Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Clinton Vetoes Classified-Leaks Bill 115

Posted by jamie from the good-on-'im dept.
Last night, I read this New York Times article (free reg. req.) about Clinton's veto of what would have been a new law to prevent leaks of classified information. But I didn't understand its significance until I read this earlier Salon.com article by Daniel Ellsburg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers so that U.S. citizens could learn how their government had lied to them about Vietnam. "If Congress were so scrupulous about the First Amendment, it wouldn't have passed this law," says Ellsburg. I'm gratified to see a politician refusing on principle to extend government's powers. Here's the President's statement; and here's the bill (sponsor: Rep. Goss, R-Fla.).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton Vetoes Classified-Leaks Bill More

Clinton Vetoes Classified-Leaks Bill

Comments Filter:

  • Reno (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It also serves as a terrible black mark for Reno, who, in her support of the bill, shows that she lacks an understanding of the basic requirements of a democracy.

    Does anyone out there actually believe Attorney General Reno understands democracy?
    Ruby Ridge? Waco??
    Come on!

    -the wunderhorn

  • Re:The horrible truth (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It seems like nobody wants to admit that, from time to time, somebody leaks a story to a newspaper, the newspaper prints the story, and one or more real actual people get killed as a result. That's not very cool.

    This is a tremendous oversimplification: Leaks can work both ways. They may lead to deaths, but they may prevent them, as well.

  • Re:RAPID APPLAUD (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You are an idiot, but don't worry, I am sure your Bush friend will come and fix things. Be proud, be very proud. I am sure Bush would have vetoed this, right? Idiot!

  • The Salon Article (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is a man who has obvious alterior motives, and is still trying to make a statement:
    It was a top-secret history of U.S. decision making in Vietnam from 1945 to
    1968. The war was still going on, and the same patterns of deception of Congress, deception of the public, violation of treaties and reckless disregard for the national interest and the lives of Americans by the Nixon White House that were documented in the study persisted.

    Last time I checked, Nixon was elected in 1968, and didn't start serving as President until 1969. That would have been obvious to him at the time, when he leaked it, but Nixon makes an easy target today, since most people won't do the math. JFK, and LBJ were responsible for getting us mired waste deep in that war, but some how Nixon takes all the heat.

    Nixon wasn't blameless in the loss of human lives, just not guilty at the time of the Pentagon Papers publication.

  • Re:Clinton's legacy. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Bush is a bitch due to, ehhh...

    "There ought to be limits to freedom." -GWB

  • Do you think Dubya would have happily signed this one off? With all the rights infringing bills that get passed down from congress these days, I hate to think that there might be no one to stop them.

  • They have posters and stuff ALL over where I'm working talking about how you are going to serve hard time if you "share" information.

    That may be espionage only though ... i'm not sure where they draw that line. For black projects probably wherever the hell they want is what i'm guessing. I'm not gonna try and find out ...

    Certainly an interesting point that bears more looking into, cause it sounds like you know a lot more about it than I do ... and I think i may "need to know." sorry. :-)

    dv

  • Certainly not looking for legal advice or anything like that! Upon finding out that the actual act of disclosing classified information isn't inherantly illegal I'm just interested in what IS.

    Thanks for taking the time to provide additional info. I really appreciate it. You cleared up the a lot of the things I didn't get.

    I had no idea that half of this stuff was even online!

  • I got some groundbreaking news for you ... when you get brief in to obtain a security clearance to receive classified data you end up siging paper that says exactly that. When you get debriefed you sign the same thing again. In DoD land anyway. Politicians and their staffs (who tend to leak like cheap coffee filters) may not have to do this ... I dono.

    I may be missing something but reading the legislation I don't see anything in there that isn't already being done actually, besides intel agency budget and tasking items.

  • Also, I'll always have a soft spot for Bill because he tried to do the right thing (Socialized Medicine)...

    But if he had succeeded, who would employ Canadian doctors?

    (1/4 of Canadian doctors work in America, along with numerous other refugees from Socialism. And America is footing the worlds drug development cost, along with most other medical advances. Freedom isn't free. Socialism is slavery.)

  • I wonder if he veto'd this for the sole purpose of hyping the party.. He is going to say "blah blah, this is b/c the democratic party is so great".

    who knows, just a thought..
  • By the way, anyone want to hire me to work in the US using a TN Visa? ;)

    Well, considering that my wife and I want to move to Canadia, especially if Dubya wins as it looks like he will, maybe we can arrange a swap or something?
    ---

  • The link
    http://www.w hit ehouse.gov/library/hot_releases/November_4_2000.ht ml [whitehouse.gov]
    no longer goes to the President's statement.
    Perhaps the link generated too much traffic.
    Perhaps the Secret Service is now closely monitoring the threat of this "slashdot.org" which seems to be attempting a DoS attack on whitehouse.gov. ;-)
  • Do you think Dubya would have happily signed this one off?
    Yes. This is George "there ought to be limits to freedom" Bush we're talking about here.

  • That's the most well reasoned and intelligent thing I've ever seen come out of this administration. Someone must've replaced Clinton with a benign space alien. He even unequivocally addresses the fact that Congress is largely hostile to him at the bottom of the essay.

  • I don't understand how it's ok to give away some elses property, regardless of the reason.

