Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Pressing Its Crackdown Against Leaks

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-can't-handle-the-truth dept.

Government 213

NotSanguine writes with this quote from a NY Times article: "The Justice Department shows no sign of rethinking its campaign to punish unauthorized disclosures to the news media, with five criminal cases so far under President Obama, compared with three under all previous presidents combined. This week, a grand jury in Virginia heard testimony in a continuing investigation of WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy group, a rare effort to prosecute those who publish secrets, rather than those who leak them. The string of cases reflects a broad belief across two administrations and in both parties in Congress that leaks have gotten out of hand, endangering intelligence agents and exposing American spying methods."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Smash imperialism! (3)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484862)

Smas imperialism through international socialist revolution! Reforge the Fourth International!

We will only know the true extent of bloody U.S. imperialism's crimes when the workers take power and finally bring the Pentagon mass-murderers, the CIA assassins, and their Wall Street patrons to justice.

Non Classified data (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484876)

Is paid for by the public, so is owned by the public. ( well so is classified, but there is a difference )

The government works for US, remember? Or at least that is how its supposed to work.

Re:Non Classified data (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484906)

So much for the most open administration in history.

The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485090)

The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. Those who want corruption want it to stay that way. How could they be free to have corruption if they don't have secrecy?

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (-1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485326)

Citation needed.

The US is not extremely corrupt. Zimbabwe under Mugabe was extremely corrupt, Libya under Gaddafi is extremely corrupt. The US government is about as uncorrupted as you're going to get. Like it or not a lot of these things wouldn't happen if the voters wouldn't reward secrecy and punish transparency.

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485358)

"Like it or not a lot of these things wouldn't happen if the voters wouldn't reward secrecy and punish transparency."

All right, asshole, now let's see YOU provide a citation for your above claim.

What's that you say, you can't do that ?

That's right, you can't, because your claim is not based on fact.

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485498)

Pull your head out of your ass and actually bother to read anything about current events - dip shit.

The US supreme court has legalized bribery by superpaks and now legally protect the identity of those who contribute.

If you seriously believe the US government is not corrupt, you are a complete fucking idiot and uneducated to say the least. So shut the fuck up and go bother to learn about the ACTUAL state of government and laws.

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (5, Informative)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485550)

Citation needed.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm [wikipedia.org] –Leach–Bliley_Act

followed by

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program [wikipedia.org]

(The proof is in the pudding. The biggest white collar crime in the history of the world was bought and paid for. And damn, what a return...)

The US government is about as uncorrupted as you're going to get.

Really? Then why is the US ranked 22nd, just above Uruguay, in the Corruption Perceptions Index [wikipedia.org] ? Why has the *perceived* corruption in the US been declining steadily since the Index was created?

Corruption has always been part of US politics, but kept in check at least for appearances' sake. But since the Iran/Contra scandal, it appears that the concern over appearances has eroded. Now you have a situation where the corrupted know that there will always be one-quarter to one-third of the US population who will oppose any criticism of the US, like this AC here, so all the kleptocrats have to do is wrap themselves in a flag and cheer "GO USA!" and they have an automatic voting block that will also faithfully defend them in public forums from Meet the Press to /b/.

Corruption is happening here because of the belief by so many that, "it can't happen here!"

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485570)

Here's a fixed link to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [wikipedia.org] , aka the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485558)

Like it or not a lot of these things wouldn't happen if the voters wouldn't reward secrecy and punish transparency.

But when a president or congressman is caught having his dick sucked or even sending non-nude photos of himself, we burn him at the stake. America sure has its priorities straight.

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486154)

Right, right, the US gov is less corrupt than, say, the Norwegian government.

Pull down that wool, American dreamer.

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485758)

Name your country and if it's anywhere in Europe, I can guarantee you we can dig up more corruption than in the US.

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486188)

Bullshit. But nice try.

Re:Non Classified data (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484996)

Is paid for by the public, so is owned by the public. ( well so is classified, but there is a difference )

The government works for US, remember? Or at least that is how its supposed to work.

There's nothing I love more than when proud, powerful men are made to look like idiots in a very public manner. Makes them feel like one of the little people.

They're just butthurt and looking for revenge against the people who reveal their secrets. Same way cockroaches scatter when you turn on the light. Except the cockroaches get over it a lot faster.

Re:Non Classified data (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485148)

The government works for US, remember?

If I may quote the epic Rap New 6 [youtube.com] :

(impersonated) Hillary Clinton:
    This is a case of high treason
    It's against the land of the brave and divine freedom
    We're the good guys, for democracy we fight evil
    and we wage peace around the world, proud of the flag

    These leaks could devalue this powerful brand,
    bring military operations straight to a halt.
    Our shareholders, clients and partners would plainly revolt.

Robert Foster (journalist/interviewer):
    But aren't you beholden to the American public
    and isn't the US one of the primary culprits
    in overthrowing governments

Hillary Clinton:
    Such as?

Robert Foster:
    Chili, Iran, Nicaragua

Hillary Clinton:
    Please, stop with the drama.

    The American people are our employees
    whose taxes fund the wars that support our schemes.
    Their kids become troops we send overseas
    in return for mega malls and the American Dream.

