Senators Unveil anti-Wikilleaks Law

[Joanne98]

Source: The Hill

Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced a bill Thursday aimed at stopping WikiLeaks by making it illegal to publish the names of military or intelligence community informants.

Ensign accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his "cronies" of hindering America's war efforts and creating a "hit list" for U.S. enemies by outing intelligence sources.


“Our sources are bravely risking their lives when they stand up against the tyranny of al Qaeda, the Taliban and murderous regimes, and I simply will not stand idly by as they become death targets because of Julian Assange," Ensign said. "Let me be very clear, WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.”

Assange has been under fire in recent weeks thanks to his site's dissemination of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, some of which have proved embarrassing to the Obama administration because of their frank tone. Attorney General Eric Holder recently pledged to close gaps in the law that allow sites like WikiLeaks to continue to operate.




Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/131885-senators-unveil-anti-wikileaks-legislation

[villager]

1. And how dare they hinder the Empire's war efforts!

n/t

[jaxx]

10. I wonder if people understand how bad it makes them look to

refer to this country as 'the empire'? It's really malicious.

[smiley]

you don't think the U.S. is an empire?

I think if you polled the rest of the world you would find the majority considers us an empire.

[laughingliberal]

15. ...and really accurate.

I'm sure someone will be along to write a bill making that illegal any minute, now.

[jaxx]

20. What and give you something else to gripe about?

Only the 15% think the USA is an empire. The rest of us read the Constitution.

[crikkett]

23. what's your definition of 'empire'?

[jaxx]

29. Empire

a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2
: imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion
3
capitalized : a juicy apple with dark red skin that is a cross between a McIntosh apple and a Red Delicious apple

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empire
________________


Definition of REPUBLIC
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

________________

Pay attention. We are a republic. Not an empire. Lesson learned?

[Uncle Joe]

42. Those aren't the only definitions of empire and the difference between empire and superpower

is as splitting hairs on a nit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empire

6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago.

(snip)

5. a large industrial organization with many ramifications, esp a multinational corporation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superpower

1. an extremely powerful nation, esp. one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations.

2. power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

The court reporter and former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<5>

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.<6> However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.

(snip)

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<9>

(snip)

\

Decision

The Supreme Court's actual decision never hinged on the equal protection claims. Nevertheless, the case had clear constitutional consequences affirming the protection of corporations under the Fourteenth Amendment. <11>

Significance

In his dissent in the 1938 case of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson, Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations. <...> The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments. <...> The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."<12>

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions. <...> Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."<13>

[crikkett]

43. Okay Jaxx, in terms you defined, please explain the following:

Guam
Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Panama
--------------------

The US fits your "territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority" esp wrt to California, the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska and Hawaii. Our territory expands to this day.

The citizens of our territories and their representatives are very limited in their ability to vote.

This very discussion board exists because there is undeniable evidence that our government is not ruling according to law.

I'll be happy to see what you come up with by way of obnoxious and condescending response.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

108. And troops in Germany, S. Korea, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan...

...Hell! I don't have all day to sit here and type!

[No Elephants]

59. We are "empire" internationally and, in theory, a "democracy within a republic" domestically.

As explained in Reply 58, domestic and international have never been an exact match in empires.

In the Bible, the Apostle Paul gets very different legal rights after he announces to those arresting him that he is a Roman citizen. Herod, "king" of Israel, was a puppet of the Roman empire, even though he was theoretically ruler of Israel. Starting to sound more familiar?

Sure, we don't overrun every country with our troops, then make them pay taxes to us, as did Rome. Now, we do a lot with money and arms and just being a super power. However, we did run Iraq's constitution writiing process, we try to keep Karzai on tight leash, we rename foods in the U.S. Senate dining room abnd take more serious retaliatory action when nation's don't do what we ask in our heartfelt "requests," etc. But, you didn't really expect political manuevering and domination today to look exactly as it did when Rome created empire in the Bronze Age, did you?


And, sure, it's hard now to flex our empire muscles than it was in the 19th century first 60-75 years (give or take) of the 20th century. Our domestic economy is circling the drain, China owns us and we've proven a paper tiger time and again. But, hey, we still do our best, even as the former "glory" our empire declines.

