DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Discover Freedom
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1201 - 1225 of 1247, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/28/2004 02:36:12 PM · #1201
That you can't get an accurate figure for Icelanders shouldn't excuse you presenting a misleading figure for the actual debt load of USA citizens, regardless of how that affects your comparative argument.
09/28/2004 06:32:15 PM · #1202
Originally posted by GeneralE:

That you can't get an accurate figure for Icelanders shouldn't excuse you presenting a misleading figure for the actual debt load of USA citizens, regardless of how that affects your comparative argument.

I was responding to MadMordegon's post, in which HE said we should be more like Iceland and linked to the CIA factbook's Iceland entry. I felt fully entitled to respond to his post using the same factbook. Sorry you felt otherwise.
And I DID qualify my response by saying that the figures were "according to the sources you point to". So, I neither presented misleading figures, nor claim that the numbers provided were the "actual debt".

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-09-29 11:54:18.
09/28/2004 07:06:32 PM · #1203
How bout this Ron.
09/29/2004 11:55:51 AM · #1204
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

How bout this Ron.

How about that. That's where I got my figures from. That page gives the account balances I quoted, and the individual entries in that web site is where I got the population and external debt figures.

Ron
09/29/2004 08:28:29 PM · #1205
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

How bout this Ron.

How about that. That's where I got my figures from. That page gives the account balances I quoted, and the individual entries in that web site is where I got the population and external debt figures.

Ron


*sigh*
09/29/2004 08:31:03 PM · #1206
Perverted patriotism

Originally posted by CNN Article:


Tuesday, September 28, 2004 Posted: 9:12 AM EDT (1312 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- There was no official announcement, no press release. But make no mistake about it. As demonstrated daily in the language used by those who wage and those who analyze this uninspiring presidential campaign, the historic meaning of the word "patriotism" has been totally rewritten.

Don't take my word for it. Just listen. No longer is a patriot someone who has selflessly put the common good before personal comfort or someone who voluntarily sacrifices for the safety of country and countrymen. That is outdated patriotism. No, in the fall of 2004, after being successfully hijacked by partisans, "patriotism" now has nothing to do with one's personal conduct or courage. "Patriotism" now means ideology.

To be a patriot by today's debased rhetoric is easy. It involves no personal risk or discomfort, no sacrifice of any kind. You will pay no price. You will bear no burden. All you have to do is to give relentless and uncritical backing to the unilateral invasion and occupation by the United States military of agreed-upon unfriendly countries.

Consider the following facts: In spite of his personal doubts about the wisdom of his country's war policy in Vietnam, this young man from a privileged background with an Ivy League degree volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam where he was honored for bravery. Convinced that the U.S. policy in Vietnam was mistaken, John Kerry returned to civilian life where he publicly sought to change the U.S. war policy.

(One could argue that if he had succeeded in changing U.S. policy that John Kerry would have effectively spared our incumbent president and vice president from the painful moral conflict of choosing whether to answer or to avoid their nation's draft call to military service.)

Our second young man came from an even more privileged family background and also possessed an Ivy League degree. When he secured a coveted position in his home state's national guard, he was asked if he would volunteer for overseas duty and he officially declined to do so. But George W. Bush, like Dick Cheney, unflinchingly supported the U.S. war in Vietnam. True, neither chose to personally serve in the war he supported. But let it be noted that they never criticized or protested any Vietnam policies of the U.S. government. By contemporary illogic, that, coupled with their creation of and passionate advocacy for the U.S. war in Iraq, qualifies them as patriots. But not John Kerry.

Where did we go so wrong? Why have we forgotten the wise Republican president who said during the First World War, when dissent was being attacked as disloyalty, that "to announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American people." Thank you, Theodore Roosevelt.

Patriotism now means talking tough, being tough-minded -- which mostly consists of endorsing U.S. military action to solve problems and publicly disparaging international diplomacy. You can also find an overload of tough-talking, tough-minded types in the political press corps. Virtually none of the press bus "patriots" ever risked corrupting his views of the country's military or warfare by personal exposure to either military service or combat. By their lights, if you dare to question, let alone oppose, the next U.S. war du jour, then you are a hopeless wuss.