  • <BC>Those 45540135 published 70 boxes of research into my bad behavior. I'm damn sure not going to let them legislate a coverup for their bad behavior!&lt/BC>
  • You don't think Dubya will actually be running the country himself, do ya? He will simply do what Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, and his Mom, TELL him to do... Some of that may be a good thing, in his case, but the principle is abhorrent. We need someone with COURAGE, and leadership skills, to run for BOTH parties (or ALL parties), so we can vote with our hearts and our heads, not with our noses pinched closed.
  • Not to mention that he doesn't want to fuck over his wife's campaign for Senate. How much you want to bet that Dubya will get 8 years in office, then when his brother Jeb runs, Mrs. Clinton runs against him? It is amazing to think that this does not have ZERO probability...

    Politics has become TOO inbred.
  • I assumed Bush Sr.'s term in the presidency would have precluded any Bush Jr.'s from running for dog catcher, much less making a viable run for the presidency. One mustn't be too cocky...
  • All his illigal political dealings in Arkansas...

    prove it.

    Mafia dealings...

    prove it.

    Whitewater, et al....

    prove it.

    Underhanded campeign deals with the Chinese, etc...

    prove it, or shut up.

    -c

  • He made some mistakes but truthfully, the majority of the people who are disgusted with his behavior are hardcore republicans so he doesn't really care because those people were already polarized against him.

    I actually doubt that. I know that in my little microcosm, most of the people who are disgusted with his behavior are/were mostly Democrats. I confess that I used to be an almost yellow dog democrat until about the middle of the impeachment trial, when I simply couldn't take it anymore. I'm not alone, my entire family (all lifelong democrats) feel the same way, and are planning to change registration after this current election. My priest, also a lifelong democrat, was moved to change his registration to independent, because of his disgust for the man.

    I think that there are several reasons for this. My family lives in a small mining town in western Pennsylvania (yes, in a swing state). The mines don't exist anymore, but their legacy voting habits do. My old precinct had about 93% registered democrats. Registering and voting the straight ticket is what everybody just does here. Even though the party is in complete control locally, almost nobody in this area agrees with the far left leaning of the party propper. We all hunt and own guns (many guns). We feel that family bonds are important (Quayle's Family Values). Most of us favor defense spending over social programs. We elected a Pro-Life democrat governor several years ago, who was not allowed to speak at the national convention in 1996 because of his stance on this particular issue.

    By and large, we are appalled at the behavior that our party tolerates in Washington (Bill, Teddy, Barney, etc.), still, most of us remain blindly loyal to this party which was responsible for the mining jobs (and utter destruction of our local environment) of our parents and grandparents. This year, many of us have finally woken up and caused a problem for Al. Holywood is trying to come to his rescue here, but it seems to be backfiring.

    In contrast, when I talk to my wife's grandparents, lifelong republicans, they don't understand why everyone is so upset about Bill Clinton. I think that they are more forgiving as they have no association with him. I remember once when Sen. Packwood was brought up in their company, and they reacted much the same as I do to Clinton, with disgust because a member of their party had done something to bring shame on the party as a whole.

    Only my two cents.

    -- Len

  • Although I think this is a great thing, considering Clinton's track record on honesty and the like, and his habit to do things merely for his personal gain and party gain, I do wonder if this is an attempted maneuver to instill more respect/honor in him and his running mate for the last two elections, Al Gore. *pondering*

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • Lying under oath tends to be a big one. No, you can't 'prove' it... but it's like OJ Simposon... everyone knows he did it.

    Sexual harassment...

    All his illigal political dealings in Arkansas...

    Mafia dealings...

    Whitewater, et al....

    Underhanded campeign deals with the Chinese, etc...

    Anything else? Sure, not all of them have been proven, but it's just beuracracy at it's worst that's prevented that, alongside overpowering government that has changed laws to it's advantage. Scary thing is, Gore was in a good deal of his presidential follies.

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • Yes, the republicans are evil too. They're politicians, what more can you expect?

    But I'm not talking about just Democrats and Republicans. I was talking specifically about Clinton. Clinton's list compares quite nicely to the entire 'Republican list,' have you. That's pathetic on Clinton's part.

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • I'm personally 'against' Clinton.

    Does this mean I can't have something positive to say about him?

    Nobody's totally evil or wrong.

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • Yes, and it looks like we're going to go from an outstanding orator and statesman to a "likable fella" who I'm not sure can tie his own shoes let alone string together a few hundred words on the Constitutional implication of a bill.
  • If that Representative Goss was any smart, he would have stuck his fancy-schmancy wonder-law in an appropriations bill. It would have been approved lickety-split. You can put anything in those appropriations bills. Not only does no one care, but the President will approve it!
  • Applause for Clinton.

    This veto gets him a DAMNED big score in the "good" column when it comes to toting up his legacy.

    (And anyone who knows my opinion of him will understand how significant it is that he gets any praise from me at all.)
  • a) In the House, there would be no accountability on this case: it was passed via voice vote, apparently. There are references to Unanimous Consent for the Senate, however.

    b) On issues, those categories are MUCH too broad -- and this is a basic problem with polls and so forth. "Do you support Affirmative Action?", for instance, arguably deserves an essay about WHAT TYPES are being considered, for whom, why, and so forth, rather than simply breaking down views into pro- / anti-. There's a whole continuum of opinions out there, so you'd have to post their entire voting histories (including link to bill text), plus probably any speeches they made or so forth, to do 'em justice.
  • Not to mention the possibility of classified information being entered into a court record and possibly publicized.

