This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
Treason: Release of, or dissemination of, information deemed neccesary for the Security of the Nation.
Penalty: non-war time, jail. War time, firing squad.
This country has become too namby-pamby to actually punish the treasonous SOBs running the NYT and every other paper out there who published the information "because the NYT already had."
bunchamoronsrunningthiscountryintotheground
This prohibition against "hate speech" is relatively new. As far as I know the 1st Amendment has no qualifiers saying what you can and can't say.
The "hate speech" thing was an invention of the left to stifle opposition to their favorite radical and victim groups and has worked quite effectively.
People should continue to speak their minds, whether it offends someone or not.......that's free speech. If you "hate" or "dislike" someone or something, you have every right to express that. The left does it all the time.
Publishing national secrets is not freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. It's giving aid and comfort to the enemy and should be dealt with as such.
"governments always prohibit certain types of expressions. (Take hate speech for example.)"
I actually disagree with this statement - hate speech laws are new and should never have been passed in the first place. It turns people into thought police and I find that unacceptable. Also, how do you defend yourself against the accusation. Hate crimes legislation is just a measure to tack on more jail time when a crime has already been committed. To me, a crime is a crime is a crime and I don't need to know what the person was thinking at the time of its commission.
Now, if you were to use the example of naked people ingaging in sex acts in a public park, and their defense was freedom of expression, then you could safely say that decency laws curb their freedom of expression.
Free Speech usually includes portions in it that other people hate - that's why it's protected.
That said (in my long-winded fashion) The NY Times (et al) committed treason and provided aid and comfort to the enemy. They should be tried for these crimes.
I'll bring the rope!
Interesting....
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/
f...freedom1.html#C
Exactly!
Cary -
"This country has become too namby-pamby to actually punish the treasonous SOBs running the NYT and every other paper out there who published the information "because the NYT already had."
That means you go too. And Malkin. And me. And Jenn. We can all meet in prison.
Dave, none of us broke the story. It's not the same. If the NYT hadn't printed it, we wouldn't be talking about it. Big diff.
I still want REAL jail time for these traitors! And none of this, "we'll let you go if you reveal your sources," crap. I wnat them ALL in prison on sedition charges!
I'm tired of them hiding behind the First Amendment (which doesn't apply here). I also stand behind my statement that if anyone is harmed or dies because of their treason, they should face the death penalty.
IF I ever, EVER release security information, knowing that it will affect the national security, by all means bring me up on charges. I would, at that point in time, deserve the sentence.
I agree with witness - let's actually charge those responsible and make them serve the sentence - and also that the murder charges should be brought into play. Now, how long will the fifth estate pretend they know what's best for us?
Actually, Ward Churchill was fired for research misconduct and plagiarism. Not his "little Eichmanns" drivel. Hell, that actually made him a cult favorite among the moonbat wing of the left.
Universities are kinda funny about their tenured professors being plagiarists, huh? However, at least he is now qualified to be a Democrat Senator from Delaware (Google "Biden plagiarism")! 
Either way, Chief Sitting Bullsh#t got a big dose of karma.
Actually, to the Founders, "Free Speech" meant POLITICAL speech. It did NOT mean ANY other type or subject of speech.
The original right of free speech in Parliament in England was the right of the representatives to be able to speak freely in Parliament. So, the Founders' original conception of "free speech" was that in Congress and that of political writers and publishers. But it was not thought to cover ANY other speech. Other speech was left to the states to regulate.
Also, libel laws were in full force before the Founders came about.
So, to the Founders, Howard Stern does NOT have the legal right to pornography on the airwaves. Nor does Hustler magazine have any "right" to exist. Etc., etc.
Mr. Huston is technically correct.
But, when one speaks of what the founding fathers, and the "witch" burners, first came up with, you'd have to conclude that, times change.
Considering the fact that when I was a child there were 4 channels on T.V.,computers were larger than the astrodome and I-Pods, DVD'S,and all that jazz didn't even exist, you've got to keep up with the times.
Treason and sedition are difficult to prove. Although I agree that treason applies, the statute that could nail the NYT and company is:
Title 18, United States Code Section 798. Disclosure of Classified
Information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--
...
