"The United States is a nation of more than a quarter billion people closely watched by a hoard of journalists. Every bad thing that can happen does happen and much of it is reported in the media, so that a piling on of anecdotes can make any bad thing, however rare, seem common"
FreeDuck wrote:My apologies if this topic has already been started, but I searched around a bit and didn't find one. The Attorney General is saying that he believes the law supports prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information. I find this interesting for a number of reasons.
1) The AG is reinforcing the impression that he has a habit of creative interpretation of the law. See the Unitary Executive Branch and America Spying on Americans.
This is a poltical and not a legal argument, and, as such, has little credence.
Sorry Finn, maybe you didn't notice but this thread is in the Politics forum and not the Legal forum. The words preceding number 1 are "I find this interesting for a number of reasons." So what you are saying has little credence is my enumeration of what I find interesting. Are you saying you don't believe I find it interesting?
Free, where and when you post your comments do not contribute to their credence.
Quote:2) He didn't specify which laws he's referring to, which makes me think that he is either afraid to have his opinion challenged or he's bluffing in an effort to put the scare in the press.
Or he didn't think a public announcement such as this required an extensive legal justification. Once again, poltical, not legal.
See above.
See above
Quote:3) He says they have an obligation to enforce the laws, which he has said must be read carefully to get to the conclusion he has drawn (that he can prosecute journalists), meaning, their original intent was not to allow the prosecution of journalists. Why would there be an obligation to enforce such a narrow interpretation in this case, but in the case of other legislation, like FISA and the anti-torture law, he feels no obligation to enforce what is the obvious intent of the law? I'm getting the feeling that this guy is a legal hack who is there for no other reason to find ways around the law and through loopholes in the law.
Sorry Free, but this is blah, blah, blah and blah.
You may have a legitmate argument somewhere in the preceding paragraph but you have not done it justice.
It's obvious from the AG's comments that he has to read the law in a way other than it was intended in order to believe that he has the authority to prosecute journalists. If you find that notion "blah" feel free to skip it.
If you insist that these comments are political and not legal then, again, what you have to offer is not much more than blah blah blah. If on the other hand, you wish to assert a legal argument that supports your contention that it is obvious that the AG has read the law in a manner which he knows is contrary to the spirit of its construction, then you need to offer us something more than your say-so.
Quote:4) In the section I've bolded, he says that the 1st ammendment right can't trump... and then he trails off about some right that Americans would like to see. I see no competing right to the 1st ammendment in the Constitution. I think he's just making **** up.
Not much of a legal argument, and so I have passed on it.
Again, there is a legal forum for legal arguments. This thread isn't in it.
Then don't attempt to make legal arguments if you do not want them treated as such.
Quote:5) The whole thing is just absurd because it puts a burden on journalists to know whether the information they receive is classified or not.
The question of value is are journalists the free radicals of society, or do they represent a segment of the soceity on which they report?
It's a bit fuzzy to me, but there was a movie 30 to 40 years ago called Mondo Cane. One of the pieces of this movie involved sea turtles f*cked up by atomic bomb tests hoplessly laying eggs that would never hatch. Anyone watching this movie likely called out "Help the effin turtles! Don;t just stand by and watch them advance towards extinction!"
Thereafter came a movie called "Medium Cool" which addresses whether or not reporters were removed or engaged in the stories they covered: should they have pointed the turtle in the right direction?
And so the question is whether or not journalists are members of the society which they calim to serve. Notice that when we killed al Qaeda in Iraq's NUmero Uno, the Iraqi press cheered at the annuncement of his death. Would this ever have happened in the US? No, man, never.
Our journalist have somehow dedicated themelves to a God that transcends the country in which they live.
This would be all fine and good if this God didn't have a personal hard-on for America.
That's very interesting but mostly blah, blah, blah, and blah. Maybe there's an argument in there somewhere on whether journalists should be prosecuted for espionage, but you've not done it justice.
Weak.
Ok, now that I've taken my digs, I do find your last comments interesting. Why do you think "this God" has a personal hard on for America? Incidentally, I'm unable to discern whether that's good or bad. Bad because it want's to f**k us? Or good because it finds us attractive?