    My understanding is that in the Wen Ho Lee case, his attorneys threatened to try to get as much of the material thusly made public -- that is, they basically blackmailed the prosecution with threats of disclosing classified information. The Government did not want to have nuclear secrets read aloud in Court, 'natch, and backed down.
  • That which a Government redistributes has mostly, if not entirely, been taken away from the people -- usually with the threat of force.
  • While it sounded well reasoned, IMHO, it didn't sound extremely professional, it sounds more like a fairly well reasoned letter he just whipped up... That was just my impression though... so, whatever.
  • I'm really happy Clinton vetoed this. But I'm sure he did it for completely selfish reasons. The media were getting ready to get worked up into a frenzy over this. The president of CNN, and the editors-in-chief of several major newspapers sent Clinton a letter urging him to veto the bill. I think he did it just so the press wouldn't give him a hard time. He's a short-timer; he doesn't want anything negative to happen at the last minute that would hurt his "legacy" (not that he has much of one in the first place).

    When the press wants something from politicians, they usually get it. The last thing any public figure wants is an angry media.


  • But that happens all the time. Many Americans get killed by the use of information by our media system. Desert Storm ring a bell? Not because of leaked papers or anything, but our mass marketted media programming has the ability to rally the ignorant masses into military action anytime they want. Why doesn't our congress pass a bill that says any news that ends up costing american lives gets everyone in that news conglomerate the death penalty? But I guess that would be sorta hypocritical, wouldn't it?
  • I don't know if it's fair or meaningful to consider politician's political actions in light of their reasons. The key thing is that whether they are being selfish or not doesn't matter if the results are good for our country and for us. Look at most Supreme Court decisions - go ahead, read some. The opinions written by different justices who agree on the case's outcome scarcely ever are similar in reasoning... they often times have to make a morally correct decision and back it up with a convoluted legal argument. Such is the nature of the job.

    Now, I don't know what Clinton's motivations are. I know he's a selfish guy, but I find that pretty much everyone running for president, while they want to lead the nation, they generally also have self interest at heart. Look at Gore and Bush. Are either of them really self sacrifying guys who just care about the American people? I don't think so. They both ooze selfishness. Oh well. Go vote for Browne, or Nader if you want selfless. If you just want somebody to do a decent job of not fucking us all over, vote for Gore. If you want a loose cannon moron, vote for Bush.
  • I'm a slacker, that's the wrong link. This works. Really! [perljam.net].
  • Heh. I don't plan to.
    -J
  • Quite possible the most lucid thing I've heard *any* career politican say.
  • Gore is the next best alternative, and the only way to have a veto on a Republican Congress and Senate. If Bush wins, the cowboys will have a field day with the -expected- surplus. They've got their eyes on the loot... er prize.
  • The Clinton Administration has always said they wouldn't support the bill. The republicans thought their was some kind of weird patriotism aspect to it, and that a veto would hurt the democrats in the upcoming election.

    It will come back to haunt us if Dubya wins.


    blessings,

  • Aarg! when I can actually read "45540135" and lex it as a valid English word, I know I've been reading Slashdot for too long!
  • Since when does socialism give more power to the government? Socialism is about obligating the government to give more to the people, not the other way around.
  • So you're saying the British government is employing force in giving away free medical care? And they took stuff from the people when they were running a socialised train system, and lots of other socialised things?

    The reality is that most of the money going into social programmes comes from the people who don't really miss money much--the rich people. 5% of Bill Gates' paycheck won't bother Bill Gates much but it will feed a huge amount of hungry people.

    You go watch those people die of starvation and then you tell me about how Bill Gates has a right to that extra 5% of his money.

  • Unfortunately, I'm afraid I must disagree with the majority of the statements posted. The VAST majority of the classified information out there is classified legitimately. Our government has information that will be harmful in one way or another if it is released to the general public. If you don't agree with this concept, do not agree to be a trustee of said information. Sadly enough, some of this information can result in people's death. But there is already a control on the abuse of classified information, it is called your own moral code and civil disobedience. If the government is intentionally abusing the public's rights by classifying documents unnecessarily...or classifying documents to cover up full disclosure of our own mistakes, then I believe you have a legitimate cause for civil disobedience. I'm implying civil disobedience in the classical sense. You put thought into your actions, acknowledging that you will be prosecuted for your actions, but doing it for the good of the country (not to mention your own soul). Take the punishment, perhaps become a martyr, but more likely be exonerated if what you were doing is legitimate. Disclosure, open source, and free speech are awesome tools....but I think everyone must acknowledge that some of this information is sensitive. In this period of some of the most damaging classified incidents ever.....shouldn't someone be held accountable for releasing our secrets to the Chinese? Hope this doesn't turn into flamebait. ~AG
  • As opposed to the Democrats, who're hell-bent on acquiring more greed and power for themselves, and turning this country into a socialist state in the process? Let's face it. The 2-party system is an elaborate ruse. I'll be voting for Browne this election.
  • Of course I have no idea what sort of projects you work on. If you're looking for specific legal advice, I certainly am unable to give it in a slashdot posting, but can only give you my general take on the laws. If you are in a specific situation, you should talk to a lawyer. Looking at the relevant statutes, it's clear that just about any act of disclosure of sensitive information to a foreign agent (i.e. an act of espionage) would certainly be punishable criminally.

    My view of the vetoed law is simply that I think it was not a good idea as a matter of public policy to have a General Secrets Act in this country. They do have a General Secrets Act in Britain, but then in Britain the rights of free speech and free press are very different. At present there are many administrative penalties, and there is the possibility of criminal prosecution under certain circumstances, but only under those certain circumstances. Leaking info to the press may in certain circumstances be criminal presently (e.g., there was a man who went to prison for giving a magazine a spy photo of a Russian aircraft carrier in the mid 80s) but in many cases it may not be (because the disclosure of the info in question would not be prejudicial to the interests or safety of the US), although of course the leaker could lose his job or his clearance.

