| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Comments:
<0> Which was a program which worked.
<1> bud`: thats as far as i heard also, no court rulings on its legality
<2> H.R. 1546 and S. 712
<1> bud`: there's the espionage act of 1917 also i think
<1> Fr33Trade: who died because of the NSA leak?
<0> Signal Intelligence ironically or maybe not ironicaly but interestingly has the greatest and most direct statuatory simplicity to prosecute.
<0> These kind of leaks you dont have to prove intent to harm
<3> Bush's doing very well considering his disadvantages. He might mount more, but the press.......?
<0> In other types of leaks often there needs to be show an attempt to harm to get the more serious charges.
<0> And proving intent is hard
<0> but the signal intelligence law doesnt need intent
<1> what law
<3> It's treason, all right.
<0> simply revealing it when its cl***ified is a crime
<3> yes
<0> Treason is the only law defined by the constitution
<0> So its hard to prosecute Treason.
<0> It has to be very major
<0> But you can prosecute under half a dozen other statutes or more.
<3> a lot of lesser crimes, though
<1> Fr33Trade: so which statue says you cant print leaked info?
<3> yeah
<0> Aid and comfort to the enemy is not a low crime
<3> It's not?
<0> Neither is violation of a certain section of which I forget of I think Title 22 of cl***ified intelligence law dealing with signal intelligence
<1> aid and comfort you have to prove intent
<4> fr33 see ya later goin out to mcdill going parachuting this morning
<0> I would have to look up the actual statuatory law and case law because i just heard it all but I dont have a photographic memory
<1> whereas with the NSA story, the intent was clearly to expose and unlawful government program
<5> nope
<1> wouldnt you need a phonopgraphic memory
<1> phonographic rather
<0> Lithium, intent isnt relevant in that type of case
<0> intent is not a factor in the law covering signal intelligence
<3> When these violations have occured most has been when the executive didn't see strong enough to pursue the charges.
<0> exactly because they dont want codes leaked
<1> Fr33Trade: again, i challange you to find a court ruling affirming that it is illegal for the press to print cl***ified leaks
<3> seem
<0> It was leaked to the Japanese in the press that we cracked their code in ww2
<0> knwo why it wasnt prosecuted ?
<3> why wasn't it effective?
<3> no, but, why?
<0> because the Japanese were so arrogant that their code was unbreakable that they though it would be taken by the japanese as disinfortmation which it was.
<0> So they didnt want to bring more attention to the japanese by prosecuting
<3> ;)
<0> but its why they created the new law which is applicable here
<3> whew
<3> mmm
<1> again, which law
<1> can we get some facts over here
<0> Lithium , The exact law applicable to this situation was a result of the leak by the press that we broke the Japanese code right after we broke it.
<1> thats not a name i can look up
<0> They wanted to prosecute and likely would of hung the bastard but the qunadry was it would bring more attention to it and the Japanese might change the code. But it is the source of and the reason for the much sticter law which requires no proof of intent to make it a criminal act to leak any signal intelligence.
<3> Ultra amazed me...I'd been a history amateur nut for ten years when in 1975 the official secrets acts uncovered Ultra.
<0> which applies to electronic sruveillience of any type its a broad field and definiton
<0> You have what people in the business call sigintel, huintel and other things but those are the two major categories of state secrets in the intelligence communities.
<1> Fr33Trade: the way i heard it from many sources, including gonzales, the only law which does what you say it does is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act
<0> The pooint here is that if someone thinks something is illegal they should report it to members of congress who do have legal oversight and do so privately
<0> Wikipedia is an internet encylopedia made up by people on the internet.
<0> You want to give me a cite that I will look at try, www.findlaw.com
<0> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is often wrong and it is nothing like a legal definition or opinion.
<1> god click on the damn link
<2> wikipedia is fine for a first step in finding info
<1> its just a general overview of the act
<1> exactly
<0> Now here is the other side of the coin, First of all a lot of peopel dont think the president violated the law, In fact they just confirmed the man who instituted the program to CIA by a high number.
<0> But here is Bushs liability.. 0
<0> because you do have to prove intent that he did.
<1> Fr33Trade you dont really like to debate do you, you just wanna rant on uninterrupted
<0> and he went to the NSA lawyers, and the Justice dept lawyers and I they all said it was legal
<0> so bush approve the new cia directors program
<1> actually *many* lawyers had concerns about the program
<0> Lithium when you argue stupidly and uninformed, I just ramble on because im trying to explain to you why your arguments arent even in the ballpark as valid.
<1> ooh, ad hom
<0> No its not an ad hom
<0> its a fact
<1> im trying to debate you on facts
<0> Im not trying to debase you.
