TREASON

[OrangeEmpire]

Gone for a few days and look what happens.

"I suppose you're a fan of state run media. It worked so well for the Soviet Union."

By Zechariah Chafee

One of founding fathers of two-level system of free speech: Worthwhile vs. Worthless Expression.

He became interested in 1st Amendment during World War One. (Accident, preparing notes for a course on equity, came across a nineteenth-century case involving the suppression of an anticipated libel. During the War, leftist and pacifist opponents of the American effort, indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 (up to 20 years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000) and the judges upheld convictions. Chafee believed this violated the First Amendment.

Chafee believed that a Good Law should be: 1) Clear 2) Rational 3) Predicable (believed current law was fuzzy and repressive...failing his test of Good Law)

As the U.S. came closer to The Second World War, Chafee published an updated and expanded version of Freedom Of Speech. Free Speech in the United States Became a leading text of U.S. Libertarian thought. The text was originally aimed at attorneys but the current issue aimed at everyone History of Free Speech in America and a theory of First Amendment protections. Emphasis on political expression and the problem of seditious libel.

Zechariah Chafee
First Amendment
Find Law
Freedom of Speech
Book: Free Speech in the Good War
Espionage Act of 1917
Sedition Act

:banghead:

 

[CSpindizzy]

If you state that precedents do not mean anything, then why are you upset that few people realize that the precedents being set by Bush are set for life???

A precedent that opens up more power are ones to be abused. There are numerous precedents set on these issues. Bush instead is choosing to set his own rather than follow what is set before him. For one thing, he could have easily followed the prescribed legal paths set up on all of these matters and killed any legal argument against him. Again, in simple terms, there would be no legal question had he followed the laws that dictate how this is all done.

Answer that - why couldn't Bush just follow the path set before him? Why is he going beyond his Constitutionally set grounds?

 

[OWB]

Answer that - why couldn't Bush just follow the path set before him? Why is he going beyond his Constitutionally set grounds?

It's hard to follow the rules when you don't know them in the first place.

 

[OrangePappy]

A right winger accusing someone of being "holier than thou." That's rich.

Actually I don't consider myself right wing or political even. Just someone fed up with all the arguing and bickering without anything typically getting done. Just because partisianship gets things done doesn't mean it's the best way does it. Again I try never to discuss politics much argue because I don't have the passion for it. :mf_surrender:

 

[utvolpj]

Interesting editorial in the NYT on September 24, 2001. What changed, the need or the agenda?

Link

 

[CSpindizzy]

The funny thing about this is that Wall Street Journal and LA Times printed the same story but the lynch mob is only focused on NYT. You could go one further and say that Drudge broke the story that NYT was running this. So technically, Drudge was the one letting the cat out of the bag....

 

[Atreus21]

The funny thing about this is that Wall Street Journal and LA Times printed the same story but the lynch mob is only focused on NYT. You could go one further and say that Drudge broke the story that NYT was running this. So technically, Drudge was the one letting the cat out of the bag....

Then I have a question for anyone who disagrees with the first post on this thread. Does treason even exist anymore? What constitutes treason on the part of a newspaper? Or can a newspaper even commit treason?

My thinking is that if there is anyone truly above the law, it is a tie between the press and the supreme court. The press holds an inordinate amount of power, in that they can subtly influence general impressions of world affairs to individual citizens. I think the majority of people dislike Bush not because of his policies, but because of the way the press portrays his policies, and ESPECIALLY the way he speaks. This explains why the majority of Americans supported Clinton, despite the fact he was guilty of a felony. He spoke well, and the press, in general, portrayed him as charismatic.

Men's minds are not ruled by fact, but by impressions. Intuition. It is this principle that the press understands more even than money.

The supreme court, on the other hand, has very nearly become an oligarchy. Thomas Jefferson predicted this. They do not interpret the constitution but rather use its ambiguities to reach a desired result.

The Supreme Court manufactures law. The press manufactures impressions. The court rules the government, and the press rules the people.

This is my conspiracy theory, if it can be called one.

I'm waiting one day for the congress to overrule the supreme court, or seek to remove the justices, which I believe is a provision somewhere in the constitution. (If not the congress, than the president can do it. Not sure which, or it may be both.) What happens if the supreme court, in response, were to rule congress and/or the presidential office unconstitutional?

But the initial question is still posed: Can a newspaper commit treason, if treason even exists anymore?

 

[therealUT]

But the initial question is still posed: Can a newspaper commit treason, if treason even exists anymore?

Not only does treason exist, it is the only crime addressed in the Constitution. Therefore, it holds more weight than the First Amendment.

Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

[Atreus21]

Not only does treason exist, it is the only crime addressed in the Constitution. Therefore, it holds more weight than the First Amendment.

I suppose Jane Fonda never realized this. It's scary sometimes when you think about it.

What constitutes "aid"? Giving away information on secret government programs?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Well when you have a president who picks and chooses what he decides to enforce what's wrong with a SC going beyond their means as well? And what exactly do people mean when they accuse the SCOTUS of legislating from the bench? Every time I see that, it usually comes from groups just upset the outcome didn't swing their way. It's a convenient excuse to say SCOTUS is going beyond their means when a group doesn't like the outcome. Judicial Review is a concept that has always been understood. The Court's job is to interpret the laws to ensure they are constitutional. If the small group of nine can become oligarchical, one single person as head of another branch can do far worse.

As far as treason, it is to be tried in court and determined by the courts. If NYT did wrong, take them to court. Surely W's stacked the court in his favor now. What's the holdup? If wrong was committed, take it to court. It's one thing to whine about it but until it is proven in court, what the NYT did is nothing but outrageous. Innocence until proven guilty as a concept seems to be disregarded in this matter.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Not only does treason exist, it is the only crime addressed in the Constitution. Therefore, it holds more weight than the First Amendment.

Who says it holds more weight? That is determined by the courts based on the issues, circumstances, law, and precedent.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

And what exactly do people mean when they accuse the SCOTUS of legislating from the bench?

Any time the right disaproves of a decision made by the SCOTUS it is " liberal activist judges legislating from the bench". If, OTOH they agree with the decision they are "interpreting the law" :shakehead:

 

[utvolpj]

Any time the right disaproves of a decision made by the SCOTUS it is " liberal activist judges legislating from the bench". If, OTOH they agree with the decision they are "interpreting the law" :shakehead:

The SC hasn't been considered "liberal" in some time. Federal judges are a different matter.

I guess Dems never accuse the SC of having a Conservative agenda? Swings both ways.

 

[Atreus21]

If wrong was committed, take it to court. It's one thing to whine about it but until it is proven in court, what the NYT did is nothing but outrageous. Innocence until proven guilty as a concept seems to be disregarded in this matter.

I don't understand what you mean. That's like saying it's only wrong if you get caught. If all americans acted with that attitude, we'd be unruly and chaotic.

Don't get me wrong. Everyone is entitled to due process of law. (Well, almost everyone.) But the crime is committed with or without due process. A rapist is a rapist regardless of what the court says. (Case in point, O.J. Simpson, although he wasn't a rapist.)

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

I guess Dems never accuse the SC of having a Conservative agenda? Swings both ways.

Sure they do, but it's a republican president who throws around catchphrases like "liberal activist judges" in order to rally the troops.

 

[utvolpj]

Sure they do, but it's a republican president who throws around catchphrases like "liberal activist judges" in order to rally the troops.

ost-20645-1119625378: ost-20645-1119625378: ost-20645-1119625378:

Some of us don't consider it a catch-phrase

 

[CSpindizzy]

I don't understand what you mean. That's like saying it's only wrong if you get caught. If all americans acted with that attitude, we'd be unruly and chaotic.

Don't get me wrong. Everyone is entitled to due process of law. (Well, almost everyone.) But the crime is committed with or without due process. A rapist is a rapist regardless of what the court says. (Case in point, O.J. Simpson, although he wasn't a rapist.)

Innocent until proven guilty. The point on topic is that if what the LAT, NYT, and WSJ did was treasonous and/or illegal, then prove it. You cannot call it that until the courts determine that. Basically all the WH is doing is using this as another 'rally the masses' cry to win back those they are losing on the war on terror. They use buzz phrases like 'liberal media' and 'aiding the terrorists', etc. to whip up support for their cause. If this truly was egregious and treasonous, they'd march right down to a federal courthouse and start filing lawsuits, cease-and-desist orders, injunctions, etc. If the NYT has an agenda on this, surely the WH does as well. They could have had this stopped if they really chose to. If national security and treason trump all other rights, specifically Freedom of Speech, why didn't they stop this? If they had the law on their side, why was this not stopped? Perhaps they wanted this out there so this would just be another notch in their argument of the 'liberal media' doing everything to undermine the war on terror and aid the enemy. This means they are complacent in these stories 'aiding the enemy' as well. They have yet to pursue ANY of these stories in courts. Why? And why only pick the NYT for this? Surely they will go after ALL treasonous papers? Why leave their fellow conservative WSJ untouched? Treason is treason no matter who commits it correct?

I think there are two larger issues here:

1)W needs to be quite concerned on the legality of much of his war on terror
2)W needs to be quite concerned over his own agencies leaking the info out. The NYT would have no story had these agencies had tighter control on their info and programs

 

[CSpindizzy]

Some of us don't consider it a catch-phrase

The funny thing is that many who the Right runs out and labels a 'liberal activist judge' are not. Many are actually card carrying members of the GOP with solid GOP voting records.

 

[therealUT]

Well, CSpin, investigations have to occur prior to official charges being filed.

Also, if the NYT feels so strongly that what they are doing is legal, then why are they so opposed to providing their sources? After all, most serious journalists and historians will tell you that relying on unnamed sources is poor practice at best.

 

[volinbham]

The NYT and other outlets likely have the "right" to publish this information that doesn't necessarily make it "right" to do so.

If we are to believe that the NYT is operating completely in good faith in the matter why not give the same benefit to the administration?

Why are disagreements over policy decisions and strategies so often cast as evil doing by the side one disagrees with? Why is the view of the motives so cynical?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Why are disagreements over policy decisions and strategies so often cast as evil doing by the side one disagrees with? Why is the view of the motives so cynical?

Only In America:

 

[orange+white=heaven]

... Why is the view of the motives so cynical?

It's 2006. The days of....

Ah heck, you know the answer to this. Why did I start banging at this keyboard in response to a question that needs no answer???

Hope you're having a great day Bham!
I'm busy as heck today....

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Be careful what you say, the secret police are listening/reading.....

Secret Police

 

[CSpindizzy]

Well, CSpin, investigations have to occur prior to official charges being filed.

Also, if the NYT feels so strongly that what they are doing is legal, then why are they so opposed to providing their sources? After all, most serious journalists and historians will tell you that relying on unnamed sources is poor practice at best.

Because the media does not have to divulge them. Ask one certain journalist who even went to jail over the issue.

Yes, you're right about investigations. But the WH had prior knowledge these stories were coming out. All they had to do is run down to a Federal courthouse and get an injunction. It was used in the past. But we forget, W has this thing about NOT wanting to go through the courts.

 

[Vol423]

Are you only referring to one out of three mentioned or are you referring to all 3? I am responding to the original post. And a few members of Congress, not even the full committees as required by law, are not my ideal of consulting Congress. The fact they cannot say anything even if wrong was committed is even more a joke.

And why did the GOP merely say 'hold off'? Why say hold off, implying to try later, if this was so wrong? And why is W waiting until Monday to come out attacking?

Last I checked the 9/11 COmmission was not a branch of government. Who cares if they were consulted? And that still avoids the courts. What about review by the courts? Or can we now ignore them?

We can't ignore the courts, but Bush can. Bush should be impeached. He has broken the constitution on many occassions, and before anyone calls me a liberal, I'm a conservative Republican. My father, who is also a conservative Republican and has voted Republican in every presidential election of his life, also agrees that Bush should be impeached.