Who Needs a Free Press?

The press is anemic. The press doesn't do a good enough job of investigating any more. The press is biased.

The press is a lot of things, but they're also vital to our nation. They act as a check on governmental power as no branch OF that government ever could.

And so, while we may not like the fact that leaks are a fact of life, this article should scare any good American citizen.

The Bush Administration is considering charging reporters and their news outlets with treason for publishing leaks of classified information.

Think for a moment what a chilling effect this would have on the press in this country. The leak of classified information may not be a good thing, but it does keep the country honest. Imagine if we'd had such a policy when President Nixon was engaged in the Watergate scandal. Being the President, he had the power to classify documents. He could simply have classified all information relating to his illegal dealings and then simply jailed Woodward and Bernstein. More likely, if he'd jailed a few of their contemporaries on other charges, the two would have decided against pursuing such a potentially prosecutorially treasonous story.

In today's world, we're constantly reminded that we're "at war", and during war time, treason can be punishable by death. Do you think that even reporters who are willing to risk jail time to protect a source would be willing to publish the stories of Federal malfeasance if that story could get them executed?

If you're one of the few remaining tenacious supporters of this President, against all logic and reason, then consider the previous Administration. Suppose President Clinton had had this power and had decided to classify any and all information regarding his dealings with Ms. Monica Lewinsky and any other women with whom he may have had affairs. Should it really have been that easy for him to sweep the whole story under the rug? Do we really want the President to have to power to break the law and then keep it quiet under threat of a conviction under the treason laws?

This is serious business. The NSA wire tapping program seems to be generally considered illegal by most constitutional scholars whose opinions I've read. Certainly secret torture prisons and extraordinary rendition run counter to our ideals as a country and as a people. And while I think the leak of Valerie Plame's identity (and subsequent destruction of her career as a CIA agent along with the outing of her cover company and the identity of every other agent using the same cover) is despicable and wantonly self serving (and not in the same "public interest" as some of the other examples listed in this post), I would never suggest that Robert Novak be put to death for leaking classified information during war time.

And who is to decide, under this new guideline, which cases of leaking are sufficient to warrant prosecution? Just the ones the President doesn't like (so if he or his Administration choose to leak classified information that helps them, no one is prosecuted, but if someone leaks information about his wrong doing, that person is going to be prosecuted)? And does the reporter have to KNOW that the information is classified? What if someone leaks information and the reporter is not aware that the information is classified (merely not commonly known), for instance in the example with Clinton classifying the details of his dalliances, isn't knowledge of the classification status of an item a necessary prerequisite for prosecution under the treason statute?

And if so, how do you prove that the reporter knew of the classified status of the information they reported? And won't we set up a situation where we further incent reporters to go to jail rather than give up their sources? After all, without a source to tell what was discussed, the reporter can simply say the source never mentioned that the information was legally classified, and why would that reporter choose to give up the name of that source and risk prosecution under a more onerous charge, when by keeping the name secret, there's no proof that the reporter was knowingly guilty of treason? Certainly if the only thing keeping me from being prosecuted for war-time treason and possibly sent to life in prison or death was the comparatively short time in prison for not revealing my source, you're not going to pry that out of me with the Jaws of Life[tm].

Leaks of classified information are generally bad, and they can harm our national security. But they can also be essential checks on government gone bad. We need them. We can't be putting reporters up on trial for treason for deeming as important to the public interest a piece of already-leaked information (already leaked in the sense that by the time the reporter (generally with no security clearance) has the info, it's no longer secure).

Think about it. We may not have the press we wish we had, but is the solution really to do away with the last vestiges of investigative freedom they might choose to express?

Liam.

Iran...

Keep this article in mind as we move in what appears to be inexorable fashion towards war with Iran...

The Congress says we don't have enough intelligence on Iran to know how soon they'll be a nuclear threat.

Liam.

A FOX News Poll!?!

Even Fox News is admitting that their polls show the President at all time low approval numbers. The Fox poll indicates a 33% approval rating, down from 36% two weeks ago, 39% in mid march, 47% last year and 50% two years ago.

Given the extent to which Fox personalities have gone recently to spin away the results of other polls, it's interesting to see even Fox admitting that this is not a popular President.

Perhaps they are waking up to the idea that Bush isn't just unpopular with Democrats and not just unpopular with Independents, he's unpopular with Republicans as well. Republicans are waking up to the idea that just because someone calls themselves Republican and pays lip service to Republican ideals doesn't make them Republican.

Living up to the ideals does, and this President has utterly failed to live up to either Republican or American ideals.

Liam.

Medicare Nonsense

As you've probably noticed, I've not written anything on this blog in a while. It makes me sick to my stomach. Every day more corruption, more insanity, more headlong rush into World War III and nuclear conflagration, and still there are about 35% of the people in this nation who simply won't open their eyes and recognize that the current leadership of this nation couldn't be more evil and damaging if they were in fact being led by the anti-christ of Revelations.