When he was praised for his leadership of U.S. troops in the first Gulf War, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf declined: "It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle."

As for me, I prefer the old-fashioned patriotism when personally brave Americans are willing to sacrifice for the common good and the national interest. This patriotism has taken many forms. It included accepting the rationing of meat and gasoline, buying bonds, collecting scrap metal and waste paper, sharing with our neighbors, raising vegetables and even paying higher taxes. These are all the acts of patriots.

Patriotism is not position papers or macho swagger, nor is patriotism the property of any political party or ideology. Of course, those who courageously risk their life and limbs in behalf of the nation are indeed patriots. Such a list would include former Sens. Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland, and current Sens. Chuck Hagel, John McCain and, yes, John Kerry.

Patriotism is truly very personal.

09/29/2004 10:06:20 PM · #1207
Originally posted by GeneralE:

That you can't get an accurate figure for Icelanders shouldn't excuse you presenting a misleading figure for the actual debt load of USA citizens, regardless of how that affects your comparative argument.


I believe you're comparing apples and oranges. If I'm not mistaken, the debt you're refering to is the national debt, the amount owned by the federal government. The debt from the CIA source book is the external debt - "total public and private debt owed to nonresidents repayable in foreign currency, goods, or services" (from their definition for the number). The difference in the two is neither misleading, omittion, nor even relevant. Just a completely different discussion. Ron was simply using that to compare the US to Iceland using the source provided. He could have just as easily chosen land mass, natural resources or favorite flavor of ice cream (if the CIA's interested in reporting that on a per capita basis) for his comparison.

I think MM's training up to become a spy, in hopes that Kerry's elected. He's spending an aweful lot of time in the CIA's files. ;)

Message edited by author 2004-09-29 22:08:22.
09/30/2004 12:33:55 AM · #1208
Originally posted by ScottK:

I think MM's training up to become a spy, in hopes that Kerry's elected. He's spending an aweful lot of time in the CIA's files. ;)


hahah ya. The CIA World Fact Book is one hell of a great source of info on any country in the world. Hell they do details analysis on the oceans as if they were countries too. I have however found so far 1 instance of false information on that website, but that’s after spending 20+ hours on it. The comparative statistics are also really handy.

Did you know there is a country that only has 46 people living in it?? Pitcairn Islands

Message edited by author 2004-09-30 00:34:27.
10/05/2004 06:23:01 AM · #1209
//www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/military_justice/index_np.html
(Scroll down for the essay it's talking about)

Originally posted by Article:

Operation American Repression?

An Army sergeant in Iraq who wrote a highly critical article on the administration's conduct of the war is being investigated for disloyalty -- if charged and convicted, he could get 20 years.


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert


Sept. 29, 2004 | An Army Reserve staff sergeant who last week wrote a critical analysis of the United States' prospects in Iraq now faces possible disciplinary action for disloyalty and insubordination. If charges are bought and the officer is found guilty, he could face 20 years in prison. It would be the first such disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War.

The essay that sparked the military investigation is titled "Why We Cannot Win" and was posted Sept. 20 on the conservative antiwar Web site LewRockwell.com. Written by Al Lorentz, a non-commissioned officer from Texas with nearly 20 years in the Army who is serving in Iraq, the essay offers a bleak assessment of America's chances for success in Iraq.

"I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality," wrote Lorentz, who gives four key reasons for the likely failure: a refusal to deal with reality, not understanding what motivates the enemy, an overabundance of guerrilla fighters, and the enemy's shorter line of supplies and communication.

Lorentz's essay contains no classified information but does include a starkly critical evaluation of how the Bush administration has conducted the war. "Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality," Lorentz wrote. "It is tragic, indeed criminal, that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional."