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
That's about a balck and white as it gets.
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
That's about a balck and white as it gets.
Old Soldier
Ok - FINE! I will be happy with that - but it has to be BOTH. It still does nothng to sate my thirst for revenge though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art...tion_3:
_Treason
well said
funny that no one on the right seems to be mentioning the Wall Street Journal publishing the same thing.
Are you going to hold them to the fire, too?
Oh yea:
http://www.salon.com/politics/wa...anks/
index.html
Is it a leak if it wasn't a secret in the first place?
George W. Bush has said that it was "disgraceful" for the media to report that the United States is monitoring bank transactions. Republican Rep. Peter King has called for a criminal prosecution of the reporters involved, and the National Review has demanded that the White House revoke the New York Times' press credentials.
There's just one little problem here. The transaction-monitoring program described by the Times and other media outlets wasn't much of a secret anyway. As the Boston Globe reports today, "public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001."
Among those records is a public report prepared for the United Nations Security Council in 2002, a report that specifically acknowledged that the U.S. government was monitoring transactions through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT. "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions," the report said, and it recommended that other countries begin to do the same.
One of the report's authors, a former U.S. diplomat named Victor Comras, tells the Globe that the United States has "spent the last four years bragging [about] how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing." Unless terrorists were "pretty dumb" Comras says, they had to have known all along that the U.S. government was watching their financial transactions.
That's not really the point is it Mike V.?? I'd never heard of this program before the NY Times decided to splash it across it's front page. Neither had you, or millions of other people.
The point is the administration PLEADED with this asshole paper NOT to print it because even if some people had heard of it, not EVEYONE had. Of course everyone has now.
Same with the NSA deal.
Quit making excuses for a rabid anti-american rag concerned only with taking potshots at Bush.
Mike V.
It is not the METHODS, monitoring bank acounts, that is at stake here. Bank account monitoring has been legal for about 20 yrs to catch drug money launderers. It is the disclosure of details of the CLASSIFIED OPERATION that is the question.
Um, if it's out in the public domain, then it's not exactly classified, is it?
And where is the outrage at the Wall Street Journal, BTW?
They published it as well.
What the administration is getting tweaked at is that the papers are showing us what a FAILURE they have been at using any method to get anyone.
Do you really think that al queda is that stupid that they don't know they are being monitored?
The administration is not interested in catching "terrorists".
Unless there is an election coming up.
They are interested in removing rights from the American people.
What I'm wondering, since all you people on the right who have been cheerleading for Bush for so long no matter the issue or how wrong he is, is this:
When will you subject yourselves to house to house searches?
If not, why not?
If you have nothing to hide, then why not let the department of Homeland Security come around your place when you're not home and hunt around for a while?
Mike V. "What the administration is getting tweaked at is that the papers are showing us what a FAILURE they have been at using any method to get anyone.
Do you really think that al queda is that stupid that they don't know they are being monitored?"
Whose side are you on anyway? The NY Times was the first to run this shit. But hang them all if it makes you happy.
You people live in such a fantasy land that you aren't even phased by this. You'd rather ANYBODY but the United States win.
Anything to get some mindless political hit on Bush huh Mike?
Why don't you have any outrage whatsoever at these maniacs torturing and beheading innocent men, women and children, not to mention our military men????
You fools should be screaming at the NY Times to shut the fuck up. Instead you sit there and try to justify it and spin it around and blame Bush.
You're sick. Anyone else who thinks like you is sick. Got it? You need help. My advice to you and the rest of you warped bastards is just stay the fuck out of the way and let the saner folks deal with the hell on earth this cult of mohammed has unleashed upon us.
LOL!!
Man, you are too funny.
See, I don't think we should be in Iraq in the first place. Unlike you, I know this is a fools errand to secure the oil fields.
There is no "war on terror". You can't have a war on an idea. On an adjective. There is no standing army.
Our occupation of Iraq is what brought those animals in there in the first place to start beheading people.
This democracy (well, in the case of Iraq, theocracy) at the point of a gun thing ain't working too well.