    And if our client states don't like the things that we do
    we install a dictator with a CIA coup.
    In foreign relations subversion is the method we use.
    Wikileaks threathens the system so it's a terrorist group.

Yes, it's over the top and no, I don't think the US is the cause of all evil in the world. But there's quite a bit of truth in there too. And the Hillary impersonation beats the real one ten times over :)

Re:Non Classified data (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486050)

Uh-oh, just discovered Rap News, there goes my day...

Re:Non Classified data (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486080)

Robert Foster: Chili, Iran, Nicaragua

I used to feel bad about that whole Nicaragua thing, until one day I met a woman who fought as a revolutionary in the 80s. A little in awe, and a bit embarrassed, I asked her, "so you fought against the Contras?" She replied with some condescension, "no, the Contras were a different group." Then tried to explain to me which she was fighting for. The revolutionary history of Nicaragua is so complicated that really the William Walker filibuster in the 1800s is probably more memorable than the Iran-Contra affair.

Re:Non Classified data (1)

xero314 (722674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486020)

Non Classified data Is paid for by the public, so is owned by the public.

By separating classified and non-classified data, all that you are doing is giving motivation to classify more information.

Any and every action made by an elected official or their appointees must be public knowledge for a representative democracy to work. Otherwise the people represented have no way of knowing if their interests are being met. As long as we allow information to remain hidden from the people of the country then we have nothing but tyranny.

Re:Non Classified data (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486062)

Yes. When I read "The string of cases reflects a broad belief across two administrations and in both parties in Congress that leaks have gotten out of hand.." I immediately thought it should be

"The string of cases reflects a broad belief across the American public that the actions of the two administrations and both parties in Congress have gotten out of hand..."

LOL, American Freedom! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484910)

LOL, is this the "American Freedom" I always heard so much about as a youth growing up in Eastern Europe just after the fall of Communism?

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484970)

Two parties are twice as free as one.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485050)

Two parties are twice as free as one.

One party that uses two divisions to pretend to be two distinct parties is slightly more free than one party that drops the entire facade altogether.

Jesse Ventura gave a good explanation of how politics works. He said it's like pro wrestling. Sure, in the ring the wrestlers talk trash about each other and appear to be fighting each other. After the rigged match, they go out together and have a beer as friends. With wrestling it's the advertising money that does the rigging; with politics it's campaign funds.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (1)

priceslasher (2102064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485354)

I think they just practice the same strategy - get into office, spend everything you can while cancelling anything the other team was doing, then sit back and take credit for whatever 21st century stuff happened while you were in.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485436)

I think they just practice the same strategy - get into office, spend everything you can while cancelling anything the other team was doing, then sit back and take credit for whatever 21st century stuff happened while you were in.

In that case, why the exclusivity? Have you ever actually read about what happens when any third party tries to even get on the ballot? Suddenly the most obscure laws and technical details become supremely important. It is not a straightforward process and it is not intended to be.

Then after getting on the ballot, there's the matter of funding your campaign so you even have a chance of election. Unless you're independently very wealthy like Ross Perot was, you either join one of the two major parties and play by their rules or you have no support. Even with his billionaire bankroll, Perot could do nothing more than split the Republican vote.

The two parties are different branches of a single organization. That organization's purpose is to do for modern politics what the guilds of old did for trade: to raise the barrier of entry in order to lock out competitors. Then the duopoly (really a monopoly, not that there's much difference) is maintained and can never be seriously challenged.

To see this purpose, this function of a guild, is crucial if you are to understand the actual nature and purpose of the USA's two-party system. Only a certain kind of politician will be vetted and accepted by it. That's why the government is going to grow in size and power no matter who wins the election. They're both puppets because both are afraid to bite the hands that feed them. They are not free to vote their conscience even if they do have one.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486100)

Even with his billionaire bankroll, Perot could do nothing more than split the Republican vote.

Do you really have to invent a conspiracy to explain why Perot lost?

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485488)

I think they just practice the same strategy - get into office, spend everything you can while cancelling anything the other team was doing, then sit back and take credit for whatever 21st century stuff happened while you were in.

Sorry to reply twice to you but it's vital that we get rid of this "gee I guess it just innocently worked out this way with no deliberate engineering and must reflect what the people want" mentality.

If they wanted to cancel anything the other team was doing, then why is Guantanamo Bay still in operation? This was something our current President promised to shut down during his campaign. Oh he also promised to bring the troops home from places like Iraq and Afghanistan. None of the above has happened. All of the above were initiated by a President from the other party.

I don't personally believe Obama ever had any intention of doing those things. I believe he has a strong talent for telling people what they want to hear. That's why he's so polished and charismatic and articulate -- you don't need those traits to tell the hard truth. You don't need to impress people to tell the hard truth. What that takes is guts, not showmanship.

But let's say Obama seriously, in his heart of hearts, really intended to carry out every promise he made. It wouldn't matter. Once he got into office what he found out was that Douglas Adams was right about the Presidency: its purpose is not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it. I believe what Obama found out was that the sail which got him into office is not able to change the way the wind blows. Men who put people into the office of the Presidency decided that we will have things like Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping and there's little or nothing Obama is going to do to stop it.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485728)

That may be true, but it doesn't absolve Obama of responsibility for the things he does or supports, no matter the level of coercion brought about by others.