I don't at all think that God has a hard-on for America. I do think, however, that if American journalists are dedicated to a supreme being, their God has a hard-on for America. Why? Because it is clear that the majority of American journalists have a hard-on for America. This ill regard may be their own or divinely inspired but it motivates their actions - numerous unbiased sources urged the NY Times not to run the story on the financial search capabilities of the government, and yet they did.
FreeDuck wrote:
1) The AG is reinforcing the impression that he has a habit of creative interpretation of the law. See the Unitary Executive Branch and America Spying on Americans.
This is a poltical and not a legal argument, and, as such, has little credence.
Sorry Finn, maybe you didn't notice but this thread is in the Politics forum and not the Legal forum. The words preceding number 1 are "I find this interesting for a number of reasons." So what you are saying has little credence is my enumeration of what I find interesting. Are you saying you don't believe I find it interesting?
Free, where and when you post your comments do not contribute to their credence.
Quote:2) He didn't specify which laws he's referring to, which makes me think that he is either afraid to have his opinion challenged or he's bluffing in an effort to put the scare in the press.
Or he didn't think a public announcement such as this required an extensive legal justification. Once again, poltical, not legal.
See above.
See above
Quote:3) He says they have an obligation to enforce the laws, which he has said must be read carefully to get to the conclusion he has drawn (that he can prosecute journalists), meaning, their original intent was not to allow the prosecution of journalists. Why would there be an obligation to enforce such a narrow interpretation in this case, but in the case of other legislation, like FISA and the anti-torture law, he feels no obligation to enforce what is the obvious intent of the law? I'm getting the feeling that this guy is a legal hack who is there for no other reason to find ways around the law and through loopholes in the law.
Sorry Free, but this is blah, blah, blah and blah.
You may have a legitmate argument somewhere in the preceding paragraph but you have not done it justice.
It's obvious from the AG's comments that he has to read the law in a way other than it was intended in order to believe that he has the authority to prosecute journalists. If you find that notion "blah" feel free to skip it.
If you insist that these comments are political and not legal then, again, what you have to offer is not much more than blah blah blah. If on the other hand, you wish to assert a legal argument that supports your contention that it is obvious that the AG has read the law in a manner which he knows is contrary to the spirit of its construction, then you need to offer us something more than your say-so.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions.
Quote:
Not much of a legal argument, and so I have passed on it.
Again, there is a legal forum for legal arguments. This thread isn't in it.
Then don't attempt to make legal arguments if you do not want them treated as such.
That's very interesting but mostly blah, blah, blah, and blah. Maybe there's an argument in there somewhere on whether journalists should be prosecuted for espionage, but you've not done it justice.
Weak.
The grim reality that you and your friends don't seem capable of accepting is that corruption and self-deceit moves as freely to the left of the spectrum as it does to the right.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:FreeDuck wrote:
1) The AG is reinforcing the impression that he has a habit of creative interpretation of the law. See the Unitary Executive Branch and America Spying on Americans.
This is a poltical and not a legal argument, and, as such, has little credence.
Sorry Finn, maybe you didn't notice but this thread is in the Politics forum and not the Legal forum. The words preceding number 1 are "I find this interesting for a number of reasons." So what you are saying has little credence is my enumeration of what I find interesting. Are you saying you don't believe I find it interesting?
Free, where and when you post your comments do not contribute to their credence.
Finn, if you assert that my comment has no credence because it is not a legal argument, then you must show why only legal arguments have credence. You are restricting the playing field, so the burden is on you. Again, are you saying you don't believe that I find it interesting?
Free I very much enjoy debating you and hold you in high esteem among A2K regulars, however we are approaching inanity with this thread. Your original post clearly strives to make legal arguments. If you choose to shift to political arguments out of convenience that's fine, but I'm not going to give them much credence.
Quote:Quote:2) He didn't specify which laws he's referring to, which makes me think that he is either afraid to have his opinion challenged or he's bluffing in an effort to put the scare in the press.
Or he didn't think a public announcement such as this required an extensive legal justification. Once again, poltical, not legal.
See above.
See above
See above.