If you are so gungho about this occupation of Iraq, where the hell is your outrage at the administration for listening to Wolfowitz and the chickenhawk neo-cons rather than military people that KNEW what it would take to win the peace?
If you are so made at me, where is your outrage for big old lefties like General Odom who basically is saying the same thing I am?
Oh, and I am on the side of the Constitution of the United States of America. Not the side of GWB. Or any president.
Presidents are narcissistic a-holes.
Well, in the case of GWB, he's beyond that into sociopath territory.
I love my country and I love my freedoms, and I'm not going to give them up for some boogyman in the middle east.
Particularly when it is the actions of our Administration that is making terrorism WORSE than ever.
112 billion barrels of oil under the sand in Mesopotamia. Some day you will understand.
Mike V. - "There is no "war on terror". You can't have a war on an idea. On an adjective. There is no standing army."
You have deluded yourself to the point of no return. Good luck, hope you get the help you need.
LOL again.
Nice comeback.
Sorry that it pains you to hear the truth.
Can't even comment on any of my points because you know you are WRONG and this is a fools errand, headed by a larger fool who is a puppet for Oil men and PNAC.
Hell, read the freakin PNAC website, they are very clear on their objectives.
Why do you love the neo-cons like Wolfowitz so much but not our own fighting men and women??
Mike V. - If you could reread what you write.....rationally...... then a little bulb would suddenly come on inside that convoluted mind of yours and you'd go .....oh, that's why !!
Give it up, I'm not going to reply to your nonsense any longer. Have a nice time making up all the reasons why.
Please get real help.....soon. You're closer to the deep end than you know.
Oh, I reread it all the time.
And I realize how brilliant it is.
Good luck supporting that "war on terror" thing.
In 20 years when the rest of the world looks back on the clusterfuck that is the Bush administration, will you still be living in dee-nile?
Probably.
In 20 years when the rest of the world looks back on the clusterfuck that is the Bush administration, will you still be living in dee-nile?
Well, despite you leftards and your best efforts, we'll at least be living. No thanks to you dhimmis.
"we'll at least be living." I think chrome dome is the dumbest yet, Mike.
I've heard about "arguments" and "points" like these being made before. Let's see, where was it? Oh, right, Germany when the Nazis took over.
This is just another perfect example why conservative bloggers have absolutely no power or influence. They're nothing but the lowest, mouth-breathing, reactionary dweebs who haven't the intellect to craft anything remotely coherent or logical. It's just a bunch of whining and bitching about "treason" and "anti-America". Every point made by Mike is direct, to-the-point, and, most importantly, correct. Every point you wingnut retards have made is... well, you haven't made one yet.
But keep up the good work! You're humiliating your party even more than they could do on their own. And what humiliates and further exposes the GOP's idiot agenda is really great for America.
Just think how awesome politics would be if we all discussed it rationally and intelligently rather than like we're drunk at a bar.
"This is just another perfect example why conservative bloggers have absolutely no power or influence."
This revelation will no doubt come as a HUGE surprise to Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and John Kerry. After all, those "non-powerful" and "non-influential" conservative bloggers at Powerline and Little Green Footballs were the ones to break the forged documents scandal at CBS. This discovery, in turn, lit a fire under the rest of the "non-influential" blogosphere to the point where even the MSM couldn't ignore it.
Now, Rather and Mapes are unemployed. Kerry lost the election. So I see your point, numbnuts...there's just NO power or influence in conservative blogs!
Not that I expect your cowardly #ss to read this, Brad, since you're just a gutless "drive-by" "hit-and-run" commenter. You're not too good at responding to people who challenge you on your idiocy, are you?
Brad once again attempts to deflect his deep seated feelings of inferiority by subconsciously projecting his image of "brad" on who else? ......... conservatives.
"They're nothing but the lowest, mouth-breathing, reactionary dweebs who haven't the intellect to craft anything remotely coherent or logical."
Talk about not being able to "craft anything remotely coherent or logical".
Grow up Brad, life isn't all about you. My suggestion is you start by accepting reality, then get a job, then get a life.