As far as I know, John F. Kennedy [youtube.com] was the last President to actively stand up to "them". All since have been ball-less wonders in comparison.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485746)

I should point out that some people today still believe that Kennedy was exposing "the Freemasons" in that speech, which is a crock of bull. The Freemasons are hardly a "secret society". Their meetings may not be public, but they operate openly and publicly, not out of closets or behind closed doors.

And to make it clear, I do not agree with much about Kennedy's politics. But as a person aside from his leftist economic leanings, I have a lot of respect for him.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486176)

The US have one party with two right wings.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485186)

Yes it is.

When people voluntarily promise to safeguard secrets, and then decide to ignore that promise they will pay a price.

The important word here is "voluntarily." They had a choice. Behind the iron curtain there was no choice.

The fact that this crucial subtlety eludes you make me sad for you - your life growing up must have really sucked.

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485282)

And only people whom agree to safeguard secrets are allowed to know about those secrets in the first place. Therefore, the only way for people to know about those things is either to get in on the secret or for someone else to break their promise. Doesn't sound very open to me...

Re:LOL, American Freedom! (1)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485788)

Well, maybe we could have this freedom if non-Americans in this country and across the world would all agree to stick their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALA whenever the US government wishes to inform its citizens.

Or maybe you and I are both being absurd.

Classified data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484914)

"Please Log In"

The story itself is classified and you must verify your credentials with the New York Times to view it.

That's pretty damn top secret.

Change you can believe in. (5, Informative)

Zaphod-AVA (471116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484918)

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency" - President Barack Obama

Re:Change you can believe in. (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484960)

True. And somehow Gitmo is still operational and there are still American kids dying in Iraq.

Re:Change you can believe in. (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485370)

You are aware that the Republicans refuse to fund closing GITMO, right? The President has powers, but ending Iraq and GITMO in a responsible way aren't within his ability. Yes, he could just order the military out of Iraq and to hell with the consequences and he could just order the gates at GITMO opened, and for the personnel to look the other way. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's an acceptable solution to the problem.

As long as the GOP continues to obstruct government, there's little that the President can do. The VP however, as President of the Senate, could declare the Senate to not be a continuing body, which would cut through most of the means by which the GOP has been holding things up. I'm not sure why that hasn't happened. That used to be the case, and considering how abused the filibuster has been lately, it would be a step forward. It's not like the GOP is even acting in any sort of good faith.

Re:Change you can believe in. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485412)

Simply blaming the Republicans doesn't hold water since the Democrats had a majority in Congress and the White House for two years. I have no doubt that the Republicans refused to cooperate, but the Democrats failed us, too.

Re:Change you can believe in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486180)

Ease up on the reason. It doesn't belong here.

And in he future, if you see a desperate and irrational defense voted up based on he author's self-association with a particular political party... just let it go. There's no intelligent discussion to be had there.

Re:Change you can believe in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485650)

Try again.
Both parties consist of the same corrupt pile of shit, only the label is different.

Re:Change you can believe in. (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485772)

"You are aware that the Republicans refuse to fund closing GITMO, right?"

So what? You know that public opinion is very much against Gitmo, and if the President chose to really raise a stink about it, the Republicans would have no choice but to back down.

He hasn't. And he won't. Because he doesn't really want to close it. And never did.

Re:Change you can believe in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486226)

You are aware that the Republicans refuse to fund closing GITMO, right? The President has powers, but ending Iraq and GITMO in a responsible way aren't within his ability.

Slick Barry marched our troops off to Libya and said, "Fuck off, Congress!" with a shit-eating grin on his face as he did so.

Don't give me that line of, "Baaaaw, Republicans!" It has nothing to do with closing Gitmo.

Re:Change you can believe in. (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485084)

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency" - President Barack Obama

Perhaps we should all attend Obama rallies with signs that say "[citation needed]"

Re:Change you can believe in. (5, Informative)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485110)

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency" - President Barack Obama

Exactly. He asked for this, and now he wants to lock people up and throw away the key for trying to help him stay true to his own words. Nice, real nice.

News media (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484922)

The Justice Department shows no sign of rethinking its campaign to punish unauthorized disclosures to the news media,

I can't read the article as it seems to require some sort of login but this case isn't about punishing unauthorized disclosures TO the news media. It's about punishing unauthorized reporting of information BY the news media. Unless you think that Wikileaks isn't a medium for news, which it clearly is. Possibly the scariest element of this campaign is attempts to establish some news media as in some sense official and free and others as not.

Re:News media (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484934)

The Justice Department shows no sign of rethinking its campaign to punish unauthorized disclosures to the news media,

I can't read the article as it seems to require some sort of login but this case isn't about punishing unauthorized disclosures TO the news media. It's about punishing unauthorized reporting of information BY the news media. Unless you think that Wikileaks isn't a medium for news, which it clearly is. Possibly the scariest element of this campaign is attempts to establish some news media as in some sense official and free and others as not.

Kinda like Animal Farm: All press are free (but some are more free than others.)

ok i am just super confused (5, Interesting)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484940)

"endangering intelligence agents and exposing American spying methods."

