Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The House on Tuesday strongly backed the right of reporters to protect the confidentiality of sources in most federal court cases, saying that right was crucial to a free and effective press. The White House, warning that the media shield bill would encourage leaks of classified information, threatened a veto.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Zap

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Butch and Chainme sure don't like this. Somebody else who can keep a secret from them, no way that's gonna stand. They have the big guns in the WH nobody says no to that team.

Has Dumbya ever threatened to veto any bad legislation or is it only the good stuff?

Maddening this is.

Good eye, Zap.

Be Well.

""and in some cases completely eviscerate - the ability to investigate acts of terrorism or threats to national security.""

Uh....isn't this what they say about every fucking thing??? They are going to have to engineer another attack if they want to keep us in fear, sorry 9-11 is fading. Time for new terror or else.....freedom.

"Under legislation that passed 398-21, reporters could still be compelled to disclose information on sources if that information is needed to prevent acts of terrorism or harm to the national security."

I'm sure Bush will not veto this as he is still looking to find out who it was that leaked classified information and outed a covert CIA agent.

Yeah, he is, so he could pardon them. And probably pin a medal on them too.

Not a problem, as long as GW demands that a charge of treason be lodged against the publisher and reporter for printing classified material inserted into the language of the bill.
Free and open press doesn`t mean printing classified material during war, especially if it favors the enemy.

Got it?

They are going to have to engineer another attack if they...blah blah blahdy dah.

Who engineered the first 2 WTC attack genius.



rwd

""Who engineered the first 2 WTC attack genius.""

You don't know but you will pretend you do.

You don't know but you will pretend you do.

Posted by danni


I smell buffalobob. He must be somewhere around here.

LOL


Good non answer genius.

I`ll put that in my book of 10 best answers, ever.

Best thing i like about your kind is they will never go out on a limb.
Gotta belief?
Say it.


rwd

""Gotta belief""

I believe I don't know and that the 9-11 Commisssion didn't convince me of much either. I, like many millions of Americans (33% and growing I believe) do not believe the 9-11 Commission was complete or necessarily accurate and that there are many, many unanswered questions. It is wierd that in the US we would allow evidence to be suppressed and our government to shield us from the real truth, whatever that may be.
As far as any specific conspiracy theories though, no I don't buy any of them either.
I repeat, I just don't know but I do believe my government does not want me to know either.

"(33% and growing I believe) do not believe the 9-11 Commission"
More like 85%....
www.angus-reid.com

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll

www.infowars.com

The White House, warning that the media shield bill would encourage leaks of classified information, threatened a veto.

This is really humorous, the bill has come about because of the plame case and protecting the top political officials but now the white house is rejecting what they started in the first place.

I think this administration is getting scared of all the unlawful acts they have done.

I have reservations about this bill because now the media can print what ever they want and never have to prove what they say, ever.

I have reservations about this bill because now the media can print what ever they want and never have to prove what they say, ever.

It's an odd symmetry, since Politicians can print and say what ever they want and even if it is a lie. For them, it's protected speech.

Bush SHOULD veto this. Congress is trying to pass a law that would bypass the 6th Amendment. Since this was done because of court cases in the past where reporters have been ordered to name their source:

"to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor"

This law would have the effect of hiding the witnesses from the accused AND take the "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses" out of the accused's favor.

Even if Bush didn't veto this, it would crumble at the first legal challenge.

Free and open press doesn`t mean printing classified material during war

When was war formally declared by the US Congress?

the boy president is a one trick pony. with him everything is terror terror terror. He really is a sacless wonder. I wonder who the twins real father is.

When was war formally declared by the US Congress?

What is a formal declaration of war according to the Constitution (the only authority that matters)?

This is all the definition you get in the Constitution:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

While customary practice may have been something a little more formal... there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a method, or degree of formality needed.

The vote for authorization was enough to constitute a declaration of war.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, Danni. I believe I already quoted the relevant part in my last post.

The question was when did Congress declare War. I showed that since no degree of formality was given, and since using force on another country is an Act of War... authorizing such use of force is a Declaration of War. Even if it lacks the formality of custom, the vagueness and broad wording of our lands highest governing document shows that the vote of authorization fits the description of a Declaration of War.

Baloney. Congress shirked its responsibility plain and simple. A declaration of war is just that...a declaration of war, Congress did not declare one and thus they are violating the Constitution. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. When the president can take us to war without a formal declaration it is, once again, a SLIPPERY SLOPE which the founding fathers did not intend. They wrote the Constitution with the requirement for a formal declaration on purpose for good reasons....to avoid the probability that an out of control President (George Bush) would be given the authority to decide when and if to declare war on any other nation. This country needs to follow the Constitution or we risk the rise of a dictatorial Executive Branch, a point we may have already arrived at. This is not a liberal position, ask Ron Paul.

