the NG in the south, to protect the border from all the illegals immigrants ? Drugs traffic ? Criminal organisation ? Or did they try to stop the selling of US majors Sea Ports ? Or did they give the best equipements to the US soldiers in Irak and Afghanistan ? Did they do that kind of things ?

Don't make me wrong, I'm 100% sure it would have been worse with a Democratic admin.