The essay prompted a swift response from Lorentz's commanders. In an e-mail this week to Salon, Lorentz, declining to comment further on his piece, noted, "Because of my article, I am under investigation at this time for very serious charges which carry up to a 20-year prison sentence." According to Lorentz, the investigation is looking into whether his writing constituted a disloyalty crime under both federal statute (Title 18, Section 2388, of the U.S. Code) and Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

According to the UCMJ, examples of punishable statements by military personnel "include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration."

Under UCMJ guidelines, the maximum punishment in the event of a conviction would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for three years.

Prosecutions are rare, however, says Grant Lattin, a military lawyer and retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, because members of the military "have the constitutional right to express their opinions pertaining to the issues before the public. Short of there being classified material and security issues, people can write letters about military subjects. If you look at the Army Times, you'll see letters from people on active duty complaining about this and that."

For instance, in September 2003, Tim Predmore, an active-duty soldier with the 101st Airborne Division, based in northern Iraq, wrote a scathing letter to his hometown newspaper, the Peoria Journal Star in Illinois. "For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom," Predmore's letter began. "From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned," he continued, labeling the war "the ultimate atrocity" before concluding, "I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies."

Going beyond the UCMJ and prosecuting disloyalty as a federal crime is "extraordinarily rare," Lattin says, noting that the last published case was in 1970, in U.S. vs. William Harvey. Under Title 18, Section 2388, it's a crime, punishable up to 20 years in prison, "when the United States is at war, [and a person] willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States."

In the Harvey case, a Vietnam-era soldier was accused of making disloyal statements by urging a fellow soldier not to fight in Vietnam. "Why should the black man go to Vietnam and fight the white man's war and then come back and have to fight the white man," Harvey told the soldier, adding that he "was not going to fight in Vietnam and neither should [you]." The case was brought before the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, which noted "the language of the comments were on the line between rhetoric and disloyalty," as well as the fact that "disagreement with, or objection to, a policy of the Government is not necessarily indicative of disloyalty to the United States." The court alternately upheld and reversed portions of Harvey's conviction for disloyalty.

As for Lorentz's case, Lattin, who served as a Marine judge advocate, says it's not uncommon for commanders to threaten soldiers with legal action in order to make a point: "If they know there's an offense for a disloyal statement, I wouldn't be surprised if he said, 'Knock it off.'" Lattin doubts that in the end Lorentz will face prosecution for his writings. "After this gets to lawyers and prosecutors who think about the consequences and the First Amendment, I don't think this will go anywhere."

The article in question:
//www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Originally posted by Article:

Why We Cannot Win

by Al Lorentz


Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off the tracks.

I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties than we’ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media bias."

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.

Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.

September 20, 2004
10/05/2004 02:51:45 PM · #1210
Let's allow the summary of the whole issue to stand on its own, with out the Chicken Little, they're picking on me drivel:

As for Lorentz's case, Lattin, who served as a Marine judge advocate, says it's not uncommon for commanders to threaten soldiers with legal action in order to make a point: "If they know there's an offense for a disloyal statement, I wouldn't be surprised if he said, 'Knock it off.'" Lattin doubts that in the end Lorentz will face prosecution for his writings. "After this gets to lawyers and prosecutors who think about the consequences and the First Amendment, I don't think this will go anywhere."


As I recall, an Air Force general got discharged (don't recall if there was a court marshall) for making derogatory remarks about Clinton early on during his regime, and there wasn't even a war on. Seems to me the issue's definitely worth investigating.
10/05/2004 03:52:24 PM · #1211
^^ Yet no comment on the substance of the article. Classic.
10/05/2004 05:38:00 PM · #1212
Anything in particular you'd like to discuss? How about the fact that this guy's identified as "former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas". I can't speak authoritatively about what that would mean (I don't know anything at this point about the Constitution Part, other than it's one of the dozens of "alternative" parties). However, just a quick Google turns up this gem (you'll love this one, it plays up to all your fears and biases): Neo Conservatism: Facism repackaged.

