Repub states "A free press undermines our country"

[tapakeg]

Those votes were cast based on the intel that the Republicans told them

If they can't get their own information to make credible decisions for the protection of the country, what good are they?

[Goomba]

Thanks, dago and shuck..my point exactly.

As for 'facts'...I'm pretty sure that all the websites, and I am certain all the other newspapers, posted/published after the NYT did.  How am I sure?  I spent a few minutes with Art Sulzberger of the NYT last week at a business event, and that's the story as he tells it.

You know...I often think this stuff isn't about a true political or ethical position, so much as it's just any ole' opportunity to claim the inherent evil of an opposing point of view.  

If anyone, anwhere, wishes to bash or embarass the administration, then there are no limits, no wrongs, no such thing as sedition or treason.  There is a LOT to complain about, and a LOT that's pretty fishy, but that IS NOT a license to throw caution and good sense to the four winds in the interests of making political hay.

Frankly, in my personal worldview, the idea that the media should have no accountability for it's actions, and be immune to any form of reprimand is damned foolishness that'll get us all in a pack of trouble.  Strikes me as...naive.

Forget just the media for a second...who should have the 'right' to act or say as they please with no consequence for causing harm?

I realize how fine a tightrope it is to walk...we MUST have a free press to keep the people informed, primarily, of how their government behaves.  It's a critical part of checks and balances.  The ability to criticize the government openly is key to maintaining our freedom, frankly.

OTOH, we cannot deny the very real need for discretion, and secrecy, in the operation of our elected government as one of the pre-eminent players on the world stage.  This ain't Candyland.  The bad guys rely on exploiting ideas and policies that are contrary to our security, and I'm sure just love when Americans torpedo their own country's ability to find them in the first place!

Even secret programs are subject to rules.  Ultimately, the truth will out, and if data has been mined - and used  - contrary to the privacy and freedom of legitimate American citizens, there will be hell to pay.  In the meantime, if analysts look at depersonalized data and only start digging deep into transactions which bear the stamp of suspicion, I'm not really concerned.  It's not the looking, it's what they do with it and why.

In this case, it was legal, ethical and apparently untainted...used to hunt the guys who would really, really like to kill us all !

When most of the mainstream media appears to also criticize this particular bit of monumental stoopidity, I think the case is pretty well made.

[midnight Target]

So the press should be free to print what it wants except when the President thinks it is inappropriate? Or should we have a congressional committee overseeing the press? Maybe a government OK'er of stories?

Freedom can be a *****, but it beats the heck outta all the alternatives.

[midnight Target]

Frankly the anger over this story should be directed at the idiot who leaked it.

[Dago]

Originally posted by midnight Target
So the press should be free to print what it wants except when the President thinks it is inappropriate? Or should we have a congressional committee overseeing the press? Maybe a government OK'er of stories?

Freedom can be a *****, but it beats the heck outta all the alternatives.

Why does a liberal have such a hard time understanding the simple fact that a secret government program designed to fight terrorism shouldn't be printed in a newspaper, that the greater good of the people is served by protecting the program and in doing so, the security and safety of the American people?

Nobody has ever said all stories need review, but it doesnt take much to realize this story was immensly differant and needed protecting.

The concept is simple really if you stop for a moment to think about it objectively.

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by midnight Target
So the press should be free to print what it wants except when the President thinks it is inappropriate? Or should we have a congressional committee overseeing the press? Maybe a government OK'er of stories?

Freedom can be a *****, but it beats the heck outta all the alternatives.

Feedom is a responsibility.  The abuse of any freedom is what leads to the loss of that freedom.

When the press acts irresponsibly it should lose its freedom.  Not meaning that across the board, per se.  Just the offender.

The press should be held accountable and face stiff penalties for lieing, deception, or the release of information which compromises the security and well being of any American.

The press should not be free of the responsibility we all have to accept living in a free country.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by tapakeg


If they can't get their own information to make credible decisions for the protection of the country, what good are they?

