Conquer Club

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/15/opinion/edspeech.php

Essentially: ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) got leaked documents that the bush administration now wants back, if these documents aren't a matter of civil defense liek the ACLU claims, then the Bush Administration is merely rying to avoid embarassment by covering up the leak. If this goes through the precedent it sets will allow for government censorship of the press!

Bump for others thoughts...

DUH forum>>>

If the document's release isn't a matter of national security, why haven't they defied the Judge's order? Surely then they could countersue and win.

How did the ACLU get the documents? "Leaked" makes me think that they were taken without proper authority as in stolen. I am sure the person who gave the ACLU the documents in the first place knows what information they contain, so the ACLU could try to optain the documents legaly through the Freedom of Information Act.

And I don't know if I want the ACLU deciding what is a "legitimate national defense issue". After all didn't Geraldo Rivera give the grid coordinates of a military unit a few years ago because he didn't think it was important. My point is what one person thinks is a "legitimate national defense issue" someone else might not.

Then again this is just my opinion which has been called "extraneous interpretations are merely obnoxious spam" in the past.

the fact that this information could be an embarassment to the administration reallly makes the whole thing suspicious. Also, even the judges are questioning whether the government should be allowed to sieze the documents, so you know its not something that is blatantly dangerous.

My question is why didn't they try to aquire the information legaly? Right now I don't care if it is embarassing. Was the person who gave it to the ACLU in a position to legaly give it to them?

It doesn't matter if it is an embarassment to the government if a law was broken.

Internal memos are leaked all the time. The people leaking them are possibly under the protection of whistle blower protection laws, which i assume is the case since the courts are contemplating allowing them to keep the documents.

Also, the government destroyed all of its copies of the document, so they're cleraly jsut trying to cover whatever happened up.

Evil Semp wrote:My question is why didn't they try to aquire the information legaly? Right now I don't care if it is embarassing. Was the person who gave it to the ACLU in a position to legaly give it to them?

It doesn't matter if it is an embarassment to the government if a law was broken.

Well, they haven't been arrested for harboring a traitor so I suppose it isn't illegal in the classic sense.

But then again, all the Administration has to do these days is say "Terror suspect" and they can do whatever they want.

The main issue here is really, can the government use subpoenas to cover up leaks, i'm not an expert on law in any way, but this woudl probably grant the government power to prevent anyone from getting egg on their face

Aren't whistle blower protection laws there to protect someone who turned in a company that was breaking the law?

Just because someone wasn't arrested for being a traitor doesn't make it legal.

Like I said before, why can't or didn't they just go through the Freedom of Information Act?

Evil Semp wrote:Aren't whistle blower protection laws there to protect someone who turned in a company that was breaking the law?

Just because someone wasn't arrested for being a traitor doesn't make it legal.

Like I said before, why can't or didn't they just go through the Freedom of Information Act?

Why do you keep coming back to this same question? You have to know about the existence of a document in order to request it. They became aware of it because it was leaked. They have it now, so why do they need to request it? The description of it is that it is a policy document. You couldnt get it from the government now according to the article because all other copies have been destroyed.
Besides, that isnt even really the point the article was making. If you are focused on this document you are missing the big picture of the government attempting to use subpoenas in a manner that has never been done before and may be unconstitutional. The current administration has made a habit of stretching constitutional law to the breaking point. Ordinarily I might give the benefit of the doubt to the administration, however their track record has me believing that they need to be watched as they have no compunction about violating citizens rights if it suits them to do so.

Evil Semp wrote:Aren't whistle blower protection laws there to protect someone who turned in a company that was breaking the law?

Just because someone wasn't arrested for being a traitor doesn't make it legal.

Like I said before, why can't or didn't they just go through the Freedom of Information Act?

The only problem with FOIA is that the government body that you are requesting the document form either has to declassify whatever it is, redact whatever is classified, and can outright deny requests under the guise of national security, regardless on whether or not that's true. The details of Watergate would've been declared as such if Woodward and Bernstein filed an FOIA request.

Our country sort of sucks sometimes...

If I didn't want to be an F-22 pilot... I would move to Canada as soon as I'm 18... but the USAF beckons me...

how bout moving to Mexico, and then tell us that the US sucks.


sorry, just don't like it when people say our country "sucks" when u could go to China, or Mexico, or Iraq, or Cambodia, and see which country "sucks"


ok, my rant is over

cowshrptrn wrote:the fact that this information could be an embarassment to the administration reallly makes the whole thing suspicious. Also, even the judges are questioning whether the government should be allowed to sieze the documents, so you know its not something that is blatantly dangerous.