I am constantly amazed by Brad, amazed that someone with as few brain cells as he has is able to remember to breathe in and out at regular intervals, maybe he is on a respirator and it does his breathing for him.
Brad attempting to sound authoritative: "I've heard about "arguments" and "points" like these being made before. Let's see, where was it? Oh, right, Germany when the Nazis took over."
Hmmmmmmm ....... I'm not really sure what your point is. Who was trying to kill Germans wherever they were on the globe at that time? Was there some fanatical group flying into buildings in Berlin? Or trying to blow up dirty bombs in Hamburg? Or seed the Rhine with naughty chemicals?? Or cutting heads off of men, women and children just for shits and grins?
Let's see, Germany was in bad straights because it lost in WWI, was forced to repay millions of deutsche marks. They were secretly building up their military against the treaties they had signed. The economy sucked.
Oh yeah ....... now I remember, it was those darn Jews !! That's who Hitler said was destroying their country !! And wasn't it those darned flaky pacifist liberals that thought Hitler was just oh so touchy feely?? The liberals thought if they just left Hitler alone he'd just kill people in his own country and wouldn't bother anyone else. We all know how well that worked. Well, except for Brad and Mike V.
I don't think we're gonna let that shit happen again. That is unless we get a democrat for president.
Oh, and Brad....... get together with Mike V. Maybe they'll bunk you two together in a room on the 9th floor of your local mental hospital. Then you guys can try to outdo each other with conspiracy theories.
"You're not too good at responding to people who challenge you on your idiocy, are you?"
Nobody has yet. Just a lot more whining from the fanatical right-wing and "points" about how "conservative" bloggers broke the story about Dan Rather forging documents. Which was a flat-out lie.
And the made-up enemy in Germany, retards? Communists. Just like you Kool-Aid drunk parasites try to blame the left-wing, Hitler blamed the left wing of Germany for society's failures, leading to fasicsm. Just like the US is now trying to do with "terrorism".
They're called "books", wingnuts! Might try cracking one open every once in a while.
"Nobody has yet."
Uh...we challenge your idiocy daily, Broad...I mean, Brad.
"Which was a flat-out lie."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You believe the docs were authentic? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OMG, that has got to be one of the dumbest things you've said to date, and God knows there have been plenty!
Everyone knows they were fake, asshat! Well, everyone with a brain. I guess that explains the problem for you, then.
leading to fasicsm
What's a "fasicsm"? How is that pronounced, "FASS-SICK-SMMM"? Is that some code word the left uses for "I am a paranoid moonbat who is in desperate need of a padded cell and straightjacket"?
You're more entertaining that Barney Frank on a Key West cruiseline doing the lambada to "Copacabana"!
"Which was a flat-out lie."
What Dans "documents"? My God you got something correct!!!!
"And the made-up enemy in Germany, retards? Communists"
No Hitler blamed just about everyone.
Jews, communists, homosexuals, the Kaiser, catholics, Non-aryan blooded people, gypsies, and yes people with mental problems and more
And as far as making a point when are you going to attempt to make one?
All you have done on this post is to bitch about how you "think" the right has whinned.
As for books try reading something with some facts and get away from Harry Potter. They are going to kill one of the characters off in the next installment and I wouldnt want you to "think" that its a right wing conspiracy.
Hey Brad are you and Pete and Mike V
going to join Cindy on her "fast"? She seems reluctant to call it a hunger strike, maybe just a few pounds before swimsuit season.
LOL.. I see, that someone left the window's open again and the moonbats have flown in.
I was sick yesterday (and indeed and a bit "Nyquil head" today.)
The left is quite aware of the cult of islam and how dangerous they are. Islam scares the living bejesus outta them. The only problem is if they admit it, then that means they have to admit Bush is right.
So to prevent themselves from accepting the fact that everything they stand for is wrong and useless, they project their fear and hatred on the one thing that won't bite them back ...... the United States (usually read as white males and conservative white females).
Unfortunately, although they have an extreme desire to stay safe and be protected (hence their love for social programs) against all the evils of the world that scare them half to death, they are tying the hands of the one country that can actually keep them safe because they haven't the courage to admit they're wrong. Usually referred to as extreme denial.