A declaration of war is just that...a declaration of war

Describe a Declaration of War as defined by the Constitution then, and show where in the Constitution it gives that definition of what a Declaration of War should look like.

Notice they never give "Declaration of War" as a noun.... they simply use the verb term "to declar War". According the Consitution, a declaration of War is an action by Congress... not a thing. They authorized use of military force against a foreign nation... that is an act of war.

When the president can take us to war without a formal declaration it is, once again, a SLIPPERY SLOPE which the founding fathers did not intend

Again, show me in the Constitution the exact words (bold face them if need be) to show me exactly where it says any thing about a "formal declaration of war" and defines what that means.

Moo,

You are confused.

If I remember correctly, the use of force was authorized to enforce UN resolutions regarding Saddam's regime in Iraq. Since the regime that had been violating the resolutions was removed, it would seem that the "war" is over. Mission Accomplished and all that.

So are we talking about another war or the one that was "accomplished"?

If I remember correctly, the use of force was authorized to enforce UN resolutions regarding Saddam's regime in Iraq.

Correct. What do you call it when another country uses military force against your country for any reason?

Answer: an act of war.

Congress voted to authorize and act of war... since you can offer no definition of, or proof of requirement for, a "formal declaration of war" in the Constitution... then legally that vote counts as a declaration of War as provided in the Constitution.

Mission Accomplished and all that.

So are we talking about another war or the one that was "accomplished"?


Since when has one mission been the whole of a war?

If I remember correctly, the use of force was authorized to enforce UN resolutions regarding Saddam's regime in Iraq.

Correct. What do you call it when another country uses military force against your country for any reason?


So now that since Saddam's regime is gone, the war is over.

So now that since Saddam's regime is gone, the war is over.

Sorry, 726. We still have to fix what we broke.

First rule business... you break it, you buy it. In this case the bull bought the china shop.

But that is not what the authorization says.

But that is not what the authorization says.

Not true... there were TWO resolutions. One specifically for Iraq... and one for "terrorist". The terrorist one actually came first. Even though it was initially used to go into Afghanistan, the wording of the resolution applies also in Iraq now that we are there as long as Al Qaeda claims a presence there.

I agree that the press needs to be a government watchdog, and that they should be our eyes and ears.
What I don't agree with is classified info being leaked. That's basically treason. There needs to be repercussions for leaking to the press. "We" don't have a right to know everything in regards to National Security.

Now, we do have "whistle blower" laws to protect people with legit grievances. I'm not sure why the "Media Shield" even needs to be an option. Why can't the whistle blower laws cover them as well?

By no means am I claiming I have a full grasp of this. What I do know is that there are way too many leaks of National Security matters, and they need to be addressed while also protecting the press.

101,

I think a more insidious consequence than leaked classified material is going to be with how it violates the 6th Amendment as I stated in my 6:50AM post. Still hoping someone will answer that post.

Not true... there were TWO resolutions. One specifically for Iraq... and one for "terrorist". The terrorist one actually came first. Even though it was initially used to go into Afghanistan, the wording of the resolution applies also in Iraq now that we are there as long as Al Qaeda claims a presence there.

BTW... if you libs REALLY want to get scared about something:

Bush doesn't NEED a separate authorization to invade other countries in the Middle East. All he needs is evidence that they are harboring Al Qaeda members. The wording of the original resolution that was used to invade Afghanistan provides that:

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

"" There needs to be repercussions for leaking to the press.""

I agree but then Bush commutes his sentence.

""Again, show me in the Constitution the exact words (bold face them if need be) to show me exactly where it says any thing about a "formal declaration of war" and defines what that means.""

Oh I understand you interpretation but I guess I am more of a strict constructionist who figures that when the constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war that is exactly what it means. I believe that it is important to interpret this exactly as written so that any war entered into by America is fully supported by Congress with no misunderstandings or opportunistic claims of authority by the president.
Every person in Congress should be required to vote up or down any declaration of war. They should have to take responsibility for their vote. That is partly what has caused the disaster in Iraq; many in Congress say they authorized force really just to add authority to Bush's threats not because they really intended for America to invade.
With a real declaration of war no such misunderstandings could occur.
I'd like to know what the argument is against following the Constitution exactly as it is written.

""Bush doesn't NEED a separate authorization to invade other countries in the Middle East.""

Oh, we are aware of that and it is why many of us are so furious with Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. In my opinion Pelosi needs replacing.

Did Bush pardon Armitage Danni? No? Then what the fuck are you talking about?

Why wasn't Armitage crucified for this supposed breach of national security that the Russians and Cubans already knew about?

Oh I understand you interpretation but I guess I am more of a strict constructionist who figures that when the constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war that is exactly what it means.

If you were that strict of a contructionist then you would avoid reading words into your interpretation that isn't there.