Because a Judge is "Questioning" something, means squat! That's their job they question everything! Now if the Judge had a "Ruling" then it would mean something.

If the Document is "Classified" then it's a Crime to "Leak" it! pure & simple.

I had an argument with a NY times editor about something very similar to this recently. His reply was that the Gov't routinely "Over-Classifies" documents, yep thats right he said that, as if He has a Right to decide what is "Over-Classified" what a Pompous Ass He is!

The ACLU needs to change their name to the ICLU as in int'l civil liberties union because there's nothing American about them! They may have started out with good intentions, but they lost their way long ago.

Ectomancer wrote:Why do you keep coming back to this same question?

Because you never answered my question.

Ectomancer wrote:You have to know about the existence of a document in order to request it. They became aware of it because it was leaked.

The person who leaked it could have told them about it and they could have gone with FOIA.

Ectomancer wrote:They have it now, so why do they need to request it?

I didn't say to request it now.

Ectomancer wrote:You couldnt get it from the government now according to the article because all other copies have been destroyed.

How do they know all copies have been destroyed?

This is from the article, it does not say all copies have been destroyed.

"Subpoenas are supposed to assist an investigation, but the government does not need access to the ACLU's document for an investigation since it already has its own copy."

Ectomancer wrote:Besides, that isnt even really the point the article was making.

The article is about free speech and prior restraint. It is also saying that they obtained what the government considers a classified document. Did they obtain it legaly?

Skittlesandmnms wrote:Our country sort of sucks sometimes...

If I didn't want to be an F-22 pilot... I would move to Canada as soon as I'm 18... but the USAF beckons me...

Our country is that bad where you would move, but its not so bad that you will be willing to let our military of our country that sucks train you?

Aren't you glad you live in a country that lets you have those choices?

Skittles pleae tell me what is so bad in the good ole USA that you would want to move to another country?

Evil Semp wrote:Our country is that bad where you would move, but its not so bad that you will be willing to let our military of our country that sucks train you?

Aren't you glad you live in a country that lets you have those choices?

Skittles pleae tell me what is so bad in the good ole USA that you would want to move to another country?

The Netherlands are a good choice, Switzerland ain't bad.

It's not the country, it's the government. It went from a planned democracy to a representative republic to this cluster-fuck we've got now. It used to be that the Representatives did what the people told them to do, without worrying about political repercussions or soft money contributions. Nowadays anyone with the balls to stand up and say what needs to be said is left holding the bag. Take Murtha for example, he came out and said what every democrat voter wanted said, and then the Dems left him behind because he actually asked for change and for action.

The congress doesn't take action anymore, they don't do anything but attach nonsense to unrelated bills and increase their paygrades. Meanwhile they keep throwing money at the Military, hoping that it'll solve their recruiting and equipment problems while simultaneously slashing benefits for returning veterans. No one gets it up there, because they're all cynical functionaries who are so out of touch that I'm surprised they're still on this planet.

And I hate all of this "If you don't like this country, why don't you just leave" crap. People who say this have more in common with our enemies than they realize. This black-and-white, us-or-them, my-way-or-the-highway mentality is supposed to be reserved for zealots and fundamentalists. This used to be the country of pluralism, where the complainers were actually listened to rather than ignored and belittled. Nowadays it's all gung-ho, cowboy diplomacy and shit.

If you love this country so much, stop being so damn oppositionist. A mass exodus of people isn't going to solve the problems, it's only going to make them worse. Then all the moderates and the people with sense will be gone, and the only ones left are the psycho-nationalists who say 'Up with America and Down with everywhere else!' Then who's gonna be responsible for starting WWIII, hm? I'll give you a hint, it'll be a white guy with a cowboy hat and a shit-eating grin on his face.

Just to clarify things nobody said love it or leave it. Gizzle gave him some suggestions and I asked where he would go.

If we are supporting this country why are we considered oppositionist?

I don't think anyone here was ignored or belittled, at least in this thread.

vtmarik wrote: ...It used to be that the Representatives did what the people told them to do...

I think this was a very long time ago. Various things have popped up trying to sway representatives...political machines many years ago and now PACs. What is in store for the future? Democracy without people? :-\


--Andy