[Amonester]

28. No, the rest of them R in denial.

And 'entertained' on purpose.

[laughingliberal]

30. Oh, so the definition of 'empire' is if a lot of people think it's an empire.

A lot of people thought Bush was a good president in 2004.

As for the constitution, the Patriot Act took care of it, nicely.

[NeoConsSuck]

46. Barack, is that you??

your sig line is hilarious.

[No Elephants]

58. "Empire' does not mean citizens have no legal riights. Even citizens of Rome under the Caesars had

legal rights--and the Caesars were supposedly gods as well as emperors.

BTW, the Constitution says zero about whether we are an empire or not.

[Ruperto31]

106. Yes they did. St. Paul got to have his head cut off....

instead of being crucified. No kidding: that's a lot better.

Same with Cicero.

[alarimer]

83. So you buy all the happy-crappy bullshit we learned in school.

All the lies about how the USA is the home of the free, land of the brave and would never, ever do anything wrong.

Everything you have ever read about the US and the Constitution is a fucking lie.

This is and always was a land of, by, and for the rich and powerful and, now, the corporations.

Everything our government does is at the behest of corporations, to ensure new markets, to capture natural resources.

It is an empire, an empire of greed.

The Constitution is a sop to keep people like you and other sheep blindly following, waiting for the crumbs the elites are willing to throw you. The crumbs they throw us to keep us docile and keep the rebellions to an acceptably few outsiders.

The difference is that this empire is not one where we gobble up territory and keep it for ourselves. No, it is an empire of conquering corporations, capturing markets and exploiting the people in a downward spiral of debt and servitude. We assassinate leaders when they get too uppity about demanding rights for the people. See Honduras for the most recent example of coup support. Wikileaks shed a little light on that.

I no longer believe in our government and our leaders. I do believe in the people and the willingness of some to stand up to our capitalist pig owners. See Republic Windows and Doors for a recent example of people banding together and standing up. A small example that, if nurtured and encouraged, can change everything, if people like you stop believing the official lies. A bunch of us actually believe Obama was that agent of change. But as it turns out, he was co-opted too (like the all are) or he simply lied. I'm not sure it matters which. Change is not going to come by voting for one corporate asshole over another. Change will come when we band together, shut everything down until we get the change we want and deserve. The first step is to get over the false ideals we are taught in schools. They are lies.

[Doctor_J]

99. You think the Constitution is still in effect?

That makes you sound silly.

[crikkett]

22. you're suggesting we aren't emprical? Or just that we shouldn't say so?

curious minds...

[laughingliberal]

31. Just that we shouldn't say so. At least not if a Democrat is in the White House.

[Amonester]

25. Whether you like it or not, it surely is an empire.

And a murderous empire at that.

The number of its daily victims is stunning.

[JDPriestly]

27. jaxx, have you read any of Chalmers Johnson's books?

Nemesis or Dismantling the Empire? If not, you should.

[EFerrari]

38. LOL

[villager]

40. or how bad it makes them look to be willfully blind to what their country is up to?

:shrug:

[Ruperto31]

82. 700 military bases around the world is not evidence of an empire?

Really?

[JackRiddler]

94. I wonder if people understand how bad it makes this country look when it maintains an empire?

Two major occupations, at least one following an unprovoked war of aggression based on lies, with genocidal results

dozens of interventions including covert operations (by definition illegal wherever they are conducted)

preparations for many more wars

trillions of dollars on "defense" over the last few years equivalent to the spending by every other nation on earth, bankrupting the nation for empire

800 or more overseas bases!

13 carrier groups

no longer know how many dozens of nuclear submarines each carrying the equivalent

thousands of nuclear weapons, many on platforms designed to hit anywhere on the planet instantly

support for dictatorships and tyrannies and illegal occupations, including that of the rogue nuclear state in Israel

a vast, largely private top-secret state that no one, not even on the inside, even knows what it does any more ...

And meanwhile even the right-wingers have begun openly to speak of empire (since it's in a deep crisis and needs to be "defended").

Yeah, that's not an empire! How terrible for anyone to say that! It will lose us Joe Sixpack's vote!!!

[sabrina 1]

101. Empires are malicious, they invade other people's countries and kill

and torture their citizens, install puppet governments who will sign over control of their resources and assassinate anyone who gets in their way. Generally they spend more on their military than any other country, in our case, more than all other countries combined, build military bases all over the world, and most of their budget goes to military spending.