As for me... I DID take the strict constructionist approach and used ONLY the words that are there along with the context in which they were used.

Not true... there were TWO resolutions. One specifically for Iraq... and one for "terrorist".

No, that resolution is to nations or organizations that planned and executed the attack on 9/11 or harbored such organizations.

It does not authorize broad powers against ANY terrorist organization anywhere in the world.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

No, that resolution is to nations or organizations that planned and executed the attack on 9/11 or harbored such organizations.

Read what I said... I said that all he has to do is show that one of those countries is harboring Al Qaeda members.

Since Al Qaeda IS the organization that "planned, authorized, and committed" 9/11... he can go into any country that "he determines" is harboring them.

The wording is all there. Look at the way I carefully worded my response and what I have quoted from the resolution. I am not saying I agree that he should, or that I like it that he can... but he does have the power under that resolution. It also provides the legal basis for his staying in Iraq whether you or I like it or not.

""To declare War""

That is the exact words. Now how can you claim that "to declare war" means anything other than exactly that, it simply does not say "to give the power to decide whether to go to war to the president." No it says "to declare war." That is for a reason. It is to be sure that the Congress votes on the actualy declaration of war and takes responsibility for that war which would also include supporting it financially til its completion. Congress's abdication of authority allowed members to support the resolution without actually supporting the act of invasion because of thier claims that they never intended it to be a "declaration of war." My bet is that if Congress had to follow the Constitution and vote on an actual "declaration of war" they would take that responsibility much more seriously because there could be no later hedging of their positions.
I believe the founding fathers recognized this and put it in the constitution for that reason.

""Why wasn't Armitage crucified for this supposed breach of national security that the Russians and Cubans already knew about?""

I don't know but Bush did commute the sentence of Libby for the crime of obstructing justice in the outing of Valerie Plame which was definitely "leaking" to the press. Do you deny he leaked, even if ARmitage did it first???

No it says "to declare war."

And by directly authorizing and act of war on another country you have effectively if not explicitly declared war.

Argue all you want... but that is what they did. They authorized the president to invade another country with our military... what exactly does the Constitution call that sort of thing?

I think hillary should be required to send obama been boo boo a dvd of her military plans every 2 weeks when she becomes president , just allowing cnn to do it over the air is not enough .Putting these antiAmerican assclowns back in power ,
America deserves everything it gets .
Buy the " LIE " , pay for the " LIE "

Mooman,

It does not say harboring it says harbored.

It does not say harboring it says harbored.

I was wondering if that was going to be your distinction... I tend to agree that that is the one sticky place.

However I think it will also take a court ruling on it to enforce that interpretation. I don't think said court ruling is a sure thing either. Let's hope you are right.

You have to admit that the thought is scary.

Do you deny he leaked, even if ARmitage did it first???

Posted by danni at 2007-10-18 12:21 PM | Repl

I won't deny that he leaked (actually I believe he confirmed), but the fact remains that the cat was out of the bag on a number of different fronts.

All politics aside, how is it that Richard Armitage gets a free pass on this whole thing? Wasn't he part of the Admin? Did he not leak the info? Hasn't everyone known that already? Then why the need to chase Libby (I'm not saying he should have gotten pardoned, I just don't get why he was involved or why it went any further once it was confirmed that Armitage was the leak).

Because Libby lied, 101, and you are not supposed to lie to the FBI. It is a no-no. Bad. Bad Libby!

Because Libby lied, 101, and you are not supposed to lie to the FBI. It is a no-no. Bad. Bad Libby!

If I am not mistaken... didn't Libby lie to the FBI AFTER Armitage had already confessed to being the leak?

If that is the case, then why were they still beating that horse after finding the culprit they were looking for?

If I am not mistaken... didn't Libby lie to the FBI AFTER Armitage had already confessed to being the leak?

If that is the case, then why were they still beating that horse after finding the culprit they were looking for?

Posted by moomanfl at 2007-10-18 02:04 PM | Reply |


Monte,
I agree, he lied, that's bad, he wasted time and tax payer dollars in doing so (the same rationale I have for Martha Stewart going to the Pen).
But as Moon says above, shouldn't the case have been closed once Armitage admitted he was the leak?

The whole thing was a ridiculous fiasco, like the BS sentence Sandy Burglar got and the waste of time and effort over the Clinton BJ.

I go out of my way to be a douchebag here like most of you, but none of us were elected to make this a better place.

101 and Mooman-
So, if there's one "leak" there's not another (who lied not only to the FBI, but to a grand jury) ?

Go fuck yourself Boyd. Go back to bed and wait for Alexandrite.

101-
re: Then why the need to chase Libby (I'm not saying he should have gotten pardoned, I just don't get why he was involved or why it went any further once it was confirmed that Armitage was the leak).