    Take a look at the statutes, executive orders and regulations relating to national security for yourself. Executive Order 12958 is informative as it defines the framework of the classification system, and to look at it go here [whitehouse.gov] and search for 12958. Another very informative source of information is a booklet [fas.org] published by the Information Security Oversight Office [fas.org] that explains the classification scheme; especially enlightening is the FAQ at the end of the booklet.

    All of these statutes and regs require more than the simple fact that information has been administratively classified as confidential as a predicate for the imposition of criminal liability. For example, some of these statutes [cornell.edu] require that the disclosure be harmful to the safety or interests of the United States or beneficial to the interests of a foreign government to the detriment of the U.S. And there is criminal liability [cornell.edu] for misappropriation of government property, such as physical documents. Others provide penalties for any unauthorized disclosure in any circumstances of certain categories: such as diplomatic codes [cornell.edu], such as nuclear weapon designs, and the identity of American agents [cornell.edu]. One law [cornell.edu] certainly does allows the government to administratively classify as criminal the unauthorized disclosure of certain categories of information relating national security to people known to represent foreign governments or Communist organizations. Of course I am generalizing about these laws and a lawyer would need to dig into the language of the laws and the relevant caselaw and regulations to apply the law to a specific fact situation, but if you look at the various statutes, I think you'll see what I mean.

    What these statutes do not do is criminalize as a general matter the unauthorized disclosure of classified information simply because it is classified. Rather, there have to be some added circumstances. Leaking information (as long as they are not codes or nuclear secrets or the names of covert agents) to the American press or to Congress in most circumstances (i.e. when it does not harm the interests of the United States)will usually not be a criminal act under present law

    I certainly would never encourage people who have signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement to violate their oaths lightly, as I think that there are many activities that our government engages in that would be best left unknown to our nation's adversaries. National security is not a light matter. However, there have been too many instances, the chief one being that of the Pentagon Papers case, where information classification has been used to try to keep essential or controversial information from other branches of government and from the American people for reasons other than that of national security. I would be very uncomfortable with a General Secrets Act, and think it would contrary to the spirit of our kind of democracy.

    Ed

  • You go watch those people die of starvation and then you tell me about how Bill Gates has a right to that extra 5% of his money.

    It's interesting how Bill Gates has become the equivalent of Satan or Adolph Hitler in some people's eyes. Were you aware that the vast portion of his fortune will end up in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [gatesfoundation.org]? He's already transferred enough of his money to it to give it one of the largest endowments of any foundation in the world. Did you know that the foundation will be dedicated to providing vaccinations and health care to the people of the third world? Do you have one single idea about what you're bleating about? I thought not. You're more interested in bitching about how the damned 'rich' people don't really need all that money they earned, and so let's just take it from them. Here's a free clue: it's the 'rich' who employ people. You wanna see starvation and poverty, take the money away so that they can't hire you.

  • Speaking of Nader, would someone please explain to me what the big deal is about him? Why is everyone going lala over him? As far as I can tell he is still for big government.
  • I'd like to think Clinton did a better job that Dubya is about to do (PLEASE VOTE AGAINST HIM!) but I'm not sure. He made some mistakes but truthfully, the majority of the people who are disgusted with his behavior are hardcore republicans so he doesn't really care because those people were already polarized against him.

    Now this is off-topic, -1

    Never underestimate the power of the letter j
  • The news is present at the site of Electronic Privacy Information Center: http://www.epic.org/ Clinton's statement is @: http://www.whitehouse.gov/library/hot_releases/Nov ember_4_2000.html
  • This act is one of much more which did. Ii do not know if you have any personal reasons against him, but he is not the first president who lied about "PERSONAL STUFF". The fact that had f*cked in the white house is not a crime; he is not the first and will not be that last one to do it.

    He is the smartest president you will get in more that 30 years. He did his best to serve this country and in no way did he intend to do it any harm.

    It is unfortunate that the majority of the population are either brain washed by the media, or have their pockets as their main interest.
  • This act is one of much more which did. I do not know if you have any personal reasons against him, but he is not the first president who lied about "PERSONAL STUFF". The fact that had f*cked in the white house is not a crime; he is not the first and will not be that last one to do it. He is the smartest president you will get in more that 30 years. He did his best to serve this country and in no way did he intend to do it any harm. It is unfortunate that the majority of the population are either brain washed by the media, or have their pockets as their main interest. You seem to be one of those!
  • First, I welcome repentence at any time. Would anybody prefer something else?

    Now, about Clinton. Yes he signed into law some terrible laws like the Anti-terrorism act DMCA, etc. Did I wish he wouldn't? sure. Did I wish he'd show more leadership on this? You bet. But it is a bit exagerated to blame Clinton for a national disgrace that is everyone's.

  • sorry, i pressed submit to soon.

    Clinton is a politician. He has to deal with a hostile and pretty dreadful congress. He has to pick his fights strategically, and guess what is his way of choosing. He won't pick up a fight that won't resonate with middle class voters and most middle class voters cannot understand what is wrong with the DMCA or with putting a few bearded muslims in jail for speaking while being Muslim.

    He will fight congress wherever he can see political gain, and it's the job of civic organizations to deliver political gain to those politicians who protect liberty.

    It seems that the area of larger than life leaders, for all our desire, is over for a while. (and Clinton has been pretty large--that is why so many people hate him). We get poll-driven politicians. And if liberty fails at the poll, don't build on politicians to save us from our own apathy.

  • What this shows, is that a) we got a congress that will screw you through the back door.
    And b) when the media really cares about freedom the President ( this one at least) will cave in.

    The next one will probably just smile and say, don't worry, I'm the leader, that is leadership, blah blah blah, let's not divide ourselves into this classissified documentation issue. blah blah, every one should be an account, sorry, accountable, blah the media shouldn't hold the first ammendment hostile to the security of the nation, blah blah.

  • and you'd get the award for "cowardness"
  • If the election were held today and Clinton were running he'd get my vote right away.. but alas, that would be a step towards monarchy- not a good thing. too bad for bill, he's the man.
  • what do you think?
  • your statement oozes so much with republican bias that it pretty much discredits itself. sir, you have no idea what you're talking about.
  • yep, that's why republicans could care less about a certain DWI.. hey, at least we know what the W stands for now.. :)
  • But seriously, have any of you read "Will" by G Gordon Liddy? He expresses the opposite opinion to what you guys are talking about here, and reading his autobiography was a very moving experience for me.
    It makes sense that governments in general try to do the best job they can, from their point of view. Scum like Daniel Ellsburg endanger lives for their own profit and egos, when they leak documents by exposing agents under cover who often put their lives on the line for their country.

  • Tax cuts in the form of corporate welrafe

    Bush's tax cuts will only continue perpetuating the national debt.

    Taxes happen, deal with 'em, and if you're so worried about taxes, find a job that pays more.

  • It's not all their property. If you benefit from the services the government provides (and, oh yes, it does provide services, from transportation to security on down the line), a portion of what you earn in rightfully the government's, so it can spent on continuing those services.

    This rabid greed and you-can't-have-it mentality is a depressing statement of exactly the sort of thing that capitalism breeds. Sigh.

  • Consumer advocate Ralph Nader had been protesting this bill all along. The negative publicity this would have created would have been horrendous. It is quite possible that political reasons motivated President Clinton rather than anything else. It seems like this bill would have been handy for the government's use, although suppressive of free speech.
  • OK, you can burn in hell, you lucky bastard.
  • if they had criminalized leaks, call it a "conspiracy theory"...what's the difference, noone but the insiders really know the truth
    --------------
  • So...how do we clean up this country (and specifically the legislative body)? Any ideas?

    How about we make serving in the legislature a requirement, like jury duty? Ok, seriously, I see term limits as being one big improvement. It's certainly done quite a bit to break up the dynastic power cliques that used to rule the California legislature. And it's finally gotten us a year in which Bill Clinton isn't running, thank God. Extending term limits to the U.S. congress would be a good thing, IMO.

  • your statement oozes so much with republican bias that it pretty much discredits itself. sir, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    As opposed to the original poster's oh-so-balanced description of Clinton, huh? Pffft. Democrats just can't stand it when a conservative has a little fun at their expense; it always sends them into their reflexive rant mode. By the way, which of my statements do you dispute: that Carter was an intellectual peer with Clinton, or that Republicans have held the Congress for past 6 years?

  • That's right - 1/4 of our doctors go for the big bucks and move south of the border to service the proportion of the US population who can afford decent medical care.

    There ARE remedies to this problem, they just require political will. Doctors who draw on Canadian resources to get their medical degree at a fraction of it's actual cost should be contractually obligated to provide medical care in Canada for a period of time.

    Socialism isn't slavery, it's a rational distribution of national assets. Although the talented and lucky in the U.S. may outperform their Canadian counterparts, at least we don't need to look over our shoulders and make sure the institutionalized underclass isn't ready to revolt yet. Freedom in terms of political rights (eg speech) are distinct from economic rights (eg markets). It appears to me that when these rights are in conflict in a pathologically capitalist state like the USA, it's the economic rights which win out.

    By the way, anyone want to hire me to work in the US using a TN Visa? ;)
  • I think Bush AND GORE would have happily signed it off. Ironically, it seems obvious that either Nader or Browne would have completely repudiated the very idea- for sharply varying reasons that amount in the end to the same thing.

    If this was meant to be a 'oooo, Bush, scarey' remark in favor of Gore, I would ask, why this faith that the guy would _not_ blithely go along with this sort of thing? I think that faith is misplaced, completely misplaced. But then I _would_ think that as I'm voting for Nader and to hell with vote trading or whatever- the Democratic Party is a corpse, and maybe some of us will have to just keep being politically active _after_ a very possibly Bush-won election.

    I hope the libertarians and socialists etc etc keep being politically active too :) but I can only say that even if they don't, I will. I hope the Dems or Reps win this election and GO TO SLEEP. To wake up again four years hence to a vastly more hostile public climate...

  • New URL [whitehouse.gov]

  • There are already plenty of laws that will cause you to be prosecuted if you leak classified data.
    IANAL, but...

    True and not true -- there are three, and they deal with different kinds of classified data.

    18 USC 793 -- disclosure of National Defense Information; namely, anything classified under DoD rules. In order to violate this section, you don't have to have lawful access to classified info; you only have to disclose "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" to those "not entitled to receive it". Punishment: 10 years, $250,000.

    18 USC 798 -- Codes, ciphers, and communications intelligence. The difference in this one, as I've heard it explained, is that 793 requires you to know that it's classified and that you're willfully violating the law. Under this law, it's enough that you disclose the information at all. Punishment, 10 years, $250,000.