There is no rule of law applied to the elites in an Empire either, they may act illegally with no fear of consequences no matter how egregious the crimes.

There in no doubt in the world regarding whether or not this is an empire. It is.

[StarsInHerHair]

57. and to think about Valeria Plame in their attacks on wikileaks now

what utter bullshit

[StarsInHerHair]

100. never mind that, they're trying to undo the First Amendment, crab-walking

style.

[The Flaming Red Head]

102. Imperialism : belief in empire-building

im·pe·ri·al·ism

im·pe·ri·al·ism
n
1. belief in empire-building: the policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries or colonies
2. domination by empire: the political, military, or economic domination of one country over another
3. takeover and domination: the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination
cultural imperialism



Encarta ® World English Dictionary ©

[fascisthunter]

2. lol... pathetic

[theaocp]

3. Valerie Plame sez

it's a little late, you disingenuous fucks! Thanks for nothing!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. lol

[HereSince1628]

5. This kneejerk tendency to punish people is why ex post facto laws and

bills of attainder are banned.

The founding father's anticipated folks like the Mighty Joe the anti-Liarman.

[No Elephants]

62. Well, since their knee jerk punishment of ACORN was declared unconstitutional, they probably learned

not to mention wikileaks or Assange right in the bill.

[marylanddem]

6. Lieberman...

i sometimes blame Al Gore for him. Guess that's not fair.

[saigon68]

19. He's Pathetic

[No Elephants]

60. Joe Lieberman was an early DLCer, like Clintons, Rahm, Gore, etc.

Supposedly, Gore had seen the light by the time he accepted the Democratic nomination with a classic Democratic message.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=2716 (988)

http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm (2000)

However, an acceptance speech is one thing and governing with your hopes for a second term for yourself are two different things. So, we'll never know about Al in that contex.

In any case, I don't think he did much damage as Clinton's VP. I think two center right Southerners on the ticket was simply part of the Southern strategy that year. And Big Al has tried hard for the environment since suing Bush. So, I kind of give him a pass.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Is it also against the law to reveal the name of CIA undercover officers?

Just wondering.

[crikkett]

24. +1

[laughingliberal]

32. Always has been. Didn't you get the memo? We're looking forward. nt

[tekisui]

8. That is cute.

[FarCenter]

9. How would such a law apply to foreigners living in foreign lands?

Looks like imperial over reach to me.

[laughingliberal]

33. Yep. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

35. Espionage, drug smuggling, and other laws...

affect foreigners in foreign countries. Piracy affects foreigners in foreign countries. Theft of intelectual property rights.

[No Elephants]

69. Yes, but saying laws exist is different from saying they are valid laws.

Piracy, smuggling (of anything) and espionage laws all have a basis in international common law, dating back to its earliest days.

Not sure about intellectual property rights, though I guess that is just a modern way of smuggling stolen propery out of a nation. And we have international treaties/conventions on point, not to mention speciic Constitutional provisions about authors and inventors. You can't point to a law with an extrs-territorial reach to justify yhis one, as though all laws are interchangeable. You have to go deeper..

Having said that, as I posted upthread, I do believe this law follows traditional principles, allthough not necessarily ancient ones. Whether it violates the First Amendment is another issue, but I believe this SCOTUS would uphold it.

[No Elephants]

66. Causing damage in and/or to the U.S. is a reason to legislate. Whether

the law violates the First Amendment is a separate issue. IMO, the SCOTUS would have zero difficulty upholding this law.

[Catherina]

70. Yep. The arrogance is astounding/ n/t

[Poll_Blind]

11. Ha! All this would do is keep U.S. citizens in the dark, nothing more.

But that's really Joe's angle anyway, isn't it?

PB

[n2doc]

12. Being Picky with your title- it is a bill, not a law

yet.

[No Elephants]

67. It's not Joanne's title. Per LBN rules, an OP MUST use the source's headline, word for word.

So, you're being picky with The Hill's headline.

Anyway, it's only a matter of time until this bill fast tracks into law, like the Patriot Act. TERRA!