I would like someone to explain to me how the Thomas Drake case involved anything remotely resembling the endangerment of intelligence agents. Furthermore, the domestic spying he exposed was illegal. Exposing that is not a crime, and nobody should be 'worried' about 'exposing' crimes. Furthermore, he did not release any classified information, nor was he even charged with doing so.

I do not understand how the Kim case, has no relationship whatsoever to intelligence agents, nor spying. It is about educated guessing about North Korea's weapons testing. One time, in a single telephone conversation, with a reporter. Where is the 'intelligence agent' here? Where is the 'spying methods'?

The Manning case has almost nothing to do with spying methods, as far as we know. Otherwise, they probably would have charged him under 18 USC 798 - they didn't. They charged him with 34 other things. 3 of those charges relate to the Icleandic banking scandal - i do not understand how that has anything to do with spying methods nor with intelligence agents. Is every state department employee now an 'intelligence agent'?

The Leibowitz case - we have no idea what the details of the case are. Even the judge doesn't know the details of the case. Leibowitz plead out because they scared him. What little we know is that he found out the FBI was engaged in illegal activity related to signals intelligence work. Two guesses as to what that is.

I will admit, the Sterling case is about intelligence agents and spying methods. It is about how the CIA accidentally screwed up and gave Iran accurate nuclear weapons information instead of inaccurate information. Let me just ask you - do you think the public is better off knowing that, or not?

The Wikileaks case - well, please let me know when there is concrete evidence that any intelligence agents have been harmed by wikileaks. Some ambassadors have been harmed - then again, ambassadors are quite often simply the biggest campaign donors to the president. That's how ambassadorships work. If those people are 'intelligence agents', well, I have to wonder about the wisdom of making campaign donors into intelligence agents. Shouldn't we be picking professionals instead?

I also haven't seen anything yet about any wikileaks cables that reveal spying information. Gun camera footage is all over youtube, should all of those youtube users now be charged under the Espionage act too?

wikileaks: Putin ordered sabatoge of Iran's nukes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485014)

One of the Wikileaks cables indicate that Putin ordered Iran's nuclear program to be sabatoged. That leak alone warrants execution of the leaker. Many of the Wikileaks cables were unimportant.

Re:wikileaks: Putin ordered sabatoge of Iran's nuk (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485060)

If Putin gave such an order it was illegal, exposing a crime is not call for a death sentence. If Putin did not give such an order then the leak is merely slander and again, not worth of a death sentence.

Back in your cave, ugly troll, you shall have no tree fiddy here!!!

Re:ok i am just super confused (1)

Xyrus (755017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485094)

Americans like to believe that their government is all that is right and good in the world, and that it is not in fact a hypocritical institution like every other government on the face of the planet. We are th GOOD GOVERNMNET(tm). We don't do bad things like assassinations or back-room deals or torture or extraordinary renditions or any number of things BAD GOVERNMENTS(tm) do. And our government is only too happy to oblige by covering up or glossing over or secreting away any information that may show them in a different light.

The reality is that our hands are just as dirty as everyone else's. We just use a better soap.

Re:ok i am just super confused (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485802)

Don't include me in that "our". If I caught someone doing those things, I would happily -- I might even say gleefully -- try to find some way to bring them to justice.

When the government does something that The People clearly oppose, then it is not The People doing it, and it is wrong to spread the blame. These things are being and have been done by people in government who are no better than criminals. Are criminals, in fact.

Re:ok i am just super confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486054)

Americans like to believe that their government is all that is right and good in the world

Excuse me, but can you actually name one American who has said or implied that they believe that? Maybe your press is telling you something different, but over here in America, 100% of statements about the government that we hear other Americans make, range between "The government is irredeemably sucky" and "we can do better than this." The very nicest pro-government thing I have ever heard an American say about their government, is that it is better than all other governments, and even that is almost always said with regret and embarrassment or eye-rolling.

Please: citation needed. Back up your bullshit.

I Applaud This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484948)

People in the government who leak unauthorized information are people who have willfully disobeyed rules and procedures and display their own sense of self importance. This is not something to be encouraged, but something that must be prosecuted and punished because all the latest news of leakers has given the sense that this is somehow ok.

I think we must make them pay and pay hard.

Re:I Applaud This (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485372)

People in the government who leak unauthorized information are people who have willfully disobeyed rules and procedures and display their own sense of self importance. This is not something to be encouraged, but something that must be prosecuted and punished because all the latest news of leakers has given the sense that this is somehow ok.

I think we must make them pay and pay hard.

So, if you uncovered classified documents proving Obama and Boehner were in cahoots running an underground pedophile ring staged out of the Lincoln Bedroom, you would just keep quiet?

Re:I Applaud This (1)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485410)

Strawman much?

Re:I Applaud This (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485990)

That's not a "straw man" argument. It's a valid question. A straw man argument presents a situation that appears to, but does not actually, bear on the subject at hand, then shoots it down. This person's question was perfectly relevant, valid, and directly bearing on the subject at hand. Therefore it is not a "straw man".

Re:I Applaud This (1)

the_bard17 (626642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486074)

Bullshit.

When people in government or other position of power commit crimes, then cover these crimes up (or attempt to) under a guise of "national security", then the people who subsequently "leak unauthorized information" are patriots, true to the nature of the founding of this country and true to the PEOPLE of this nation. It must be encouraged, not prosecuted nor punished.

Contributing to the cover up invites nothing but corruption and tyranny.

Re:I Applaud This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486098)

"I think we must make them pay and pay hard."

No, you don't "think", you are a good little fascist who does anything BUT think.

People who DO think understand that the government must be accountable, because if it
is not, things get ugly quickly.

Study some history, little fascist, and learn about the consequences of governments which
suppress the truth from their citizens.

Unaccountable Authority (5, Insightful)

Apl Way (1032054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484974)

Americans are accepting more and more, unaccountable authority.

"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton. This is from the same guy that said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

Government needs to be accountable.

Re:Unaccountable Authority (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485100)

also see: religion.

(as another example of a power base that absolutely refused scrutiny or close examination. perish the thought that they might have to modify their views when shown fallacies and logic holes.)

it is a rule of mankind: grab power, hold it and try to deny the next guy his chance at a grab. 'my grab was just' yours is not'.

uhuh.

Re:Unaccountable Authority (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485856)

But I disagree with Acton. I don't agree that power, itself, corrupts. Rather, power attracts the mentally weak and easily corruptible. Either already corrupt, or prone to be.

If you want a good example, look at the staff of your typical police department in a big city. They have even gone to court over their ability to reject applicants with higher IQs.

Positions of power attract weak-minded bullies who desire little more than power over others. It has always been thus.

Obama = NO SECOND TERM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485048)

I voted for this lying sack of shit.

That won't happen again.

Re:Obama = NO SECOND TERM. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485142)

What do you expect from a no spine puppet nigger. Your country is fucked, die.

Re:Obama = NO SECOND TERM. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485388)

LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being? The President has been a pretty big disappointment in the area of civil liberties, but he's been a hell of a lot better than anybody we've had in the last 30 years in most other areas. Just look at do nothing Clinton and the huge smoking crater from 3 GOP Presidencies. Scarily enough, the current crop of GOP candidates are even less qualified to lead the country than either Bush was.

Re:Obama = NO SECOND TERM. (2)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485618)

LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being?

Did he say he was going to vote Republican? No.

There are other candidates, you know.

But the fact that most voters don't recognize third party candidates as legitimate is because the press won't. And the attitude that voting for such a candidate is "throwing your vote away" is the main reason we're stuck with this Coke vs. Pepsi two party system when what we really need right now is a drink of water.

Re:Obama = NO SECOND TERM. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486002)

"The President has been a pretty big disappointment in the area of civil liberties, but he's been a hell of a lot better than anybody we've had in the last 30 years in most other areas."

Are you serious? Because if you are, I am curious to know where you get your news.

Re:Obama = NO SECOND TERM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486128)

LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being?

Did you read what you're responding to? He just said that, no, he's not going to do that again. (And WTF do previous presidents or GOP candidates have to do with it? Is your bar set that low?! If it is, then maybe voters like you are the problem.)

Re:Obama = NO SECOND TERM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486232)

"LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being? "

The OP replies :

No I am not going to vote that way. Your low intelligence is showing when you
assume how I would vote, "hedwards".

This time I go with a third party candidate.

new lessons to teach kids in school (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485098)

1) the US does whatever the hell it wants. it does not ask permission and it seeks out those who disagree for intent of harm.

2) this is not a disney movie, this life we all lead. the line between good and bad guys is often non-existent. stop thinking in binary fashion. the US isn't good and it isn't evil, its JUST ANOTHER COUNTRY run by rich white men who like to keep the power base the way it is (and pretty much has been).

3) we spy. they spy. everyone spies. not only that, but countries do not respect their own people and will spy on them. kids, learn this. be watchful of EVERYTHING you say or write or photo. this is now universal since all countries have latched onto this 'we control your life, entirely' mentality.

4) power corrupts and the more you give the government, the more they'll screw you over (now or later) with it. no such thing as 'temporary powers'. don't ever fall for THAT line again, please.

5) cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced and have this need for control. the higher the position, the more corruptable the job is and the more 'attractive' it is to such sick people. beware of those in authority and realize WHY they seeked out those kinds of jobs. avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life, they are not your friends and not worth your friendship. they'll stab you at first chance if it suits them.

none of this is taught in schools (on purpose). we intentionally lie to our kids when we raise them. then, about teen age, they see the lies we have been telling them. problem is, we have already raised generations of people on pure lies who believe in this 'two party system' and that if you have done nothing wrong, (...). we have a lot of really dumb cattle walking around as human beings with a totally false idea of how the world really works.

start with truth about what our world is like. you can't fix things if you don't even see them for how they really are.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485162)

"the line between good and bad guys is often non-existent. stop thinking in binary fashion"

It's true that good vs bad is not a binary issue, but that doesn't mean there no distinction between good (guys) and bad (guys).

"power corrupts and the more you give the government, the more they'll screw you over"

The more power you give to anyone, the more they'll screw you over. It's not like mega corporations are immune to corruption.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

Ptolom (2191478) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485180)

The advantage of the government holding this power though, is you can vote for someone else. Unfortunately, in the US there aren't enough options and elections are few and far between. Also the media is largely crappy and invested in the current political situation.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485382)

The advantage of the government holding this power though, is you can vote for someone else. Unfortunately, in the US there aren't enough options and elections are few and far between. Also the media is largely crappy and invested in the current political situation.