I can't comment in detail at the moment on this particular 15 month old article (I haven't read the whole thing yet), but the opening couple of paragraphs make it pretty clear that Mr. Lorentz had a biased opinion established well before going to Iraq. Hopefully I can make this plain, simple and clear: I'm not arguing for or against his position. My point is that he had it before going to Iraq. You've posted this article a couple of times now (as always without thought or comment), and the only implication I can draw through your silence is that because he's a soldier, on the ground in Iraq, his opinion carries more credence. (And, to some degree I might agree, particularly if placed in balance with other competing opinions.) But the opinion of this piece does not appear to be a new revelation arrived at during his service there, but the opinion he took with him.

Beyond that, if there's something in particular within this piece (or any other you post) that you'd like to discuss, then discuss it. Enough with the cat-and-mouse games already.
10/05/2004 06:09:18 PM · #1213
A little digging, and it gets better. According to that article, Al thinks GW Bush is a socialist, and you are a communist. His fear of the Patriot Act is not how it could be used in the hands of Bush, but under the control of someone like Hillary Clinton.

Here are the Resolutions from the 2002 State Convention of the Constitution Party of Texas.

Hatred of Bush sure does make interesting bedfellows...
10/05/2004 11:02:41 PM · #1214
I don’t know why you said he thinks I’m a communist, as I don’t belong to any party or official affiliation.

Now that guy may be some kind of extreme fruitcake, but what he wrote about Iraq, in my opinion and now everyone’s I’ve showed the article to who has given feed back, except you, have fully agreed with his 5 points. It makes sense and much has been seen before in Vietnam. Even the military is pissed off at him for it, very pissed off; "he could face 20 years in prison. It would be the first such disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War."
10/06/2004 03:52:51 PM · #1215
You hear what you want to hear, believe what you want to believe, and anyone who tickles your ears and feeds your paranoia are granted instant credibility. And you complain about the American public....
10/08/2004 06:42:27 PM · #1216

 FBI Seizes Indymedia Servers


(exerpt:)

    The FBI has issued an order to hosting provider Rackspace in the US, ordering it to turn over two of the servers hosting the Independent Media Centre's websites in the UK, a statement from the group says.

    Rackspace has offices in the US and the UK. Independent Media Center, which is better known as Indymedia, was set up in 1999 to provide grassroots coverage of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) protests in Seattle.

    Rackspace complied with the FBI order, without first notifying Indymedia, and turned over Indymedia's server in the UK. This affects over 20 Indymedia sites worldwide, the group said.

    Indymedia said it did not know why the order had been issued as it was issued to Rackspace. Rackspace told some of the group's volunteers "they cannot provide Indymedia with any information regarding the order." ISPs have received gag orders in similar situations which prevent them from updating the parties involved on what is happening.

10/08/2004 08:48:44 PM · #1217
Originally posted by GeneralE:


FBI Seizes Indymedia Servers


(exerpt:)

The FBI has issued an order to hosting provider Rackspace in the US, ordering it to turn over two of the servers hosting the Independent Media Centre's websites in the UK, a statement from the group says.

Rackspace has offices in the US and the UK. Independent Media Center, which is better known as Indymedia, was set up in 1999 to provide grassroots coverage of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) protests in Seattle.

Rackspace complied with the FBI order, without first notifying Indymedia, and turned over Indymedia's server in the UK. This affects over 20 Indymedia sites worldwide, the group said.

Indymedia said it did not know why the order had been issued as it was issued to Rackspace. Rackspace told some of the group's volunteers "they cannot provide Indymedia with any information regarding the order." ISPs have received gag orders in similar situations which prevent them from updating the parties involved on what is happening.

Further exerpt:

"While Indymedia is not exactly sure what prompted the action, the group does have one strong idea. A French Indymedia site last month posted photos of what it believed to be undercover Swiss police officers photographing protesters at a French event. Indymedia received a request from the FBI to pull those photos down, as they "revealed personal information" about the undercover police, said Indymedia press officer Hep Sano.