Nowadays, it doesn't matter if your weapons are planes that kill thousands, or the government's very own words that embarrass a relative handful of people who think they're above it all. It's all TERRRA! And, as we all know, we just ain't a "Give me liberty or give me death!" nation anymore.

[nykym]

13. But it is perfectly

legal for assholes like Ensign, Lieberman & Brown to send thousands of our most precious natural resource - our young - off to a foreign land to become targets & cannon fodder of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other murderous regimes.

[No Elephants]

68. Technically, yes. Our Constitution empowers Congress to do that. The only

legal issue is whether Congress can delegate that power to the CIC.

But the Constitution never says which wars are moral, ethical or necessary, or even good for America and Americans? That, in theory, is for Congress to decide--and then for voters to agree or disagree. Constitution's authors never contemplated political parties, TV---or that two pp's would throw all their $$$, star power, media connections, etc. into killing third parties AND keeping incumbent asses in their House and Senate seats.

So, basically, voters have been disempowered beyond the check on Congress the Founders meant us to be, aka screwn. Surprise!

[pattmarty]

14. Can Lieberman just have a fucking heart attack and die? Our country.........

..........would be at least a little better off.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. Sorry, the Senate isn't available to deal with this right now. Nothing will be passed until the

give-away to the rich is settled into law!

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Call me

when you guys prosecute Karl Rove and Dick Cheney over Valerie Plame.

Until then, STFU!

[EFerrari]

39. That's right. Julian has to go to the back of a long, long, line.

lol

[katty]

18. Yeah, and bye the way ask Valerie Plame for a comment

on this-I am sure she and Joe Wilson can shed some light on the matter.

[happygoluckytoyou]

21. wish they were as OUTRAGED about what is ON THE PAPERS

[laughingliberal]

34. Yep. The outrage is the peasants are finding out what their 'representatives' have been up to. nt

[No Elephants]

63. Outraged? Republicans? Who went to Spain to bully Spain into leaving Bushco alone?

[JDPriestly]

26. I haven't seen names of any military or intelligence community informants.

But maybe I have only read the edited files. Have unedited files been released? I am unaware of that.

[No Elephants]

77. Assange asked to discuss names with the U.S. The U.S. declined.

But the only names I've seen are the names of public figures, like the guy in Germany who got fired.

[sabrina 1]

36. Is this a joke?

I bet Lieberman and Ensign thinks Murdoch IS a journalist, O'Reilly, Hannity.

Why is Ensign still around? Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal, or am I confusing him with someone else. There are so many of these rightwing hypocrites, it's possible I am confused.

[No Elephants]

64. Adultery AND getting his parents to make "gifts" to the his blackmailer's family.

Hey, if you want to pay a blackmailer, you want the most favorable tax treatment, right? And you don't want the payment showing on your own disclosures, do you? After all, no one's all that likely to to send your elderly mom and dad to jail for tax fraud, so it's worth the risk of landing the biddies in federal prison.

What a prince.

Well, we can at least hope he killed his own Preidential chances. Chris Matthews was already gleefully drooling, "For President, Ensign's right out of Central Casting, isn't he?" (Apparently, Matthews loves him a good looking male Presidential candidate. Remember what he said about Obama sending a tingle up his leg? And Matthews has said he voted for Dummya twice. So, he's a pretty good Presidency weather vane.)

[Dawson Leery]

37. We in CT will do everything possible to replace LIEberman in 2012!

[No Elephants]

65. Good luck. Both major parties seem to want him right where he is.

So, you've REALLY got an uphill fight. I would have started fundraising for a challenger as soon as Senator Wattle got elected, even if I did not know exactly who would run.

But, maybe it's not too late. I'd give to a DumpLIEberman website.

[The Stranger]

41. Unconstitutional

It was passed after the acts at issue, and is therefore invalid as ex post facto.

The actions of the U.S. government in diplomacy likely involves pure speech and is therefore accorded the highest protections under the First Amendment.

[Xithras]

44. Yep, even a conservative USSC couldn't let this one stand.

The right of the press to investigate and report on ALL government activities, even those relating to war, intelligence gathering, or diplomacy, is sacrosanct. Courts have ruled that way repeatedly, and without fail.