Well, therein lies the problem. We can either vote for the scum in office now, or we can vote for whichever totally batshit crazy candidate the Repugs will throw out there this time around.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485404)

The problem isn't the options, the problem is that the election system is set up to reward extreme candidates. The system around here has more or less solved that problem, it's just that folks in other states haven't caught on. We've got a top two primary system where the top two candidates can be from any party and even the same party. So far that's led to the liberal areas electing more moderate candidates. Ditto for the conservative areas. Additionally, we don't allow the winners to draw the districting lines, which makes it difficult for one party to gerrymander in any sort of effective manner without the knowledge and consent of the other party.

Then you've got the nutters, right now it seems to be mainly GOP, who vote for the most extreme candidate in the primaries. Following the primaries, they turn right, whether they're liberal or conservative for the final election.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

paulo.casanova (2222146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485294)

5) cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced and have this need for control. the higher the position, the more corruptable the job is and the more 'attractive' it is to such sick people. beware of those in authority and realize WHY they seeked out those kinds of jobs. avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life, they are not your friends and not worth your friendship. they'll stab you at first chance if it suits them.

While I agree that part of what you say is true, you must be careful not to make a sweeping generalization out of it. I know some cops, some judges and some lawyers (no politicians thankfully) and they are honest, respectful and responsible. Of course, there are corrupt cops, asshole cops, bad cops, arrogant cops and so on. But those are not all cops. They are all cops that bother us. We should not teach our children not to be cops, judges, lawyers or politicians. We should teach them to be cops, judges, lawyers or politicians.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that we, as a society, admire people with wealth and people with power. We don't (as a society) admire people that are honest, competent and responsible (we only do if they are wealthy and powerful too). So we essentially tell our kids that power and money is all that matters. And, guess what, it works!

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485482)

While I agree that part of what you say is true, you must be careful not to make a sweeping generalization out of it. I know some cops, some judges and some lawyers (no politicians thankfully) and they are honest, respectful and responsible.

Lawyers, maybe. Judges, unlikely. Cops, no. There are too many bad cops for there to be any significant number of good cops. It is a cop's job to stop wrongdoing by other cops, and they don't; even if there are some who do not do wrong themselves, they will still protect and defend the wrongdoing of other cops. Thus all cops are bad cops.

Judges are often in a position where law and precedent require that they make an unjust ruling. If they do so, they're not good judges. If they don't, they will be marginalized and not advance in their career. So good judges are quite unlikely as well. Further, many judges are former prosecutors and end up prosecuting from the bench.

Lawyers don't have such problems, but the profession appears to attract the wrong type.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

paulo.casanova (2222146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485538)

Judges are often in a position where law and precedent require that they make an unjust ruling. If they do so, they're not good judges.

They don't necessarily have a choice there. Judges do not posses absolute power. They can only operate in the area limited by law. Precedent is more of a US/UK-is thing but where it exists it imposes bounds on their jobs. A good judge is expected to rule as justly as possible within those bounds. A bad judge will either break the bounds or will not rule justly even within the bounds. If the law itself is unjust (and it is far more often that what I would like) it is the politicians we should complain about, not the judges!

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485880)

"Judges do not posses absolute power. They can only operate in the area limited by law."

No, that's how it's supposed to be. If you really think that's how it is, then you haven't been paying attention to the Supreme Court over the last decade or so.

They have deliberately ignored precedent and overturned long-standing rulings. They have deliberately and consistently sided with the Federal government in a bid to seize more central power. I could go on... the list is long.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

paulo.casanova (2222146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486022)

Ok, so I agree with you but the Supreme Court is not all judges. Only a handful of them. Sure they are an important handful but I was talking about the whole class of judges... and I still believe it is different if you take all thousands of them...

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485344)

+5 Cynical

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

jaypifer (64463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485530)

Rumor has it that the leader of the country isn't a rich white man.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485888)

No, he's a rich black man who lies out his ass. I'm not picking on him for his color, but for his blatant lying. He has been worse in that regard than most other Presidents. In many cases, he has done exactly the opposite of his campaign promises.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485900)

If I were a "person of color" in this great land, I would be embarrassed as hell to have this man leading the country.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

deblau (68023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485616)

5) cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced and have this need for control. the higher the position, the more corruptable the job is and the more 'attractive' it is to such sick people. beware of those in authority and realize WHY they seeked out those kinds of jobs. avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life, they are not your friends and not worth your friendship. they'll stab you at first chance if it suits them.

This quote reflects a really depressing world view and a lack of perspective. For the most part, those in authority in the US are doing a fine job. Look at other, truly repressive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, and the atrocities they are daily committing against their citizens. That doesn't happen here nearly as often, or to nearly as great a degree.

I am a lawyer, and I sought out my job because I want to help people. The same can be said for most other lawyers I know. Cops, judges, politicians, and lawyers keep society together, not destroy it. Of course some of these people are corrupt, but they are the outliers, so they stand out more and make a bigger impression.

To quote a wise man, "stop thinking in binary fashion."