Today, I saw this article from the LA Times. The new Medicare plan, that President Bush keeps repeating parrot like "is a good deal for you" doesn't save anything on many prescriptions.

So, is the point just to line the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies with more money? It sure seems like the goal of this Administration and this Congress is to make more money for large corporations, and I can't see any other explanation for an "insurance" plan that costs billions of dollars only to pass on HIGHER costs to participants.

Either this is just a blatant attempt to further line the pockets of big corporate contributors over the American citizens for whom the politicians are SUPPOSED to work, or this is an attempt to be so transparently bureaucratic that the argument in favor of privatization sounds good by comparison.

Either way, nice to see what billions of our tax dollars can accomplish for our seniors.

Liam.

I Won't Be Sleeping Tonight

I don't think I've read anything as frightening as this article from the New Yorker in a long time. The article goes into a lot of detail as to the Administration's plans for Iran. Yes, Iran, I didn't mis-type.

There's a lot of the same rhetoric in there that we heard in the lead up to the Iraq war. Once again, they're telling us that they're pursuing a diplomatic solution but reportedly have already made the decision to go to war. Once again they're "briefing Congress" selectively, only briefing certain members deemed faithful to the President and pro-war in stance.

But here's the quote from the article that will keep me from sleeping tonight:

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

The article goes on to quote several sources that this option is being seriously considered.

If that's true, and if we do it, the rest of the world is going to end us. Not just complain, not just strike back feebly, but unify together and wipe us off the face of the planet.

No one wants to take on the big kid in the playground, and as long as all he's doing is menacing people and maybe taking their lunch money, no one does anything about it. But if he graduates to breaking limbs or actually killing the smaller kids, sooner or later they WILL rise up and take him out.

There has only ever been ONE nuclear war on this planet, and WE were the only ones who made it so. If we start the second one, the rest of the world will realize we are too dangerous to be allowed to exist, and they will end us.

The ONLY good thing about nuclear weaponry is that we're all so afraid of the other guy's that we don't use our own. There may be conflicts in which the use of nukes is justified. Some have argued that their use in World War II ended the war much more quickly, and ultimately SAVED lives. But there can be no good outcome, no justifiable reason to use nukes in a preemptive war, even if you accept the morality and/or necessity of such a war.

Bullying the other kids on the planet will make them dislike us, and probably grumble a lot, but most will probably just try to stay out of our way. If we break out the nukes, we become the terrorist state we're claiming to fight, and there WILL be a wide spread united world effort to put us down and make sure we can never do such a thing again.

Mark my words. Think about it. And see if you, like me, have trouble getting to sleep tonight.

Liam.

That's Quite Enough Bogus Outrage

I'm getting sick of the latest spin on the Valerie Plame Wilson story. There's plenty of substance here to chew on, why do so many reporters and pundits choose to focus solely on a non-issue: That the President would be more concerned with leaks that were harmful to him than with leaks that were in his interest?

Does anyone seriously believe there's been even one Presidential Administration in the history of this country that hasn't at some point or other orchestrated the release of information for political purposes? Or that Presidents who get very frustrated when information that paints them in a bad light is leaked to the press nevertheless are perfectly happy when the leak works to their advantage?

It's politics, and it's part of the way the game is played.

Now, as to whether those leaks were legal, or whether the President really does have unitary power to, on a whim, declassify information, and also whether even if he does, it would have been right of him if he had chosen to revoke (without notice) the classified status of an undercover CIA agent, that's still an open issue.

And if you want to get outraged over THAT, be my guest. But to act as though there's something shocking that the President might not be as opposed to favorable leaks as he is to unfavorable ones, that's just smoke and mirrors. Enough already. It's a non-story.

Liam.

Who Watches the Watchers

I want to point out two stories in the news, not as a partisan issue, but to demonstrate why I'm so keen on keeping the checks and balances and oversight that this country is supposed to have.

The issues in question are not partisan (except to the extent that they are governmental, and the government is almost exclusively Republican just now), the same things could just as well have gone on during a Democratic administration. Nevertheless...

Story 1 involves a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security who was caught trolling on line for 14 year old girls. He apparently felt so secure and protected in his job that he bragged about who he was and what he did, giving the detective (posing as a 14 year old girl) his home and cell telephone numbers, as well as sending pornographic photos and videos of himself to the detective (whom, I repeat, he believed to be a 14 year old girl).

The second story involves the head of the Tampa (FL) office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement fondling himself and exposing himself to a teenaged girl in a mall. He had previously been the head of a national program targeting child predators.

So what, you may be asking, do two stories about pedophiles have to do with warrantless spying? Only this: Both of these men were in positions of power relating to keeping this country secure. One of them had previously been charged with protecting children from exactly the sort of behavior he himself engaged in. The point is that you never know who is going to turn out not to be who you thought they were. You never know who is going to be a pedophile or a rapist or a tax cheat or... whatever. People keep their predilictions secret.

And so we return to unchecked Presidential power. We don't know what the pecedillos of this President (or any others) are. We don't know who can be trusted to use unchecked and unoverseen power responsibly and who might be tempted to misuse it.

