Down to the Fourth Estate

POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Friday, May 26, 2006 00:45
VIEWED: 3769
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:51 PM

Has anyone else seen this?

Down to the Fourth Estate By Jonathan Turley
Wed May 17, 6:56 AM ET

This month, Congress is faced with a most inconvenient crime. With the recent disclosure of a massive secret database program run by the National Security Agency involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, members are confronted with a second intelligence operation that not only lacks congressional authorization but also appears patently unlawful. In December, the public learned that the NSA was engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance of overseas communications - an operation many experts believe is a clear federal crime ordered by the president more than 30 times.

What is most striking about these programs is that they were revealed not by members of Congress but by members of the Fourth Estate: Journalists who confronted Congress with evidence of potentially illegal conduct by this president that was known to various congressional leaders.

In response, President Bush has demanded to know who will rid him of these meddlesome whistle-blowers, and various devout members have rushed forth with cudgels and codes in hand.

Now, it appears Congress is finally acting - not to end alleged criminal acts by the administration, mind you, but to stop the public from learning about such alleged crimes in the future. Members are seeking to give the president the authority to continue to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance as they call for whistle-blowers to be routed out. They also want new penalties to deter both reporters and their sources.

The debate has taken on a hopeful Zen-like quality for besieged politicians: If a crime occurs and no one is around to reveal it or to report it, does it really exist?

The plain fact is that neither party wants to acknowledge that the president might have ordered the commission of federal crimes in the name of national security. Thus, while there have been calls for another feeble hearing (possibly with telecom executives), Congress would prefer to investigate steroids in baseball and the selling of horses to France for gourmet dinners.

Nothing here to cheer

Congress has become a sad parody of itself. In his State of the Union address in January, Bush proudly said he had repeatedly ordered the domestic surveillance operation and would continue to do so. In perhaps the most bizarre moment in modern congressional history, members from both houses proceeded to give him a standing ovation - cheering their own institutional irrelevancy.

Willful blindness, however, will only go so far when newspapers continually put these acts on the front pages. In addition to new possible penalties for whistle-blowers, members of Congress are blocking the enactment of a long-overdue federal shield law to protect journalists from having to disclose their sources to prosecutors - despite the fact that the majority of states have passed such laws as an essential component to good government.

In the meantime, the Bush administration has carried out a scorched-earth campaign against whistle-blowers, including demanding that employees sign waivers of any confidentiality agreements with reporters and using polygraphs designed to uncover anyone speaking with the media. It has also sought to convince a federal court in Virginia to radically extend the reach of the 1917 Espionage Act to cover anyone who even hears classified information while researching or reporting on government policy.

In a case involving two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the government is seeking stiff jail terms based on their receipt of classified information orally from a Pentagon employee on policy issues in the Middle East. (The Pentagon official has been sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.) Under the interpretation of the Bush administration, if a lobbyist or a reporter or a researcher is given such information, he can be charged with unlawful possession of classified information.

If successful in the AIPAC case, the Bush adminis

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:21 AM

I agree with everything but this:

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
The Framers gave us a free press as the final safety net if all other checks and balances in the three branches of government should fail.

The final safety net is the second amendment, not the first.

STDOUBT

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:31 AM

Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?
If our Armed Forces get bought off at the top, then
no ammendment is going to help the People turn this
around.
I once read an article detailing the number of US soldiers who would kill un-armed American civilians if given the order. Can't remember the percentage, but it was damn unsettling.
Could be we're good and fsck'd

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?

They still haven't beat the insurgency in Iraq. Attacking civilians in populated areas would only cause greater unrest, greater unrest fuels the revolution. The biggest problem that would face any revolutionaries here is not the technological and numerical superiority of the Army, but apathy, most people just don't care enough to stand up and fight for themselves.

Quote:
If our Armed Forces get bought off at the top, then
no ammendment is going to help the People turn this
around.
I once read an article detailing the number of US soldiers who would kill un-armed American civilians if given the order. Can't remember the percentage, but it was damn unsettling.

While many soldiers would probably be willing to attack a small group in an isolated incident or two I don't think that the majority would have the stomach for a drawnout battle against their countrymen. All it would take would be a few soldiers turning to split and probably (hopefully) paralyze the military.

Quote:
Could be we're good and fsck'd

No could be about it, regardless of which party takes control we still have a club of elitist assholes who don't give a damn about the country.

"where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?"

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:47 AM

I am not so sure about that STDOUBT. I know a lot of soldiers and they are all aware that they can not follow an unlawful order. I can't see many of them shooting unarmed americans. Unless of course we are talking about unseasoned warriors, and then I think it would be down to nerves. But then I tend to think better of the world, so maybe thats naive.

STDOUBT

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:52 AM

Quote:
Could be we're good and fsck'd

Quote:

No could be about it, regardless of which party takes control we still have a club of elitist assholes who don't give a damn about the country.

Right again. I don't think this can be said enough
times nor loudly enough. Bush and Kerry are on the
same team along with Hillary and Bill. Anyone who
can't see that is living in la-la land.
My new motto is Vote 3rd Party.
We need a real "man of the people". I'll be good
and Godammned if I ever vote Dem or Repub again.
Any good American should be an "Independent" anyway.

STDOUBT

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I am not so sure about that STDOUBT. I know a lot of soldiers and they are all aware that they can not follow an unlawful order. I can't see many of them shooting unarmed americans. Unless of course we are talking about unseasoned warriors, and then I think it would be down to nerves. But then I tend to think better of the world, so maybe thats naive.

Few years ago, a buddy of mine had his neighborhood flooded/mudslid. He was in a light pickup with another guy and wanted to go see if/what he could salvage. The National Guard sentry on his street stuck an M16 into the cab and yelled "where do you think you're going?" (IMHO, that's grounds for dishonorable discharge)
I'm glad the soldiers you know are good people, but 50/50 odds, you give a man enough authority over others, and he'll start thinking he's one step down from Jesus.

STDOUBT

Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:02 AM

FREDGIBLET,
Good points -thanks for the bit of perspective.
Just want to make it clear I hope it never comes to that, but I do fear it's either that or utter decay. As in, 10 years from now we're a "3rd-world" slave nation (with half of us happily licking up the crumbs).

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I am not so sure about that STDOUBT. I know a lot of soldiers and they are all aware that they can not follow an unlawful order. I can't see many of them shooting unarmed americans. Unless of course we are talking about unseasoned warriors, and then I think it would be down to nerves.

Well the thing is that most of the soldiers (particularly those in a warzone) hear the official line a lot more than the truth. All it would take is saying that the people were terrorists and the soldiers would probably gun them down without question (and I couldn't really blame them, after all they are already sacrficeing themselves for the country). After that the fuse would be lit and all bets would be off.

Quote:
But then I tend to think better of the world, so maybe thats naive.

It is, but it's the good kind of naive, cherish it because those of us who don't believe in the good of the world are very sad people.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
My new motto is Vote 3rd Party.
We need a real "man of the people". I'll be good
and Godammned if I ever vote Dem or Repub again.
Any good American should be an "Independent" anyway.

I would agree with you...but. The problem is that the 2 parties are too firmly entrenched, it would take at least 1\3 of the people voting for a third party to succeed, and that is if they were pulling equally from both sides (which is unlikely). In the end all most people can do is vote for the least offensive of the two and hope they don't get screwed too much, that is what the elitist club counts on to perpetuate itself.

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE