Thursday, August 31, 2006
These fucks will obey England's laws
Comments:
"What laws of ours don't "these fucks" obey?"
Those would be the laws pertaining to releasing classified information.
The difference is that England makes no qualms about enforcing those laws. We seem to be unable or unwilling to do the same.
Those would be the laws pertaining to releasing classified information.
The difference is that England makes no qualms about enforcing those laws. We seem to be unable or unwilling to do the same.
# posted by 
: 7:11 PM
: 7:11 PM
Which laws are those? Please be specific, or are you just another idiot right-wing blowhard who doesn't know a single goddamn thing?
# posted by : 7:38 PM
: 7:38 PM
What laws of ours don't "these fucks" obey, or are you one of those Nazis who thinks that repeating a lie makes it true?
# posted by : 12:47 AM
: 12:47 AM
Here's a deal for you, anonymous ...
You tell us who you are - and we tell you what laws the MSM enjoys ignoring ...
Jason - the big difference is that, whether it's Secrecy Laws or Gun Control Laws, in the UK, we enforce 'em, most of the time ...
You tell us who you are - and we tell you what laws the MSM enjoys ignoring ...
Jason - the big difference is that, whether it's Secrecy Laws or Gun Control Laws, in the UK, we enforce 'em, most of the time ...
# posted by : 2:32 AM
: 2:32 AM
Wow, I don't get to check things for one day, and I get called a "right-wing blow-hard"?! My husband would be so proud that my skills have finally come to be acknowledged. :-) (couldn't help the snarkiness)
Seriously though, regardless of political inclinations, the law is the same. If it's classified, then it's not for public consumption. And as droll as it might sound, people's lives more than likely depend upon the secrecy. What rock does a person have to have lived under since the days of MacArthur to not know that there are laws, regardless of whether or not you know exactly which US Criminal Code they fall under, governing sharing of secrets? Seriously?!
Seriously though, regardless of political inclinations, the law is the same. If it's classified, then it's not for public consumption. And as droll as it might sound, people's lives more than likely depend upon the secrecy. What rock does a person have to have lived under since the days of MacArthur to not know that there are laws, regardless of whether or not you know exactly which US Criminal Code they fall under, governing sharing of secrets? Seriously?!
# posted by : 3:24 PM
: 3:24 PM
For the simpletons among us...From Wikipedia...
The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law passed shortly after entering World War I, on June 15, 1917, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. It was punishable by a maximum $USD 10,000 fine and 20 years in prison. The legislation was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any widespread dissent in time of war constituted a real threat to an American victory.
The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law passed shortly after entering World War I, on June 15, 1917, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. It was punishable by a maximum $USD 10,000 fine and 20 years in prison. The legislation was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any widespread dissent in time of war constituted a real threat to an American victory.
# posted by : 3:30 PM
: 3:30 PM
If it's classified, then it's not for public consumption
You wrong. Read the Supreme Court's ruling in the Pentagon Papers case. Oh, and read the constitution. You know, that document you hate? See the first amendment.
You wrong. Read the Supreme Court's ruling in the Pentagon Papers case. Oh, and read the constitution. You know, that document you hate? See the first amendment.
# posted by : 10:37 PM
: 10:37 PM
Anonymous,
Time for you to go back to the drawing board. Justice White's decision in Ellsberg specifically upheld the constitutionality of secrecy laws.
Justice White further went on to state that he would have been sympathetic to a prosecution based on those laws.
White also upheld the constitutionality even of an a priori restriction on the press - a gag order, if you will - but found that the Ellsberg case did not meet the threshold for such an order, as the government sought.
You shouldn't be citing SCOTUS decisions you don't understand or haven't read yourself.
And you shouldn't be casting assertions about who hates the constitution. That's just a hallmark of a sloppy thinker.
Time for you to go back to the drawing board. Justice White's decision in Ellsberg specifically upheld the constitutionality of secrecy laws.
Justice White further went on to state that he would have been sympathetic to a prosecution based on those laws.
White also upheld the constitutionality even of an a priori restriction on the press - a gag order, if you will - but found that the Ellsberg case did not meet the threshold for such an order, as the government sought.
You shouldn't be citing SCOTUS decisions you don't understand or haven't read yourself.
And you shouldn't be casting assertions about who hates the constitution. That's just a hallmark of a sloppy thinker.
If you're right -- a big IF -- that still makes it 5-4 against you. In any case, how does it feel to want to fight for "freedom" abroad while hating freedom at home? Oh well, I should know not to ask that question: Blatant hypocrisy never stopped any Republican.
At least I can draw some comfort knowing that, in two months, you and your lying jackass in the White House are going to get a kick in the ass that you'll all remember. Should make for an interesting set of congressional hearings on this corrupt disaster.
At least I can draw some comfort knowing that, in two months, you and your lying jackass in the White House are going to get a kick in the ass that you'll all remember. Should make for an interesting set of congressional hearings on this corrupt disaster.
# posted by : 10:24 PM
: 10:24 PM
Well, now you're just off your rocker. All of a sudden I "hate freedom?"
Go on back to school, kid.
I don't mind the occasional troll to keep me honest. But your fund of information is too small for me to waste my time with.
No, it's not 5:4 in your favor. You do NOT understand what you're talking about.
You're an immature and sloppy thinker who's out of your league.
Go on back to school, kid.
I don't mind the occasional troll to keep me honest. But your fund of information is too small for me to waste my time with.
No, it's not 5:4 in your favor. You do NOT understand what you're talking about.
You're an immature and sloppy thinker who's out of your league.
When you hate freedom of the press, you hate freedom. That's the thing about you whackjobs who got us into this neo-con war. You fight for "freedom," but you support torture and repression. And you couldn't possibly care less about those who die, including American military personnel.
Looking for traitors, Jason? Head to the nearest mirror.
Looking for traitors, Jason? Head to the nearest mirror.
# posted by : 3:51 PM
: 3:51 PM
". . . you support torture and repression. And you couldn't possibly care less about those who die, including American military personnel."
Project much, anonymous?
Post a Comment
Project much, anonymous?
# posted by : 6:17 PM
: 6:17 PM