Rackspace appeared to confirm that the photos were an issue with the FBI. "
10/09/2004 12:22:10 PM · #1218
Indeed -- that sounds like the likely rationale ...

Here's some news from the domestic front:

An Inexplicable Vote for Death

Published: October 9, 2004 -- NY Times

Paul Gregory House was convicted of murdering a neighbor in 1985, before the era of DNA typing. The Tennessee jury that found him guilty was told that the semen found on the body of the neighbor, Carolyn Muncey, matched his blood type. The jury, citing the fact that Mrs. Muncey had been raped, said Mr. House should be sentenced to death.

It's hard to believe that the jurors would have come to that conclusion if they had known that the semen's DNA matched that of Mrs. Muncey's husband, Hubert, not the defendant. A 15-judge United States Court of Appeals panel in Cincinnati that heard a request to reopen the case knew that. Yet the judges recently voted, 8 to 7, that Mr. House should neither be freed nor given a new trial. They were not swayed by six witnesses implicating Mr. Muncey. Two said Mr. Muncey had told them he had killed his wife while he was drunk.

That eight judges would condemn a man to be executed under these circumstances is shocking. What's worse is that the judges divided along partisan lines. The eight judges appointed by a Republican president voted to keep Mr. House on the road to the death penalty. Six judges appointed by a Democrat wanted to free him, and the seventh called for a new trial. It's hard to dismiss the thought that the Republicans voted as a show of support for capital punishment, not on the merits of the case.

For Mr. House, the next stop is the Supreme Court. For the rest of us, his case should serve as a reminder that when we elect a president, we are also deciding the makeup of our courts.
10/10/2004 01:29:37 PM · #1219
October 10, 2004
The Promise of the First Amendment
By ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER JR., chairman and publisher, and RUSSELL T. LEWIS, chief executive, The New York Times

Last Thursday, a federal district judge ordered a New York Times reporter, Judy Miller, sent to prison. Her crime was doing her job as the founders of this nation intended. Here's what happened and why it should concern you.

On July 6, 2003, Joseph C. Wilson IV - formerly a career foreign service officer, a chargé d'affaires in Baghdad and an ambassador - wrote an article published on this page under the headline, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." The article served to undercut the Bush administration's claims surrounding Saddam Hussein's nuclear capacity.

Eight days later, Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist, wrote an article in which he identified Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an "operative on weapons of mass destruction" for the C.I.A. "Two senior administration officials told me," Mr. Novak wrote, that it was Ms. Plame who "suggested sending Wilson" to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium ore from Niger. After Mr. Novak's report, several other journalists wrote stories in which they said they received similar information about Ms. Plame from confidential government sources, in what many have concluded was an effort to punish Mr. Wilson for speaking out against the administration by exposing his wife as a C.I.A. operative. The record is clear, however, that Judy Miller is not one of those journalists who reported this information.

Because the government officials who revealed Valerie Plame's status as a C.I.A. operative to the press might have committed a crime in doing so, the Justice Department opened a federal criminal investigation to find whoever was responsible.

During the course of this investigation, the details of which have been kept secret, several journalists have been subpoenaed to provide information about the source of the leak and threatened with jail if they failed to comply.

On Aug. 12, Ms. Miller received a subpoena in which she was required to provide information about conversations she might have had with a government official in which the identity and C.I.A. connection of Mr. Wilson's wife might have been mentioned. She received this subpoena even though she had never published anything concerning Mr. Wilson or his wife. This is not the only recent case in which the government has subpoenaed information concerning Ms. Miller's sources. On July 12, the same prosecutor sought to have Ms. Miller and another Times correspondent, Philip Shenon, identify another source. Curiously, this separate investigation concerns articles on Islamic charities and their possible financial support for terrorism that were published nearly three years ago. As part of this effort to uncover the reporters' confidential sources, the prosecutor has gone to the phone company to obtain records of their phone calls.