    18 USC 794 -- The big one: the espionage statute. To be in violation of this law, you have to willfully deliver "information relating to the national defense" to a foreign government or agent of a foreign power, "with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States." The bar to be in violation of this law is very high -- while disclosure of any kind of information could result in prosecution under this statute, prosecution must prove you knew the U.S. would be harmed. That's not the case in the previous two sections. Punishment: Death, or life imprisonment.

    This latest act would effectively lower the bar for prosecution under the first two sections: Even if the material isn't directly defense-related, and even if you don't have a clearance to hold it yourself, and regardless of intent, you could still be prosecuted for releasing any information the gov't considers classified, and be subject to the same penalties.

    Thus, whistleblowers disclosing non-defense, non-crypto classified information, who would have a much harder time being prosecuted under 793 and 798, have a lot more to fear from this act. Espionage disclosures still are and have always been illegal under 794, and you could always make a case for reckless endagerment or other laws if someone gets killed because of your actions.

    I commend President Clinton for opposing it -- I was surprised to see that he did.

  • (A big ,,!,, to the socialist who modded down my last post. Hypocrits, all pompous about "freedom of speech" until someone disagrees with you.)

    Ha! Rational distribution of national assets... rational to the unelected bureacrats who run the government monopolies. If you disagree with them, well, that's too damn bad. Unless you've got money or ambition, then you can go to America.

    Ah, so you fear the poor, and think if you give them goodies they'll leave you alone? Gee, how enlightened. I bet you'd fight the school choice bill we're going to vote on Tuesday here in Michigan that'd break the government education monopoly and give the "underclass" a decent shot at a real education.

    And here's a clue: they aren't "resources", they're people, and if you have to set up barriers to keep them from running away, YOU HAVE A DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM! Gotta love that Soviet thinking: "if we don't build the Berlin Wall all the smart people will leave!"
  • Clinton is, as usual, not at all interested in the rights of anyone but himself. The biggest reason he vetoed this was that it would have further criminalized his administration's very deliberate leaks of secret military technologies to the Chinese (missiles, nuclear, etc.) and Russians (stealth tech, etc.), all of which are quite well-documented now...

    Don't ever believe this man does anything for other than his own interest...
  • I'm gratified to see a politician refusing on principle to extend government's powers

    ... especially for Clinton.

    ________________________________________
  • In a world where everyone (especially the gummnt ) did everything correctly and constitutionally, perhaps we would not need leaks, in the real world, they have probably helped prevent things from being even worse than they are with regards to bureaucratic excess and violations of laws and personal freedoms.
  • If your on the ACLU's [aclu.org] action email list (free registration), they alert you to important violations of free speech and other laws and bills, then they provide a link where u can send a free fax (or email) to your representative, senator, president, etc. The last email I received asked us to fax the President and ask him to veto this bill.
  • I'd suspect it's more likely that he'd do it for himself, than for his party. It's arguable that his "leadership" has done significant damage to the party, ranging from fundraising excesses, to the calculated screwing-over of traditional constituencies (for instance, welfare advocates, homosexuals, union members, and environmentalists might all feel betrayed; but, as the President knows, with very high probability they'll vote Dem. anyway, so the downside to screwing 'em over should be absolutely minimal from his POV.).

    He's going to retire soon. He probably does NOT want a legacy rife with mentions of impeachment, perhaps disbarment, and accusations of everything from perjury and rape, to espionage and conspiracy to commit murder, with varying levels of circumstantial evidence.
  • It's ironic in more ways than I can describe that you would defend this law claiming the "protection of lives" when part of the subject of this post was an article by a gentleman who did what he did to prevent the wanton disregard for american lives...

    It should never be illegal for somebody to expose government miss-management/corruption/lies/incompetence even if they are hidden in a shroud of Top Secret secrecy.

  • The Constitution lays out how the Government works. Any attempt to do things differently would require an Amendment, which is a lot harder to pass than a regular law (thank goodness).

    As we speak, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Missouri's representatives. The Missouri people passed a reform: "when you're elected, you must sign this form saying you'll do everything in your power to get congressional term limits passed." If they don't sign the form, a black mark appears on their re-election ballot. If they go to Washington and don't write term limits stuff, or vote against term limits stuff, another black mark. I have a feeling the Supreme Court will empathize with the voters, but strike it down; once elected, Constituents cannot force the hand of the Representative so strongly.

    Smaller elements of process, such as whether House votes are done by voice or are held accountable, may be changable. I hope so. C-SPAN has gone a long way to exposing the process to so many more people, but it's no where near enough.

  • This law is much more broad than that. Read the text yourself. It says nothing about causing death or endangering American lives. It basically perpetually silences anyone who has ever had classified information about that information unless they go and obtain "authorization" to reveal it. The flaw I believe lies in the fact that a ton of information is "classified" and this bill bears no sensistivity to the nature of the degree or the type of information.
  • Last year, I recall that my amazing Journalism teacher(who almost idolizes Mr. Ellsburg) was able to get Mr. Ellsburg in to talk to us about sundry things (this was during our unit on Vietnam). It was a very interesting experience. As I recall, this was in the middle of the IMF/World Bank protests here in the DC area, and Mr. Ellsburg was in town for them. He urged us all to go out and stand up for our rights, get arrested, commit acts of civil disobedience, etc.

    And this to a bunch of 10th graders. Either a really good thing or a really bad thing; I'm not sure.
    -J
  • despite that he's broken every major law, and most of the minor ones himself
    Right wing propaganda. He committed perjury; he lied during an investigation on a matter unrelated to the actual investigation itself. He lied about an affair. Now how does this equate with breaking "every major law"?