<1> you refuse to include any facts
<1> in your argument
<0> I explained to you what the law was and you keep wanting to say it isnt.
<1> no, dude, you see, you dont get to explain what is the law
<6> String too long Lithium-!
<1> you can cite the law
<1> and we can debate what it means
<0> I explained to you that the information came before a meeting of the intelligence committee and the press and legal scholars
<1> just because you say there's a law that says x y and z, doesnt make it so
<0> And even Jonathon Turley who is a certified politically motivated hack admitted that he could only make arguments based on common law because there has been no case law which supports him. HE would have to try to make new precendent with the supreme court which contradicts stare decisis.
<1> if you want, you can show me the law, and applicable court rulings, which is what i've been asking
<0> Lithium, Then you have a duty to prove I am a liar buy going to Cspan and either watch it yourself online or pay for the transcript
<1> you said in the begining that courts ruled time and again that press cannot publish cl***ified leaks
<7> I want to make a law that requires people to wear helmets when they walk or ride in cars...think of how many lives it will save
<1> when in fact that has never happened
<0> People here mostly trust my word if I am sure I know something and say I am most people here know me long enough to trust me as being honest and truthful.
<0> BEcause when I have been wrong they have always seen me publicly on channel admit when I am wrong
<8> I want to make a law that everyone is wheeled around in a device with a face mask like Hannibal Lecter.
<0> or they see me say you know I dont know much about that topic
<7> we should raise the drinking age to 40
<1> there you go claming authority based on your reputation
<0> or I say Im not sure double check this, But I believe X to be true..
<1> once again
<8> WotGorila that would still do me no good. Make that 60.
<0> IM not saying in any case here that there is doubt.
<9> ah its good to be drunk
<0> It is an absolute fact that A) the press doesnt have protection from prosecution for leaking cl***ified information because of supreme court precendent
<1> WHICH
<0> and B) They dont have the right to protect a source withing being punished
<0> which is why Judith miller spent 6 months in prison
<1> not arguing B
<1> asking for the 5th time the source for A
<0> its fukcing simple and you make it complicated.
<1> and again, it was a month
<1> maybe 2
<2> Fr33Trade he just wanted to see the law?
<7> everyone can go to prison if they want you to
<9> does anyone here drink guiness
<7> it's the Prison nation
<2> crusad3r yah, occ***ionally
<0> Lithium, It was cited before the commitee at least a dozen times supreme court cases and affirmations and statements by members of the court that the press has no immunity from prosecution for leaking cl***ified information
<7> Guinness...and yes
<8> prison builds character.
<9> im hammered off 5 shots of jeiger and 3 guiness beers
<9> :/
<8> instills discipline
<9> that hoax today at the capitol was funny to watch
<9> i bet someone called it in to get a 4 day weekend
<2> it was construction noise
<9> omg
<0> The only mitigating reason why many havent been prosecuted is either because A) they believed the public interest was more important than the cl***ification (IT wasnt worthy of beinf cl***ified information) Like what kind of tea the queen of Engalnd drinks, there are such stupid things which are cl***ified.
<9> are you serious?
<0> And in the case of the japanese code they didnt prosecute solely because prosecution would of hurt the war more than ignoring the story
<9> shows how sheltered they are
<9> maybe they should go do a couple combat patrols in iraq
<0> because it would have acknowleged to the Japanese that we broke thier code.
<9> then maybe this PC crap will be dropped
<0> and in that case they didnt believe the press article (The Japanese)
<0> But even the most idiotic unpatriotic leftwing panelists admitted that they could be prosecuted.. 2 argued that they shouldnt be.. and one said he thought he could make an argument based on common law, but the fact is the supreme court has rules multiple times.
<8> we don't want the IRA knowing where the Queen's tea is prepared. They might poison it.
<8> they also have a history of killing members of the royal family
<0> The point is a lot of idiotic stuff is cl***ified.
<0> which is why it a lot of **** isnt prosecuted
<0> But this NSA leak severley damaged US intelligence which stopped two attacks.
<0> and it may not stop the 3rd one.
<1> again, i ask which supreme court cases, you say there were many
<1> this is a tiresome game
<10> JohnXXIV: the IRA has killed members of the royal family? :O
<0> This was a program declared Legal by the NSA lawyers and the Justice Dept Lawyers, its actually a question of speration of powers which the court would have to sort out but its been kept intentionaly vague. but the legality is not whats been argued here.
<10> when was this?
<1> its not a case of separation of powers at all
<1> its a case of breach of the 4th ammendment
<9> the KLA was an islamic terrorist organization supported by bill clinton
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#nhl
#unixhelp
#stocks
#beginner
#computers
#gentoo
#computers
csharp crlf
#beginner
#c
|
|