Quote:Quote:3) He says they have an obligation to enforce the laws, which he has said must be read carefully to get to the conclusion he has drawn (that he can prosecute journalists), meaning, their original intent was not to allow the prosecution of journalists. Why would there be an obligation to enforce such a narrow interpretation in this case, but in the case of other legislation, like FISA and the anti-torture law, he feels no obligation to enforce what is the obvious intent of the law? I'm getting the feeling that this guy is a legal hack who is there for no other reason to find ways around the law and through loopholes in the law.
Sorry Free, but this is blah, blah, blah and blah.
You may have a legitmate argument somewhere in the preceding paragraph but you have not done it justice.
It's obvious from the AG's comments that he has to read the law in a way other than it was intended in order to believe that he has the authority to prosecute journalists. If you find that notion "blah" feel free to skip it.
If you insist that these comments are political and not legal then, again, what you have to offer is not much more than blah blah blah. If on the other hand, you wish to assert a legal argument that supports your contention that it is obvious that the AG has read the law in a manner which he knows is contrary to the spirit of its construction, then you need to offer us something more than your say-so.
Finn, perhaps you could read the article that was linked. The AG saysQuote:"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions.
I interpret that the way I've said. You are free to offer an alternate interpretation, or ignore the remarks. Again, the requirement that an argument must be a legal one, in a political forum, is one I don't thing you'd want carried about to other threads, or even to your own posts. So here I think it's you who are making **** up.
Quote:Quote:
Not much of a legal argument, and so I have passed on it.
Again, there is a legal forum for legal arguments. This thread isn't in it.
Then don't attempt to make legal arguments if you do not want them treated as such.
You have explained how I've not made a legal argument, I've shown you how I wasn't attempting to make a legal argument, and you've told me not to attempt to make legal arguments if I don't want them treated as such. I suggest that you, Finn, are looking for an ego boost and you won't get one from me. Not today, anyway.
Quote:
That's very interesting but mostly blah, blah, blah, and blah. Maybe there's an argument in there somewhere on whether journalists should be prosecuted for espionage, but you've not done it justice.
Weak.
Likewise.
Quote:
The grim reality that you and your friends don't seem capable of accepting is that corruption and self-deceit moves as freely to the left of the spectrum as it does to the right.
I'd suggest maybe it's you who doesn't want to accept that. Your remark is evidence of it. Maybe you could answer my question. Then perhaps you'd know whether or not I am capable of accepting such a notion.
It was probably tough to identify the new comments in the preceding, and so here they are:
Free I very much enjoy debating you and hold you in high esteem among A2K regulars, however we are approaching inanity with this thread. Your original post clearly strives to make legal arguments. If you choose to shift to political arguments out of convenience that's fine, but I'm not going to give them much credence.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:It was probably tough to identify the new comments in the preceding, and so here they are:
Free I very much enjoy debating you and hold you in high esteem among A2K regulars, however we are approaching inanity with this thread. Your original post clearly strives to make legal arguments. If you choose to shift to political arguments out of convenience that's fine, but I'm not going to give them much credence.
Finn, my original post strives to provoke thought and to express my initial impression of the article. Nothing more. I can't make legal arguments when I don't even know what laws he's referring to. I have, in other threads, attempted to make legal arguments though I have no obligation to do so -- that would be the America spying on American's thread. I don't even have a firm stance on this issue other than it smells bad initially.
I also enjoy debating you and hold you in high esteem, but moreso when you stick to your New Year's resolution. :wink:
Heh, you guys go right on boycotting the NYT, and they will go right on printing what they see fit. That's what 'free press' is all about, really.
For a couple of guys who claim to be pro-American to the extent that you two do, you sure don't seem to support the ideas that America is based upon very often...
Cycloptichorn
Mr. Walter Hinteler-May I respectfully let you know that "Americans cannot be "customed" to such. I am sure that you meant "Accustomed".
You are very much mistaken, Mr. Walter Hinteler. The USA has never had press censorship. You must be thinking of Herr Goebbles when he censored the press every day in the 1930's in Germany!!!
If you have not studied that time, you really ought to since it gives a template for all other cases of censorship.