Their denial of the actual problems is actually enabling the evils in the world to flourish.
Very sad case indeed. Maybe the day that dull blade starts its cut around their scrawny necks they'll suddenly gather up the courage to admit they were wrong. Inbetween screams of course. Unless ..., they'd rather join the cult of islam and become a submissive muslim.
Scared of Islam? Hardly.
And rather than spending billions on this "war on terror" (securing oil fields in Iraq) we actually let the proper people do their jobs within the confines of the constitution, we might be able to catch a few of those animals.
Don't forget, Bush is on record when he came into office as saying he's not worried about al Quada or bin Laden (fucking lowercase letters in proper names pisses me off).
Per PNAC, it was all about Iraq.
Now, we have old ladies getting fingerbanged in airports, and A-rabs in line to run our ports.
112 billion barrels of oil under the sand, Darwin. Sweet enough to put right into your crankcase.
WMD and terriers.. Right.
Oh, and davejoch, as long as I can have a guinness or a Sierra Nevada and get killed at pool, I don't mind arguing politics while drunk at a bar at all...
I really enjoy this little echo chamber of retards you've got going here, ganging up to blow each other, express your worship of El Presidente, and console each other preemptively for the collapse of the Republican Party you're helping to cause!
Keep it up because it allows us intelligent people comic relief.
Brad
It is amazing how much space you take up, yet say abolutely nothing, another example of whats in your "brain"
"we actually let the proper people do their jobs within the confines of the constitution, we might be able to catch a few of those animals".
1. The Constitution really doesn't apply to these animals. If we catch them here on U.S. soil they may get the some constitutional benefit. We've nabbed quite a few. Some are in Gitmo, a lot are dead. Give credit where credit is due.
You are obviously a conflicted person, fitting quite nicely into what I posted above. Why do you want to afford these murdering bastards anything? Justice for most of them is death. Yet you seem to want to bend over to give them as many chances as you can to kill us and destroy the modern world.
The Middle east would be nothing if it wasn't for oil. That's all they have and they're filty rich from it. Once we wean oursleves off their oil, they're lost. They have no economy, no industry, no science, nothing. They will revert to what they have been in the past. Camel fucking animals. If it's in anyones interest to buy oil from the middle east.... it's in THEIRS.
2. The media has made it their self-appointed task to make sure we catch as few as possible. Direct your questions to them, especially the NY Times.
"Don't forget, Bush is on record when he came into office as saying he's not worried about al Quada or bin Laden".
That's really funny. The only way he would have come to that conclusion was if the previous administration had led him to believe that was the case. Boy, did Bush get the wool pulled over his eyes by Billy. That naughty sex addict, crook and rapist. Oh yeah.... and a liar too.
"112 billion barrels of oil under the sand, Darwin. Sweet enough to put right into your crankcase".
Hey, did you hear the House just voted to lift the ban on offshore drilling? Even Jack "Mohammed" Murtha voted for it. They approved drilling in ANWR last month. Now if it only gets through the Senate, you'll have to come up with another hair brained conspiracy theory.
In addition, technology has improved to the point where recovering oil from shale rock would be feasible. There's an estimated trillion barrels in the Rockies.
But wait ...... some democrats had to vote for drilling. Does that mean they're now in cahoots with republicans? Or is it the republicans really in cahoots with democrats?
How will you deal with reality when we start pumping oil here and lessen our dependence on the Middle East? Will you demand we stay in Iraq so you'll be able to hang on to your crackpot theories?
Brad opines on his gray matter: "Keep it up because it allows us intelligent people comic relief".
Brad, I suppose you've never heard that old axiom that "the more one knows, the less one understands"?? No? Didn't think so.
People who have true intelligence, and you're not one, rarely, if ever state to someone that "they're intelligent or smart". That's because Brad, a truly intelligent person understands that the more one learns and understands, the more there is to know, and they realize in the vastness of all creation how very little they actually do know.
It has a tendency to make one very humble. You're obviously not humble Brad ..... is it sinking in yet?
Commenting by HaloScan