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485930)

"For the most part, those in authority in the US are doing a fine job. Look at other, truly repressive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, and the atrocities they are daily committing against their citizens. That doesn't happen here nearly as often, or to nearly as great a degree."

I have heard that argument quite a lot, and it's complete bullshit. The fact that someone else has it worse does not mean that you don't have it bad.

If you were in a room full of people who were getting both legs broken, would you preach about how wonderful life is, when they decide to just break one of your arms and are coming to do it?

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486220)

if you were not in a position of control (face it, just by being a lawyer you can talk your way out of 99% of the shit that common ordinary guys can't) you would probably not feel that people 'like you' are so trustworthy.

if you got caught by a bad cop, you can have your buddies, somewhere, help you.

what about us?

live life like us, esentially, powerless. do that for 1 year. you come back one year, then we talk, yes?

(serious.)

We spy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486178)

I don't spy. Do you spy? As far as I am aware, any common man that engages in the act of spying is a stalker and could be sued for harrassment (and rightfully so). The act of spying implies a threat of coercion on some level, does it not?

You seem to be confused; neither you nor I are part of the group that does the spying. We didn't plan it, we aren't the ones executing the plan, and we lose rather than benefit from the spying business. "We" have nothing to do with it, except that our money is being taken, by force, in order to fund the racket.

Re:new lessons to teach kids in school (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486192)

cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced..............avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life,

Wow, way to close your mind to the very data that could change your pre-concieved notions. Have you ever had a cop friend? Saying, "don't talk to X group of people" is a common trick among cults. Hope you don't close your mind to other stuff in the same way.

"WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy group" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485136)

It's strange how on ./ we get a description of WikiLeaks in the summary, helpful for those who may have been living under a rock for the past few years, and yet there were dozens of articles about "SCO", whatever the fuck that is, without any description at all.

US interests (2)

arnott (789715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485306)

In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war [salon.com]

Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?

Conflict in Libya: U.S. oil companies sit on sidelines as Gaddafi maintains hold [washingtonpost.com]

In late February 2008, Mulva was “summoned to Sirte for a half-hour ‘browbeating’” from Gaddafi, according to a U.S. State Department cable made available by WikiLeaks. Gaddafi “threatened to dramatically reduce Libya’s oil production and/or expel ... U.S. oil and gas companies,” the cable said.

Wikileaks was the source for these articles. If all cables get leaked, it is difficult for US to pursue its interests.

And more: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap [businessinsider.com]

Re:US interests (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485544)

Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?

Note that this is a quote from the author of the Salon article, not from the leaked cables.

That Ghadafi has been a thorn in the side of the US for decades, for many reasons, is no particular secret.

That the US intervention was not "humanitarian" but intended for "regime change" is no real secret either; the "humanitarian" thing was a transparent lie for the consumption of Obama supporters, presumably so he wouldn't look so obviously just like Bush.

Greenwald's claims are just that US motives aren't pure. Which is just silly; of course US motives aren't pure. Even if the primary reason for intervention was humanitarian (and nothing in the cables refutes that hypothesis, though I don't believe it myself), US motives wouldn't have been pure. Why should purity of motive be required? Even if, cynically, the US simply used Gaddafi's atrocities as an excuse to make a move against him, isn't doing the right thing for the wrong reason better than doing the wrong thing?

Re:US interests (1)

arnott (789715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485640)

Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?

Note that this is a quote from the author of the Salon article, not from the leaked cables.

Of course, they are Greenwald's statements, the articles used the wikileaks contents as source. That's the point, without the leak there is no source to these articles.

Even if, cynically, the US simply used Gaddafi's atrocities as an excuse to make a move against him, isn't doing the right thing for the wrong reason better than doing the wrong thing?

what is the right thing, enabling the dictators in the middle east as long as US companies get access to their oil ?

Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485308)

"Transparency will be my touchstone"
ROFL

From a protected journalist to been a "source" (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485378)

Then the old jokes start in strange new ways:
We have eedom of press, but not freedom after publication. A source, like an asset faces the Espionage Act or PATRIOT Act and its game over.
Expect to see the word "journalist" been used much less due to the little bit of legal cover it still provides.
Whistleblower protection "under seal" seems to be gone too now :)
You can talk about computers, sport, politicians, celebrities, just dont follow the money, source code, drugs or hint at lawyer written statements about next gen tombstone technology.

Two letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485486)

GM

Ever-greater power grabs by the executive branch (5, Interesting)

rbrander (73222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485552)

This is bi-partisan because grabbing more power for the executive branch is bi-partisan. The book "Takeover" by Charlie Savage (also of the NYT) details much about how the Bush 2 administration worked to increase executive power, but also how it has been a tradition for a century before that - and persecution of whistleblowers is an important part of it.

Two stories from "Takeover" stuck with me.