[No Elephants]

73. Meh. I agree, but would not put anything past this Court.

[No Elephants]

71. It's an ex post facto law only as to punishing under it violations that occurred before passage.

I think D of J has that principle fresh in it's mind, after ACORN and will not attempt that. However, it will not be ex post facto as to disclosures that occur after passage, whether by Assange or anyone else.

I do think there's a First Amendment issue, but I don't know whether this SCOTUS will see it my way.

[NeoConsSuck]

45. John Ensign. Is this the same John Ensign...

in this news article? :)

Sen. John Ensign of Nevada was only beginning to emerge from a self-imposed political exile over fallout from his extramarital affair with a campaign aide. Now, tawdry new details about the case are raising fresh questions whether Ensign can be re-elected in 2012 – or even face criminal charges over his behavior.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/john-ensign-scandal-senat_n_308045.html

[EFerrari]

52. LOL! Good catch.

Shudda known. :)

[bemildred]

53. Yep, that's the one. Mr. Conservative Morality. nt

[No Elephants]

75. He's a good son, though. Please see Reply 64.

[sarcasmo]

47. Bet these Corporate WHORES can pass this bill through quickly.

[jmowreader]

48. What's the point?

In case these three stupid shits have not noticed, IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO DO WHAT ASSANGE IS DOING!

It is illegal to provide a classified item (things can be classified too--Stinger missiles, for one thing) to someone who isn't authorized to have it, and it's illegal to possess a classified item if you're not authorized to have it. (And yes, it is illegal for a person who has no clearance to disseminate classified things--the law against providing classified items to people who aren't cleared doesn't say it's okay if you're not cleared yourself.)

[bemildred]

49. Shhhhh, you are interfering with the posturing of the buffoons. nt

[struggle4progress]

54. delete. wrong place

[No Elephants]

76. Kabuki and pandering is the point. Many in the U.S. are outraged over this, thanks in no small part

to our sold out media, who are pounding this drum against their own journalidtic interests. And, look, with Lieberman and all the Dem votes it will surely get, it's a bi-partisan bill, showing Republicans can get bi-partisan stuff done, even if Dems can't.

BTW, I don't think the constitutionality of a law making publication of something that an Ellsberg or a Manning just hands to you without your prior involvement has ever been tested. So, we can say it violated a statute, but we can't say it's illegal.

Nothing illegal about breaking a law, if the law is later held unconstitutional. In that case, the only illegality would be on the part of the members of Congress who voted for it and the President who signed it.


So, we'll see how this all plays out.

[Catherina]

81. This bill is aimed squarely at Assange and publishers

... give the Administration increased flexibility to go after Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange by making it illegal to publish the names of human intelligence informants (HUMINT) to the United States military and intelligence community.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/12/bipartisan-legislation-goes-after-wikileaks-by-amending-espionage-act

[jmowreader]

88. I know that...

I also know the administration already has the flexibility to go after this man just by applying a law we've already got--the one that says "thou shalt not publish classified information in open press"--to the Wikileaks situation.

Besides, don't Lieberman and his friends have more pressing things to do, like cutting taxes on the rich and picking out the next brown people who need to be bombed into oblivion?

[Catherina]

89. How? I don't see how they can now or how to can rewrite things to ever go after him

since he's not subject to US law.

[and-justice-for-all]

50. Fuck that! Give me my fucking unemployment benefits you pigs!! nt

[Volaris]

51. "...and Assange is not a journalist.”

You don't have to be a degree-carrying graduate of an accredited Journalism school in order to understand freedom of the Press, freedom of speech, freedom of information, Govt. transparency, power to the people, Liberty, the democratic ideal, and fact-checking. Mr. Ensign must believe that the only Journalists left in America all work for Fox News. (ala Sarah Palin--Jurnlsm Grdute).

[No Elephants]

74. He is a publisher of news much as the NYT when it published the Pentagon Papers.

However, I think the SCOTUS case on that said the U.S. could not stop publication. I don't think any SCOTUS has spoken on whether it's okay if you allow publication, but punish the publisher after the fact. It would, IMO, take some mental gymnastics to let the Pentagon Papers case stand, but uphold a law like this bill envisions. However, Scalia could probably rstionalize it.