    I'm proud I voted for him; I'd do it again.
    --
  • Well, take a look at the vetoed bill's Sec 303, which would've made the unauthorized disclosure of any classified information a criminal offense. What you are talking about are the existing administrative penalties for disclosure. Those have long existed and will continue to exist. The bill would have made such disclosures criminal offenses, not just administrative ones.

    Losing your job or your clearance is one thing, and that can have a chilling effect, sure. But felony jail-time liability would have an even greater chilling effect on those occasional leaks that are important to a free society.

    What Congress needs to do is look at the specific leak (it is said, I recall, to have had to do with bin Laden and the press revelation of electronic intercepts of his phone calls) which prompted this criminalization proposal, and craft a narrowly tailored offense to address it, if it was really the Congress's intent to deal with that particular situation (which it wasn't really, by the way, not in this election year with a lame duck Pres all concerned with his legacy and who was intentionally put into a political catch-22 when they timed this bill to arrive on his desk just when it did).

    You can't depend on regulatory or prosecutorial discretion to take away the chilling effect of such a law, because you never know what kind of folks might get into power in the future some day, and who would put this kind of broad law to use. Read up on the various Sedition Acts which have been implemented at various times in our nation's past to see what I'm talking about.

    I'm still not voting for his veep, but I am glad Clinton vetoed this law. Now, if only someone had screamed so loud before he signed the DMCA and the ATEDPA and the ...

    Ed

  • I have a feeling the Supreme Court will empathize with the voters, but strike it down; once elected, Constituents cannot force the hand of the Representative so strongly.

    I'm not so sure. That process was employed during the battle for direct election of senators (the constitution originally had them appointed by the legislature of their state), so presumably the Supreme Court thought it was ok, at least at one time. There's an essay on the battle for direct election of senators here [senate.gov]. Unfortunately, that particular essay doesn't talk about the "black mark on the ballot" that some states employed.

  • In either case, a well-informed constituency giving their congress careful attention is the best weapon against the grandstanding anti-progress that we see on Capitol Hill every day.

    I agree. However, it isn't enough to just sit passively and watch. To be really effective, you have to write to your representatives and let them know the consequences of their actions. An effective control system requires feedback.

    By the way, I'd add a category of "bills sponsored" to your list. Those bills which a representative endorses, not just votes for, can tell you a lot about where his/her priorities are.

  • The reason this doesn't happen is because our politicians aren't honest about how they vote. They use public polling to discover popular opinion, run with that mentality, and once elected vote the way that curries the most favor at that time in that legislative body. Now sure a few don't but honestly, just 1 would be too many. So...how do we clean up this country (and specifically the legislative body)? Any ideas?

    Never underestimate the power of the letter j
  • I think this speaks very strongly towards the nature of the openness of our country. In many situations, the national government chooses to keep certain information secret, supposedly to protect the state of the government, and its peoples. Now to state that any government should be completely open is a silly suggestion; there are many secrets that are worth keeping in order to ensure the security of the country. To be outright against such privacy in regards to the power of the state is ignorant in my opinion.

    I do however understand the objections that arise in the present situation and in regards to how it has been handled in the recent past of this country. Some secrets that have been kept do not need keeping and corruption or political maneuvering to mask mistakes are most likely the cause of many of these. The fact that the recent deal with Russia was kept secret (albeit a part of the agreement which I cannot understand Russia caring about) in regards to sales to Iran of arms and other things including a submarine should not have been kept secret from the people of the U.S, much less the senate! This seems to be an attempt to mask a politically unfavored action. Luckily the media uncovered this story and we now know about it. But would you favor someone leaking information to the public regarding the military deployment of our factions in a hostile situation, and having the person who leaked that information not recieve major repercussions?

    I think the government needs to reform its moral values before something like this bill passes but I don't think in a better situation federally, that it would be a bad thing.

    Never underestimate the power of the letter j
  • This is good news. I have read it in www.epic.org

    But the laws which needs to be changed are still there. The worrisome thing is that laws which violate some civil rights and others which give government agencies wide authorities are being made faster than they are blocked!!

    The FBI has the right to detain an emigrant without revealing any evidence.
    This happened with a guy in the US who was accused to be a terrorist. After three years in PRISON without knowing why he was held, it came out that the evidence was that his X-wife presented this false claim to the FBI. This is a true story.

    In the Chinese scientist case, the data which he downloaded was not classified at that time. It was classified retrospectively!
    This vito came in a good right time, but it is not enough.

    The elections in the coming few days will decide a lot of things especially for civil rights, privacy, health, ....
    It is too bad that Ralph Nader has no chance of getting there; the way I see it is that the more votes he gets, the more his voice will be heard and the better will be the outlook.
  • This kind of legislation is difficult to implement in practice. Unless someone signs a Non Disclosure Agreement and then releases information that he or she received while under the NDA, how could you prosecute? If the information leaked is not an exact copy of the classified information, who decides where the "dew point" is whereby information could actually be seen as having been "leaked"?

  • RAPID APPLAUD (Score:3)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Sunday November 05, 2000 @06:40AM (#648330)
    By NO means have I ever liked. Clinton (back in '92, I remember waking up in the morning to my radio, and hearing that Clinton won the election. I felt like the world was going to end.) But this one act alone, upholding the constitution (despite that he's broken every major law, and most of the minor ones himself and having dispicable personal and professional character) makes me respect him a lot more. He still has no respect in my book though, other than the fact that he is, indeed, the President of our nation, and that position alone demands respect, since as a whole we did elect him twice. (Those of you who actually voted for him should be ashamed.) Most of the things he has done have been nothing but self-serving and tools for his own personal gain. Maybe he's realized his error, and changed his ways?