One was the story of an ethics advisor for the Justice Dept, Jesslyn Radack. When John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban", was charged with many counts that led to 20 years in jail, based almost entirely on his own statement given while duct-taped to a board, naked and blindfolded with an untreated bullet wound in his leg, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft stated publicly that while the statement was given without a lawyer present, that was fine since he did not have a lawyer at the time. Alas, Ms. Radack had already notified the FBI that Lindh's father had retained council for him and notified Justice, and that they should not interrogate him - they just did, anyway. And Radack had kept the E-mails, then sent them to a reporter. It was not in her mind at the time that this was "whistleblowing" she felt she was correcting erroneous statements; releasing the information was no crime at all, since it was unclassified. For this, she found herself:

* Fired, from the private law firm she worked for (they consulted to Justice)
* Subjected to a year-long criminal investigation, though no charges were ever filed, since she had committed no crime
* Referred to for "discipline" by the bar associations in all the states she was licensed to practice in, via a secret report that she was not allowed to see
* Placed on the "selectee" version of the no-fly list - meaning she was *always* "randomly selected" for full off-with-the-underwear search for every single flight.

Talk about a chilling effect. Thou Shalt Not Embarrass The Justice Department, even with the simple truth that it got excited and eager for a headline and made a mistake.

Just so that this isn't seen as partisan, the other story is about a democrat: Harry Truman. (Who also felt the whole Korean War(!) was strictly an executive branch decision, no congressional authorization needed ... take THAT, Libya protestors!) A major avoidance of government transparency is enabled by the "state secrets" privilege, in which the government can tell a court, "dismiss this lawsuit; to argue it, we'd have to reveal State Secrets". It's been used to shut down every lawsuit about torture and unlawful detention that came after 9/11. But there's no such privilege in the Constitution. It comes from a Supreme Court decision, "US vs. Reynolds", where the survivors of 3 civilian scientists killed in a B-29 bomber crash in Georgia, 1948, while doing missile research. The government argued that the judge had to dismiss the suit without even seeing the crash report himself, lest "secret electronics" be revealed, and it was upheld - then used about 60 times since. In 2000, the daughter of one of the victims found the crash report, declassified, on the Internet. It contained NOTHING about secret electronics - it contained proof that there had been negligent maintenance of the bomber, and negligent lack of training for the civilians on how to escape the aircraft. The government had used the claim to avoid embarrassment, not to mention losing a lawsuit.

As Charlie Savage summed it up, "The central case on which the State Secrets Privilege rests, then, was a fraud. The Truman administration had lied to the courts and gotten away with it."

So that's why you need whistleblowers. And that's why governments persecute them as ruthlessly as possible; it's about executive power, the effort to restore America to the status of having a King who is above the law - partly by exempting the executive from laws that the rest of us must obey, partly by ensuring that most of their lawbreaking is never revealed in the first place, so they don't have to fight for that exemption very often.

Re:Ever-greater power grabs by the executive branc (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485982)

"A major avoidance of government transparency is enabled by the "state secrets" privilege, in which the government can tell a court, 'dismiss this lawsuit; to argue it, we'd have to reveal State Secrets'. "

However, just about a month or so ago, a Federal judge ruled that the government cannot do that. They can take measures to ensure that the public cannot see those 'secrets' in the course of a trial, but the government cannot withhold that information from the judge or jury.

Unfortunately, I do not have a citation for that decision. Maybe some person out there who is reading this has one.'

Wikileaks=cia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485676)

In my opinion Wikileaks is a front for the CIA / Mossad. Wikileaks, the made for the media leaks, complete with pre-release exclusives with the New York Times and other US media outlets. If this would have been a real leaks, heads would roll in this country, not benefit the US. If these were real leaks, Assange and his organization would have been killed and never heard about in the media. Assange denies 911 to be an inside job, which is a litmus test of credibility of and by itself, and he props up the myth of Al Qaeda being an international highly organized terror organization making the entire world unsafe. Wikileaks is a sophisticated counter-intelligence (COINTELPRO) operation, meant to dispense only part of the true story to the public and therefore mislead it and keep from ever knowing the full truth. If Assange was really worried about the United States doing something to him, one of the last countries he would want to be in other than this one is the United Kingdom. What leaks have hurt or alley Israel? I have to give it to the CIA, this is one of there greatest moments. Wikileaks is responsible for the Arab Spring uprising in Tunisia, which in turn lead to the war in Libya, maintaining business as usual for the industrial military complex, save people with bombs and guns, which is good for Western economies. Branley Manning was un-liked in the military, gay, and the perfect scapegoat to blame all this on. How is one private suppose to get a hold of so much data in the military that does not pertain to is job, and for periods decades past. Isn't the military data compartmentalized to only see what you need access to, Mandatory Access Controls?

Be prepared for false flag cyber attack blamed on Anonymous that somehow in-conveniences civilians in the entire country ( credit card processing for example ). As a excuse to pass more draconian laws limiting on-line freedom and going after real whistle blowers (9/11).

So much for .... (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485712)

The transparency initiative of President Obama was a campaign lie. I remember him preaching the importance of transparency in government and having an open and accessible government. If the Obama Administration seeks to criminalize attempts to hold Obama to his campaign promise, then he simply pandered to the voting public. For the record, I am neither Democrat nor Republican, both are misguided and self-serving parties.

Priorities (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485748)

If only the administration put half the effort into punishing various people who broke US laws on surrveilance and torture that they're putting into punishing the people who let the American people find out about it.

drake pled guilty to a misdemeanor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486156)

why is no one mentioning that the drake case is already over?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10leak.html?_r=1
and that he was vindicated?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?