[Volaris]

84. He is a publisher of news much as the NYT when it published the Pentagon Papers....

And that, of course, is exactly my point...Didn't Assange even call up the State Dept., let them know what the score was, and ask them if they wanted to look over the material to see if there was anything they might want redacted? THEY said no, so fuck 'em if they're that stupid.
If Assange keeps this up, and doesn't let this "jump the shark", in 20 years he WILL be the Dan Ellsberg of our generation.

[EFerrari]

96. Assange has been a member of the Australian journalists union for years.

And the union is backing him up now.

[Odin2005]

55. Fascism stalks the land.

[JCMach1]

56. Question is do we have someone in our party with the balls to block this...

[No Elephants]

72. Dunno. No clue what male reproductive organs have to do with blocking a law.

[sarcasmo]

85. NO.

[Spider Jerusalem]

61. Which does what exactly considering that Wikileaks is not a US organisation?

And that their servers are not in the US? Americans who disclose such information (and who have the access to disclose it) are already liable under espionage laws; those laws don't apply to people like, say, Julian Assange (who is not a US citizen or resident) or to websites hosted outside the US, so this looks like posturing for domestic consumption more than anything else.

[No Elephants]

78. Does the bill confine itself to U.S. citizens, human or corporate? If not, what problem do you see

in prosecuting Assange and wikileaks if this bill becomes law?

BTW, I am not sure you are correct about inability to prosecute Assange under existing laws.

I think the First Amendment MAY be a bigger issue than citizenship, but I don't trust this SCOTUS on any issue.

[Spider Jerusalem]

87. What problem do I see? That it's not only not done by US citizens...

but not done within the US. The Internet may be global; web servers are not. If such a law were passed it would set a dangerous precedent in asserting the right of the US to prosecute anyone anywhere. A better question: why don't you see a problem with this?

[No Elephants]

79. OY. My apologies to everyone on this thread. SCOTUS in NYT v. U.S.

DID say the U.S. could not prevent publication, but could prosecute the NYT after the fact. I posted that it had said nothing about prosecuting after the fact, and it's too late to edit.

You can argue that was only dicta (as opposed to binding precedent) since only preventing publication was squarely before the Court the time. However, again, I have no faith in this SCOTUS to go against that dicta.

Again, my apologies.

[lunatica]

80. This and banning Sharia law will teach them furreners we're mighty

And make them take their mosques to a Muslin country and stay out of our Christian Nation. And you Messicans, go the fuck back to the country you came from and stop dropping babies here.

[lanlady]

86. where were these a**holes

when Dick Cheney leaked Valerie Plame's name?

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[harvey007]

92. The government wants to put its hands down your pants

at the airport, and they want to listen to all your phone calls and read all your emails and watch you 24/7 with surveillance cameras, but God forbid that we the people get to find out what THEY'RE doing!

[bemildred]

93. "illegal to publish"

Unconstitutional on its face.

[Downwinder]

95. This bill would set a pattern for other countries to make laws for

foreign nationals operating in areas in which they have no territorial jurisdiction.

For those that claim the USA is not an Empire or acting like an Empire, tell it to those inside the Beltway. While you are at it, inform the UFO's that they are acting illegally by operating in controlled airspace without filing a flight plan or contacting ATC.

[Rex]

97. Pathetic, this is why we've had lackluster govt for decades.

They DARE use our frontline troops as their excuse for a clearly unconstitutional bill...hey ASSHOLES, why not just BRING THE FUCKING TROOPS HOME NOW! Since you have a hardon for them (just at this moment, like all slimball politicians) NOW, do it! You didn't care when a CIA operative got outed by George Bush so why all the boo hooing now!?! I PRAY Assy has some dirty shit on Joe or John and releases it right as the bill goes before the full Senate.

[Doctor_J]

98. Remind me again

why isn't Ensign in prison for giving his mistress's husband patronage jobs?

[goforit]

103. God forbid Top Secret Gossip filter through the world.

[daleo]

104. The Supreme Soviet couldn't have said it better. n/t

[Autumn]

105. Isn't that already against the law?

I thought it was. And how do our laws apply to people in other countries? Those fuckers are confusing.

[JCMach1]

107. How about a Sunshine Act instead?

exactly,

fuck the Repugs and their Democratic enablers on this issue!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

109. Ooh, look! It's bi-partisan.

:rofl:







Note: Unfortunately, by the time it's over, it will be. :(