YGBFSM

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Skuzzy

The press should be held accountable and face stiff penalties for ... the release of information which compromises the security and well being of any American.  

Imagining what a presidential administration could do within the bounds of the above quote scares the crap out me.

I think the press should always remain blameless with regard to this type of information.

The person(s) at fault are the ones that leaked the information. There's a long process in obtaining a security clearance. All along the way as the clearance is raised to higher and higher levels we are constantly reminded of the penalties for divulging classified information. Again and again, we agree in writing that we will protect the information.

Most civilians and the press haven't agreed to this. They are not bound by law to protect this information, nor should they.

[Shuckins]

Actually, I think the government has shown remarkable restraint in this instance...more so than they should in my opinion.

So, Sandy, since you are against holding the press accountable in any and all such circumstance, how then would YOU rein in a dangerously irresponsible press?

Civilians may not have signed a security agreement with regards to the handling of sensitive information, but does that absolve them of all responsibility in such matters?

You would hold the people who have signed security agreements accountable for leaking information jeopardizing the security of the nation, in essence breaking the laws the government has imposed on those responsible for the nation's security.

Yet you would let their accomplices go scott free.  The accomplices who had no valid reason for releasing this information and thus gutting an intelligence program, other than to embarass an administration it despises, are given to be given carte blance to do it again.

I doubt the Founding Fathers intended for Freedom of the Press to be used to shield journalists from the consequences of such blatantly partisan and idiotic actions.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Shuckins

So, Sandy, since you are against holding the press accountable in any and all such circumstance, how then would YOU rein in a dangerously irresponsible press?

Well... first we would have to agree that we have a dangerously irresponsible press.

We're not there yet.

Originally posted by Shuckins

Civilians may not have signed a security agreement with regards to the handling of sensitive information, but does that absolve them of all responsibility in such matters?

Is there some law that states otherwise? Those of us that safeguard information have accepted the responsibility. It is ours. It cannot be delegated away.

[Hap]

oh piddle on all this.  i'm happy to have the press report on anti-constitutional, illegal, shenanigans the executive branch is up to.


hap

[Dago]

Originally posted by Hap
oh piddle on all this.  i'm happy to have the press report on anti-constitutional, illegal, shenanigans the executive branch is up to.


hap

Lets get real, only a Brit or a gay would actually ever say "oh piddle on this".

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Feedom is a responsibility.  The abuse of any freedom is what leads to the loss of that freedom.

 

Here's where the rubber meets the road. It is most definitely NOT a "responsibility" especially in the context you are using. It is a RIGHT gauranteed by the constitution and inviolate.

I wonder if many here would be so quick to condemn a person who LEGALLY uses a handgun?

[Shuckins]

Hap...explain please exactly how the monitoring of over-seas banking transactions or terrorist organizations by the federal government is an unconstitutional, illegal, shenanigan.

Midnight...you are certainly intelligent enough to appreciate the system of "checks and balances" inherent in the constitution which keeps any branch of the government from accruing too much power to itself.  Oversight any single branch is the responsibility of the other two branches.

If you give the press unbridled power to print anything they wish, regardless of its effect on the security of the people of the nation, you are, in truth, setting them up as the fourth branch of the government.

Again, the question arises, WHO checks THEM?

I also remind you of the fact that journalists and newspapers can and have been successfully sued by private citizens in the past for printing material deemed harmful to the reputations of individuals, corporations, or the public weal.  

An article that incites the civil populace to violence is cause for arrest and incarceration.  So, the assumption by defenders of the press that the government has no authority over freedom of the press has no substance.

Regards, Shuckins

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Shuckins

If you give the press unbridled power to print anything they wish, regardless of its effect on the security of the people of the nation, you are, in truth, setting them up as the fourth branch of the government.

Which I believe was exactly the intent of the founders when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

Again, the question arises, WHO checks THEM?

We the People.

An article that incites the civil populace to violence is cause for arrest and incarceration.  So, the assumption by defenders of the press that the government has no authority over freedom of the press has no substance.

Straw man.