So, unless an appeals court reverses last week's contempt conviction, Judy Miller will soon be sent to prison. And, if the government succeeds in obtaining the phone records of Ms. Miller and Mr. Shenon, many of their sources - even those having nothing to do with these two government investigations - will become known.

Why does all of this matter? The possibility of being forced to leave one's family and sent to jail simply for doing your job is an appalling prospect for any journalist - indeed, any citizen. But as concerned as we are with our colleague's loss of liberty, there are even bigger issues at stake for us all.

The press simply cannot perform its intended role if its sources of information - particularly information about the government - are cut off. Yes, the press is far from perfect. We are human and make mistakes. But, the authors of our Constitution and its First Amendment understood all of that and for good reason prescribed that journalists should function as a "fourth estate." As Justice Potter Stewart put it, the primary purpose of the constitutional guarantee of a free press was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches."

The founders of our democracy understood that our government was also a human institution that was capable of mistakes and misdeeds. That is why they constructed a First Amendment that would give the press the ability to investigate problems in the official branches of our government and make them known to the public. In this way, the press was sensibly put in a position to help hold government accountable to its citizens.

An essential tool that the press must have if it is to perform its job is the ability to gather and receive information in confidence from those who would face reprisals for bringing important information about our government into the light of day for all of us to examine. Without an enforceable promise of confidentiality, sources would quickly dry up and the press would be left largely with only official government pronouncements to report.

A quarter of a century ago, a New York Times reporter, Myron Farber, was ordered to jail, also for doing his job and refusing to give up confidential information. He served 40 days in a New Jersey prison cell. In response to this injustice, the New Jersey Legislature strengthened its "shield law," which recognizes and serves to protect a journalist's need to protect sources and information. Although the federal government has no shield law, the vast majority of states, as well as the District of Columbia, have by now put in place legal protections for reporters. While many of these laws are regarded as providing an "absolute privilege" for journalists, others set out a strict test that the government must meet before it can have a reporter thrown into jail. Perhaps it is a function of the age we live in or perhaps it is something more insidious, but the incidence of reporters being threatened with jail by the federal government is on the rise.

To reverse this trend, to give meaning to the guarantees of the First Amendment and to thereby strengthen our democracy, it is now time for Congress to follow the lead of the states and enact a federal shield law for journalists. Without one, reporters like Judy Miller may be imprisoned. More important, the public will be in the dark about the actions of its elected and appointed government officials. That is not what our nation's founders had in mind.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
10/10/2004 02:29:52 PM · #1220
This is not suprizing, though quite bad. If this begins a pattern, the tiny smidge of the big picture we get from mainstream media will disapear.

I suggest people interested in the subject check out "The View From Here - Corporation" (not sure where this is available), The Corporation and most importantly "Orwell Rolls in his Grave".
10/10/2004 03:43:57 PM · #1221
Found it, //www.thecorporation.com/, very very educational and important movie. It is just now being released in the US, thought I doubt you can find it at Blockbuster..
10/14/2004 09:07:14 PM · #1222
This type of thing along with the electronic voting machines; stands to topple the last US election in "BS" factor.

//www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/nevada.registration/index.html
(CNN) -- Nevada election officials have launched an investigation into allegations that a Republican-led voter registration drive improperly disposed of forms it collected from potential Democratic voters.

//www.truthout.org/docs_04/101504A.shtml
GOP Paid Firm Faces Voter Fraud Charge
10/15/2004 12:32:35 AM · #1223
nevermind, I didn't even make sense to myself.

Message edited by author 2004-10-15 00:34:51.
10/15/2004 08:02:16 PM · #1224
Interesting and excellently graphical short clip on the subject. Flash vid.
10/15/2004 08:22:15 PM · #1225
Perhaps the dems are just getting warmed up for election day. From the DNC election day manual:

"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike' (particularly well-suited to states in which these techniques have been tried in the past)"

All the while, they've been so agressive in "voter" registration that some districts have more registered voters than they have residents eligable to vote.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 12:15:37 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 12:15:37 PM EDT.