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • The horrible truth (Score:3)

    by karb ( 66692 ) on Sunday November 05, 2000 @06:35AM (#648331)
    There are already plenty of laws that will cause you to be prosecuted if you leak classified data. This isn't a new thing. If you purposely leak data that results in american lives being lost, you face the death penalty if convicted.

    If I understand that article, however, there are no laws that currently apply to people who leak non-national-defense classified secrets.

    So, basically, all this law is saying is that the same penalties that apply to one type of classified data also apply to other types of classified data.

    It seems like nobody wants to admit that, from time to time, somebody leaks a story to a newspaper, the newspaper prints the story, and one or more real actual people get killed as a result. That's not very cool.

  • Re:Is that really Clinton? (Score:3)

    by Bolero ( 67403 ) on Sunday November 05, 2000 @07:25AM (#648332)
    Chances are, he didn't write it. A staffer was probably assigned to write it. President Clinton reviewed it and suggested changes. The staffer then made the changes, and the President signed it. That is how speeches are made nowadays.

    Please don't take the above as criticism of President Clinton or modern day politics. I personally believe that if you are going to do something right, hire a professional (in this case a speechwriter) to do it.

  • Re: Underhanded (Score:3)

    by Bolero ( 67403 ) on Sunday November 05, 2000 @07:18AM (#648333)
    In the end though, it doesn't matter what his intent was, he vetoed the bill.

  • More Accountability for Congress (Score:3)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Sunday November 05, 2000 @06:41AM (#648334) Homepage Journal

    I personally would like to see some more comparative data on those "know your representatives" websites.

    For example, lets take a bio from a fictitious Congressman Tony Schnell*:

    Tony Schnell, Republican, Anystate
    Serving Third Term as Congressman [list defeated opponents]

    • Voted for 15 bills ultimately Vetoed by Presidents [list vetoed bills]
    • Voted for 5 laws passed, provisions of which Struck Down by Supreme Court as Unconstititional [list unconstitutional laws]
    • Voted for 73 non-spending amendments to Appropriations bills [list unrelated riders]

    Further, with some per-visitor preferences, those sites could help you watchdog your own pet issues. "Mark voting records for/against NRA positions," "for/against affirmative-action," "for/against abortion rights," etc.

    We're in a Republic, disguised as a Democracy. In either case, a well-informed constituency giving their congress careful attention is the best weapon against the grandstanding anti-progress that we see on Capitol Hill every day.

    * Tony Schnell (R), one of the prime supporters of the infamous email tax [ciac.org] legislation.

  • Good ol' Bill. (Score:3)

    by MaxQuordlepleen ( 236397 ) <el_duggio@hotmail.com> on Sunday November 05, 2000 @07:28AM (#648335) Homepage
    Reading Bill's message made me realize just how much I'm going to miss that guy. Of course, I'm speaking as a foreign observer who really couldn't care less how badly you yankees screw yourselves internally. (Just don't annex your buddies up here in Canada m'kay? We're all socialists and we'd throw USA's basically right-wing democratic process out of whack).

    Anyway, since I don't have a personal stake in the internal policies of ye olde USA, I think I have a more detached view of the whole situation. Main think I've always liked about Mr. Clinton was his charisma and beautifully-crafted public statements. Before Clinton you really hadn't had a good presidential orator in quite some time.

    Also, I'll always have a soft spot for Bill because he tried to do the right thing (Socialized Medicine) even though he must have known he'd never pull it off.

  • The irony of it all! (Score:3)

    by Cap'n enigma ( 239593 ) on Sunday November 05, 2000 @05:37PM (#648336)
    We can publish classified information, but, woe into those who would publish information on the inner workings of a DVD player. Oh well, at least we won this one.

  • Erosion of "Freedoms" (Score:4)

    by Dr. Noooo ( 90976 ) on Sunday November 05, 2000 @09:23AM (#648337)
    Whenever I read about laws being created to cloak the U.S. government in even more secrecy than it already is, and/or to relieve U.S. citizens of previously held freedoms (for our own good, of course), I am reminded of my 8th grade history teacher (a very politically "right-wing" individual, I might add) who, in the early 1970's, stated his belief that the U.S. was slowly removing freedom from it's constitution while (at the time) the Soviet Union was slowly inserting freedom into it's "order". He predicted a time where both governments reached a common plateau in terms of citizen rights and freedoms. In 1989, of course, the Soviet Union dissolved. However, I am haunted by his prediction: The US govenment is slowly but surely removing freedoms from U.S. citizens by virtue of "The Drug War"(tm), The tremendous "need" for intellectual copyright protection, the need for the govenment to be able to conduct foreign affairs as it sees fit, without the bothersome input from the rank and file citizenship, etc. It is a sad time. I have no doubt Mr. Bush would sign this bill into law without hesitation. The erosion of freedoms has yet to be a campaign issue. Why?

  • clinton and this veto (Score:5)

    by irishmikev ( 39393 ) on Sunday November 05, 2000 @06:29AM (#648338)
    For a white house that's inflicted (or tried to) a significant number of infringements on our rights to privacy, this is very refreshing to see. If you want to be more aware of when these kind of things come up, register at www.aclu.org for their action newsletter. I received an email about this last week and was able to send a fax to Clinton through their web site expressing my objection. You can often do the same when legislation harmful to privacy is considered in both the house and the senate, only the faxes go to your appropriate sen. or rep. Sign up!

Slashdot Top Deals

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Close