The top official in the VP's office shopped a CIA agent's identity around to various news outlets for political retribution, and you are not that concerned. On top of that, his prison term was commuted by the very administration that engaged in this activity. It seems as if you would be quite at home in a banana republic ruled by lying thugs.

So, if there's one "leak" there's not another (who lied not only to the FBI, but to a grand jury) ?

Well that depends... how many reporters broke the story?

Oh... only one? Well then how many people did he talk to?

Oh... one?

Gee... guess that answers it.

101-
If you are unable to debate the point effectively, then just say so.

Well that depends... how many reporters broke the story?

Oh... only one? Well then how many people did he talk to?

Oh... one?


That's not true. Libby spoke to many journalists, but only Novak was willing to shovel the shit for the team. If you had any understanding of the case you would know that.

Boyd,
The only time I ever plan on addressing you is when I'm reminding you of what a silly tool you are.
I'll eventually drive you into changing names again, but not before you make the claim "I'm leaving for good and never coming back!".

101-
That's fine. You are convinced I am "Boyd", which gives you an easy out on the actual factual debate at hand - which you are unable to defend.
Carry on.

So who did Libby tell?

Not speculation... proof. Who did he specifically mention Valerie Plame's name to? Anyone?

There was Matthew Cooper, Novak, and Judith Miller just to name a few off the top of my head. But you have framed your question in a sneaky legalese that begs challenge:

What if Libby merely said "Wilson's wife" works for CIA? Would that be OK?

What so often gets lost in petty partisan sniping such as this is:

Where is the uranium from Africa?

Where is Saddam's nuclear program?

Where are the WMD?

As it turns out, there was no uranium sale from Africa, there were no active nuclear programs in Iraq, and there was no active WMD production or active stockpiles in Iraq, which is precisely why Valerie Plame was outed.

So let's bomb Iran!

What if Libby merely said "Wilson's wife" works for CIA? Would that be OK?

Dunno, could that have been found out any other way? Like following her to her place of employment? Wasn't she also listed in the CIA directory (might be wrong on this one, but seem to remember hearing this).

The question is whether Libby knew she was covert at the time.

The fact that all he was charged with was perjury and obstruction... not with the criminal charge of outing a covert agent... tells me that they didn't have the evidence to convict him of any of that.

The fact is, they knew that one person leaked her name for sure. Instead of charging him and moving along with it, they tried to stir up the hornet's nest as much as they could. When all is said and done, the leaker didn't get punished, and all that did get punished was a few minor (in comparison) offenses that had nothing to do with the actual crime being investigated.

Sounds like they weren't really interested in finding the leaker as much as they were trying to make as big a noise and drag as many people as they could into the limelight in a bad fashion.

""Sounds like they weren't really interested in finding the leaker as much as they were trying to make as big a noise and drag as many people as they could into the limelight in a bad fashion.""

Except that the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, was a Republican not interested in playin politics. The charge of obstruction is significant in that Libby's lying prevented the prosecutor from being able to determine who the leaker was.
I think really Cooper's post above spells out the really significant part of the case which was the justfication for the war which was based on information Bush/Cheney knew to be untrue and it was so important that Cheney even wanted to retaliate against Wilson. After five years of this war, almost 4000 deaths and an estimate of 2 trillion dollars total cost I think it could be said that this leak was important as an indicator that the administration was playing fast and loose with the truth about Iraq's nuclear program. The real crime wasn't leaking Plame's identity it was lying to Congress about reasons to justify invading Iraq.

Except that the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, was a Republican not interested in playin politics.

So you say. I am more interested in his actions... not his label.

The charge of obstruction is significant in that Libby's lying prevented the prosecutor from being able to determine who the leaker was.

No it didn't... he had a confession. Which he failed to follow through on.

Not a problem, as long as GW demands that a charge of treason be lodged against the publisher and reporter for printing classified material inserted into the language of the bill.
Free and open press doesn`t mean printing classified material during war, especially if it favors the enemy.

Got it?


Posted by rightwingdon at 2007-10-17 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

OH, that makes it OK to for the WH itself to out covert agents and jeopardize National Security becuse they didn't like what her husbands report said.

Sure, those two are SOOOO similar in their actions.....riiiiiiight.

Well, 398 out of the 419 who voted think it's a good idea. Sounds about as non-partisan as things get in DC.

101CHAIRBORED: www.drudge.com

However I think it will also take a court ruling on it to enforce that interpretation. I don't think said court ruling is a sure thing either. Let's hope you are right.

You have to admit that the thought is scary.

Posted by moomanfl at 2007-10-18 12:41 PM


actually if Congress was to grow a set it would only take another act of Congress to correct the problem.

Congress can rescind any resolution by creating another resolution....

Congress could end this tragedy at anytime. That is why "We the People" are so disappointed in them.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable