Why we should consider a National Secrets Act
Dr. Sanity has this to say on the most recent spilling-of-the-national-security-beans by the MSM (see this for Jeff Goldstein's take on the story, as well).
For those of you who may have missed it, back in early May I posted an in-depth discussion of the basic issues involved, offering a possible remedy based on a law in Britain known as the National Secrets Act. It provides penalties not only for national security employees who leak, but also for the press publishing such secrets, as well.
When I wrote that post, I stated I wasn't sure exactly where I stood on the issue of whether such a law should be passed in this country. However, since then, I have become more convinced that penalties--at the very least, for the leaker--would be a good idea.
After all, it's not as though there aren't other avenues to follow short of disclosure to the press and to the world. A relevant excerpt from my post:
It seems logical to me that in order to have any sort of workable national security at all, it should only be breached for extremely serious governmental offenses, and then only after other ordinary channels have been exhausted and found wanting. My suggestion would be penalties for national security leakers who go to the press first, without trying other remedies, as well as penalties for the press if the information damages national security as defined by the courts (and I would hope they would define it at least somewhat less narrowly than in the Pentagon Papers decision).
posted by neo-neocon @ 12:47 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Democrats, the ruthless party of unification, nationalism, and the removal of all dissenters. Perfect for war time, as Roosevelt showed.
If LBJ hadn't felt so guilty for those US casualties, he might have been able to be a true Democrat, but the days of the Democrats were fading even then.
As people at blackfive have commented. People don't approve of Bush because Bush is being a P**** when dealing with our domestic insurgency.
I say it is because of Bush's "compassionate conservative principles". That's always the problem when you elect someone with principles, they don't bend.
Others have differing interpretations, but I'll go with mine.
"To want so badly to be in charge and possessive of something that youre willing to destroy that something if you cant have it".... Aint it funny how the same description fits OJ Simpson and your garden variety democratic senator?
Yet again, the New York Times proves to be the definition of the term "useful idiot". Within hours of publication of the story Al Jazeera put the story up on their web site:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2470566-053D-4054-B4A6-841B67F1FDED.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yup, the Guard plows open roads up North during severe blizzards and even delivers food to stranded folks, the nazi bastards! Senescent you seem to be getting alot of blood and shit on your boot from kicking that abo's ass.
I hate to quote from a training manual to you, but....
Chapt. 23 sect,14A, Principles of Engagement:upon gut-shooting an enemy, step over the body and move on to the next target...
You ain't supposed to bayonet 'em and kick him in the balls, man. Sheesh!
You amerofascists aren't going to win hearts and minds by banning banter you know. :-))
It's a good thing we've started assassinating people and telling the reporters about it. Far far better when free speech is there to report on it.
Oh well, I suppose your dissembling than the bald faced lying of the Sallys or Ymars.
I don't lie when I say I favor assassinations.
You are hosing this down how?
We had to train our secret police somewhere, Iraq was as good a place as any. Now New Orleans is feeling the efficient of Law and Order. Lotza benefits all around.
Jesus.You are a 'glass is half full' kind of a fascist aren't you?
He's a glass is 1/1000th empty kind of guy.
Wasp, if they've committed a crime, why aren't they being prosecuted?
Because, assassinations.
is that they were asked not to publish but couldn't be stopped because there was no breach of the law.
Right, no assassination law.
I thought that that is what neo's premise was
Neo doesn't favor assassinations the way I do.
That there should be a law to allow the executive to censor the press in cases like this.
Liquidating the press might not be so good for the terror factor if the media won't report on it
Raw GDP figures can be misleading BTW and post 2001 figures are higher anyway.
PPP is better than GDP since it determines what you can "purchase", as in purchasing nukes and nuclear submarines, rather than what you "produce".
Everyone can't make everything, but the US can literally buy anything on the market. Even if we don't make it personally. Our war technology is developed and researched in house, it is not outsourced for national security reasons. So that can never be bought by the Purchasing Parity Power of other nations. What did they say about having all the money in the world and nothing to buy?
child abuse and domestic violence crime figures are actually far higher in the US AND New Zealand.
Hey, Probligo said he didn't need firearms to protect himself while he lives in NZ since there is no need as Probligo explained it. I guess the Aussies disagree.
Duplicating my response over on the Doc, with some small measure of alterations:
================================
> How about a National Secrets Act, or some version thereof, as a possible remedy?
ARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!
See the movie "In the Name of the Father" if you want to see why "National Secrets Acts" are dangerous.
When you talk about giving more power to keep secrets, then I suggest you see that movie, and also "Enemy of the State". Yes, they are both "just movies", but the concerns therein are quite reasonable and totally applicable to the modern world and the situation we have. "ItNotF" is based on real events, as well as having a rather appropriate acronym.
We need to walk a fine line between controlling these lying Pieces of Shit, and strapping on our own slave collars.
Do any of YOU want your children to have to go up against the modern Army in insurrection -- especially after they have another 20 years of weapons development and insurgent suppression tactics?
The government needs to be kept on a tight leash.
The USA is by far the most dangerous government on the planet -- and we, its citizens, cannot forget this.
No, *I* DONT FEAR IT RIGHT NOW.
But I can look down the road and see where IT COULD TRAVEL. I'd have to be damned BLIND not to see it.
Think of what Hillary could do with the powers of which you speak.
Think of what her successor could do after 8 years of her depredations.
We cannot think only of the moment when we discuss relaxing controls -- we need to consider the future, as well, and the key question -- How will we retain control?
Several problems with using the past relaxations of civil rights as excuses for current relaxations come to mind:
1) the people of the USA are far more sheep now than at any time in the past. Decades of that @##%#%^ excreble "Germanic System of Education" combined with creeping Socialism has shredded the spirit of independence and self-reliance. It would be much, much tougher to get the fat, indolent masses to revolt than it did in the past.
2) the military has far more firepower at its behest at any time in the past, and now has extensive experience in suppression of insurgencies.
3) Congress is more arrogant now than at any time in the past as to it having special privileges ("Why, no, Mr. Jefferson, you don't have to submit to a search warrant!". "Why, No, Ms. McKinney, strike away!") which the rest of us don't.
4) The judiciary has demonstrated clear weakness in suppressing the obvious depredations of government -- particularly in the form of seizure. See Kelo. See Rico. Why would you expect this to get better, or to be certain in other arenas?
We aren't there -- yet -- but it's not hard to see us stumbling blindly down that path.
"There is no week, nor day, nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance."
- Walt Whitman -
Abre Los Ojos.
.
> Pour encourager les autres. Sorry, that's French.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Don't encourage them.
They're all to senselessly arrogant as it is.
(8o)
> So, there are troops on the streets of New Orleans and not only is it because of deadly violence amongst the community but also because of corruption and cowardice in the police and, further, corruption, ineptitude and stupidity amongst the political leadership.
Ah. You, uh, you DO realize that ALL the leadership involved there are DEMOCRATS, perhaps? Most of the citizenry vote consistently for ummmm, yas, DEMOCRATS...?
You're thinking somehow that areas dominated by Labor candidates are somehow reflective of the Tories, are you?
About the subject that you shouldn't give more executive power to Hillary. That's looking into the far future, but what about now? If you refuse to take drastic action now, a terroist attack will happen, and Hillary still might be President. So what then, what are you going to do when 65% of the people demand protection and HIllary is in office, what do you think she could do with that popular mandate?
People in power have ways of using it, it doesn't matter if they have laws backing them or not. What really matters is if they have the country backing them, and not having good laws in place to protect sources will allow Hillary to expunge the records, agents, and sources and then claim credit for reconstruction after an attack.
Ariel You do need to tone it down a bit. Violence can sort out a clear cut problem, like the Nazis, but used too early and easily just makes a mess. And people die, innocent people.
Tone it down to what, I'm talking to Confude here. If I'm talking to you Ariel, I would take different positions, but this is Confude here. See the difference?
I'm not doing the personal insult route with Confude, I take a different road.
If you want to tone it down, Ariel, stop insulting Confude as Wasp does continually and you do directly and indirectly. People and I didn't come here to read who can insult who better with snappy retorts and all that, if I wanted to see that I'd be watching Crossfire and Michael More.
It wasn't a rhetorical question. You said tone it down and didn't specify what, you just mentioned the violence and death of civilians. I don't like to kill civiliansnor support their death, not very useful. If you want to discuss this, I'm amenable to reason, as weary g has seen first hand, that if he asks and engages me, I will explain my position further rather than insulting them or reacting emotionally.
I work with what I have, I don't have enough to engage in any reasonable discussion with you, Ariel, over what I should or should not tone down in whatsoever manner was deemed fitting.
So what I do is outline what I do, and if that seems upset, then that is probably because I keep it short and to the point, so that the tone becomes frank, cutting, and curt. If you criticize a flaw in my beliefs, I will correct that flaw to the best of my ability, and then stop.
I try not to go into tangents until people I'm talking to, like you, have a chance to further explain themselves. This may also seem upseting and emotional, but it's just curt.
I'm looking out for your interests, Ariel, if you want to tone it down, then I don't see why my comments can be considered more egregious to you than wasp's or your own. If you notice, I didn't get on your case about talking to Confude, from the time you started to now. As I said before, it's wiser to let people discover for themselves rather than trying to convince them otherwise.