These were two men in positions of power, who probably thought that their powerful positions would protect them from being caught. Fortunately, they were wrong. What might a President (this one or the next one or the one after that) do once it is well established that Presidents are not subject to normal scrutiny?

No one is so noble, so pure, so incorruptible as to be trusted with that level of power in a country that prides itself on NO ONE being above the law.

Liam.

Kudos to President Bush

Yes, you read that right.

President Bush gave a speech today (the second time in as many weeks) at which questions were allowed from an unscreened audience.

The relevant part is here (the quote is a little long, but bear with me):

Q You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what's your question?

Q Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and --

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec -- let him speak.

Q And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about.

THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.)

Q And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that.

THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate --

Q I don't have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to you.

Now, obviously, I agree with the speaker. But I have to give kudos to President Bush for taking the question/comment and (if you listen to the audio) being very patient and defending the guy's right to speak, even as the guy was saying bad things about the President.

On top of all of that, President Bush gave a reasoned and thoughtful response. The answer was wrong in my opinion, there were many facets of it with which I disagree, but he took the question, he hushed the crowd and let the man be heard, and then he gave an answer which actually answered some of the points rather than entirely ducking the issues raised.

I still don't agree with this President. I still believe his policies and his consolidation of Presidential power are unconstitutional and bad for this country. But finally he's starting to hear the other side. He's starting to get, in ever so small bites, a taste of the 65% of opinion which does NOT think he's doing a good job that has for all too long been kept out of his Presidential bubble. And he's not dismissing the rare comment he does hear as completely atypical of the average citizen.

Read the transcript here.

Liam.

Warrantless Evidence

A few days ago, on this post, one commenter proposed that I was being too paranoid about the Justice Department's assertion that it could use information gained in the NSA warrantless wiretapping program as evidence in criminal trials. I am not surprised they feel they can do this. After all, they seem to have no problems with the illegality of the program, why would they let it stop them from using illegally gained information in court?

Anyway, the commenter in question identified themselves as a lawyer and implied that no judge would ever allow said evidence in a court, if a halfway competent lawyer was on the case to object to it. (Hopefully I am not misrepresenting his post, I am not a lawyer so while I try to understand the law, my knowledge of actual workings of trials is limited to what I see on TV. Knowing how poorly TV represents the realities of my own profession, I understand that the reality of the courtroom is probably somewhat different as well.)

I would invite the author of that comment to read and further comment on this news article from this morning. Obviously, because the government is claiming Top Secret, we have to read between the lines, but it sure appears as though there IS such evidence in the trial described, it IS being used, and the Judge in the case has refused to allow the defense access to it.

The defendants in the case are described as “Pakistani-Americans”, which means that they are American citizens. At least based on this article, this isn't a trial of a foreign national. And it doesn't appear as though the Judge has any problem with the evidence being secret and yet still being used as evidence.

So much for the right of full disclosure, so that the defense can fairly counter the evidence. I'll be watching this case of father and son Umer and Hamid Hayat. Maybe it won't go the way it looks like it's going to. But as it stands, this looks to me to be reason to worry.

Liam.

Disappointed...

The news today includes an article that the Supreme Court has chosen not to hear the challenge of Jose Padilla regarding his treatment as an American citizen.

Granted, many are pointing out that the court made it clear that they were not pleased with his treatment, and the majority were only opting out of hearing the case because the Department of Justice decided to avoid the challenge by finally bringing charges a month or two back.

But I am not satisfied with the idea that if the Administration does the right thing three and a half years too late, that there is no longer any need to do anything about it. If I rob a bank and three and a half years later, just before they catch me, go back to the bank and return the money, do you think they'll suddenly say "Oh, OK, then there's no need to prosecute you"?

Of course not.

Jose Padilla is not (by all accounts) a nice man. But he is an American citizen, and there are rights the government is obligated to respect, rights guaranteed in our Constitution, and the war on terror does not obviate the need to respect them.

For those who have forgotten, Padilla is a former Chicago gang member who converted to Islam but remained an American citizen living in Chicago. Over three and a half years ago, he was arrested in Chicago, moved out of the country and has been held every since in Guantanamo Bay detention center, until a couple of months ago without any charges being filed, and for much of the three and a half years without access to lawyers.

There couldn't be a more clear violation violation of the Sixth Amendment. The sixth, if you haven't got it handy, says: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Again, even if you don't believe non-citizens are due the same rights our Constitution and Declaration of Independence say are due "all men" (a slippery slope, but perhaps a legal argument), that absolutely doesn't apply in this case. He did not renounce his citizenship, he was not outside of the country, there was simply no reason to declare his Constitutional rights null and void.

Our Constitution isn't worth much, if it only applies when it's convenient, or in the easy cases. The idea that the President can make up a brand new legal status, "Enemy Combatant" and then assign it to people, thus making them subject to neither the Geneva Convention rules regarding prisoners of war nor the Constitution rules regarding prisoners in non-war-time is absolutely evil.

Liam.