I understand now that the military gung ho ness jangles your nerves. I don't presume to know why, but I do know that it jangles Confude's nerves as well. Now I don't lie outright about assassination or what not, I get the benefit of both. I don't have to insult Confude, to make him lose temper or emotional balance. I just tell the truth, okay, the truth with some manipulation of COnfude's meanings.
As for the point about not talking to someone, instead talking about them. i think the most effective way to do that is to be ultra-rational and logical. Extra work must be conducted to take a subject matter, and integrate Confude's words into as an example rather than a thesis. If all you do is talk about what Confude has talked about, then he sets the subject. But instead, if I derive a point from Confude that he did not mean, and then talk about it with references to confude, then I believe that is effective in creating understanding and enlightenment.
I don't disagree with Ariel on the principles of cooling down by talking about someone, as if they aren't here, rather than talking to them like a heated argument.
I disagree simply with the devil, in the details that is. If the militaristic gung ho stuff annoys you Ariel, then I can only promise to tone it down if I talk to you. However, give me the same benefit of consideration I gave you, in not trying to dictate what I say to other people. Otherwise, I don't feel the need to give you the same freedom of tolerance in conducting your own affairs here according to your conscience and not my judgement that you are unwilling to accord to me. Fair's fair after all.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It looks like I write fast, but I just tend to think I write so much, I don't notice the time anymore.
My position and belief is that what people think is more important than whether they agree with me or not. Therefore I tend not to have emotional connections if you disagree on fundamentals, which is true for many people who don't go crazy because of politics. But fundamental things like human decency, the lives of virtuous men and women, those things matter, and people who push those people into the mud, anger me as any injustice would.
It's not that they don't care (or because everyone agrees with the neo-cons), it is just that if it was really important, they'd be killing people for it, and since they aren't willing to kill anyone thus it must not be so important.
The importance of a belief, I tend to judge, is based upon how many are willing to die and kill for it. On this scale, Islamic JIhad ranks pretty high, but so does American patriotism.
I'm looking at it from a different perspective. Too many times have I experienced the opposite of using enough force, my experiences have always been with using too little force.
Morality and ethics is the chain by which violence and rage is controlled, and funneled to proper use. Proper disciplined use.
However, if you truly want to save the lives of innocents, then you will have to make the same choice that I did. Will you favor total war and total violence, in the hopes of getting rid of enough evil men and women such that innocents can safely live their lives in order rather than chaos? Or will you shirk from your duty to the innocent, conduct less violent operations, and allow the evil sadists to overwhelm those who you are sworn to protect because you felt guilty?
It goes both ways. You can be guilty of killing someone that didn't want to hurt you, and you can be guilty of not killing someone that meant to hurt you or your family or those under your care.
The situation as it exists right now, with Bush giving Geneva Convention protection to terroists, with Bush refusing to take on the legal claptrap that says terroists are protected by the US Constitution, and in which the Bush Admin does not conduct punitive or public executions in order to prevent the 2 executions of captured US military men, is not an example of violence taken too far. Rather the opposite
How many children, women, wives, brothers, and sisters will the Iraqis suffer having seen torn asunder in front of them before they will unleash the full might of their armed forces? We protect Iraq and our strength outmatches them 1000 to 1, what duty do we have to protect innocent Iraqis who just want to live in peace, from the murderous terroist jihadists when their own forces are incapable of exerting enough power to do what they need to do?
Your trainer did you a favor, because he saw how happy you were. It is best to prepare for the ethical challenge now, rather than later when he will not be there. But this is not an excuse when people are under your protection as it they are under Bush's protection. And it is irrelevant when you realize the target you are killing is indeed responsible for death and destruction and will be responsible for more death and destruction until you end it.
It is not an excuse to choose less violent more peaceful methods, when peaceful methods do not work.
I or those part of the military, I presume, do not feel an ounce of guilt for having seen a successful assassination operation of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi or any other terroist. We indeed feel joy. Joy that a human being was liquidated literally from the inside out by sonic shock waves and over pressure? yes, indeed. Your trainer put more pressure on you because nobody would be responsible for who you shoot or what your ROE would be, civilians had to go by their own ethical compass and make their own decisions to shoot or not to shoot. Thus your standard is higher, yet your chances of kill or be killed are lower.
Doubt is a useful counter-balance to rage and anger, but it does not excuse us from making the hard choices when it is time to make them.
Lyndon B Johnson wanted the same thing that you wanted, less casualties. That was not an excuse to fight a war of attrition, and it did not help at all, if you ask the Vietnam veterans.
David Weber has explored the dichotomy between peace and war, attack or defend, surrender or victory through his Honor Harrington novels. While they are gripping, they are also educational, in that it forces the reader to see it from all perspectives, enemy and friend alike.
Post a Comment
<< Home