Lawmaker Reintroduces WikiLeaks Prosecution Bill 389
angry tapir writes "New legislation in the US Congress targets WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage prosecution. Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, introduced the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination, or SHIELD, Act (read the bill here [PDF]). The bill would clarify US law by saying it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."
Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Insightful)
So, does this apply to Libby / Chaney leaking name of active CIA operative? Oh wait, got a pardon from Bush....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:4, Informative)
More to the point, he had his sentence commuted because Bush thought 30 months for endangering the life of a intelligence operative was excessive:
From the wikipedia article you cite:
"After Libby was denied bail during his appeal process on July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month federal prison sentence, calling it "excessive", but he did not change the other parts of the sentence and their conditions.[17] That presidential commutation left in place the felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the terms of probation."
He was still punished, but whether a fine and probation is enough is questionable...
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)
Libby was convicted on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, not actually outing Plame.
Re: Libby and Cheney (Score:4, Informative)
He was 'lying' in that his account of a certain set of dates recalled from memory differed slightly from someone else's recall of a certain set of dates, also from memory. Moreover, the judge threw out the expert witness that Libby wanted to use who would point out that memory is quite fallible.
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:4)
What are you talking about? A pardon wouldn't have been any different then the sentencing commute concerning the fifth amendment. He had already been tried and convicted for everything a pardon would have covered.
Further more, he was only convicted on making false statements, nothing in depth or detail of the Plame leak case. The investigation pretty well showed that the leak was because of Richard Armatage which is supported by Armatage himself and the reporter who broke the story that originally outed Plame when Armatage was drunk at a state diner or something and someone asked who in the hell Joe Wilson was and he replied, his wife's a spy or something to that effect.
Shit.. move on guys.. This is all history you should at least be aware of. Here's something else you probably aren't aware of, Bush is out of office, he isn't running for any other office. You can stop bashing him, you can stop misrepresenting the truth in order to bash him. It serves no purpose.. unless you think someone in office still has to run against Bush to remain in power.
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point, he had his sentence commuted because Bush thought 30 months for endangering the life of a intelligence operative was excessive:
Hrrm, so what about the CIA cover company she worked for? And all the informers involved with that company? Nah, not a single scratch reported, right?
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)
The movie Fair Game hints at the details http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0977855/ [imdb.com]
As for US law, this will be very chilling on the press. From the 1920's and 30's books on US ww1 code breaking to the Pentagon papers, NSA books ect. US law has been clear about the freedom to publish. What has been published is mostly collected from the press, been cleared or hints at deep crime, useless hardware/software, limited hangout efforts, pure propaganda or PR.
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)
Plame's name was dropped in front of Richard Armitage and others, under ambiguous circumstances. Libby and close associates of his were in the center of these "accidents". When the prosecutors tracked down the leaks to a specific timeline, and questioned Libby about key related conversations, from the investigator's POV, Libby appeared to fabricate an alibi from whole cloth.
So the circumstances strongly suggested that this "mistaken" recollection was not innocent.
And the jury all agreed. I would note that multiple jurors stated they believed Libby was a "Fall Guy".
There are two kinds of Fall Guy. There is the complete innocent who is framed on purpose or through bad luck, which is vastly more common in fiction than real life. And there is the very guilty Fall Guy, who is left holding the bag while more morally culpable individuals escape justice.
It is unambiguous the jurors were thinking of the second kind, which, if taken at face value, implies they believed there must have been a criminal conspiracy within the highest levels of government.
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:4, Informative)
The prosecutor in this case was on a witch hunt and he was unwilling to end his investigation without charging someone with something...even though the "crime" he was investigating was not a crime (revealing Valerie Plame's name was not a violation of the law as it is written, which is why he did not charge Richard Armitage).
Re: (Score:3)
Apply it to Libby and Cheney all you want. Richard Armitage revealed the fact that Valeria Plame was an agent.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, revealing the information was ALWAYS a crime. This law seeks to make it illegal to "publish" that, which would include the Washington Post (in this instance) as well as several people, including Libby, who "published" it on television.
The "leaks" were from Bradley Manning, just like they were from Armitage in the example. They're seeking to make it illegal to "publish" already leaked information.
It won't pass a constitutional test and is such an absurd knee-jerk, with so many ridiculous implications
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I'm sure after as much "time for reflection" necessary has been allowed, Bradley will certainly remember whatever is required for his conviction.
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm sure after as much "time for reflection" necessary has been allowed, Bradley will certainly remember whatever is required for his conviction.
After a year of waterboarding I'd be happy to confess to crucifying Jesus, organising the Nazi concentration camps and flying one of the planes on 9/11 just to get them to stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, its going to get killed at the first hurdle, because the big papers can just throw infinite lawyerage at it, and these lawyers are press lawyers who live and breathe first amendment.
Its a bit like those silly anti-porn laws that used to get introduced every few years then get knocked off as being unconstitutional. A couple of years later it'd start again because politicians dont introduce the laws for them to be laws but to create persecution complexes for mouthbreathing authoritarian conservatives to
Re: (Score:3)
Apply it to Libby and Cheney all you want. Richard Armitage revealed the fact that Valeria Plame was an agent.
Exactly, Libby and Rove were Whistleblowers like Bradley Manning - where's he at?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)
In 2005, during the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, King said the crosshairs ought to be set on the news media, which weren't tough enough on her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, rather than Karl Rove. King also suggested that the media "be shot" for pursuing the story and identifying White House aide Karl Rove as the alledged leaker.[6]
Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability; in other words, you can't make something illegal today, and then prosecute the guy that did it yesterday. It's more like the early laws around computer crime, which came about not to prosecute people who had already been hacking, but instead came about because existing law didn't properly address something that should already have been criminalized, in the eyes of the legislature.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
you're confusing the "good guys" with the "bad guys".
Re:Misleading... (Score:4, Funny)
Harassing Assange Might Make Exposers Reconsider
Re:Misleading... (Score:4, Informative)
...and I thought SHIELD was the organisation with Samuel L. Jackson in it?
You're off by 90 degrees.
David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but it tries to put a stop on the next bunch of Wikileaks that are on their way...
He is basically following the "Trick me once, shame on you... trick me twice, shame on me" mentality.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but it tries to put a stop on the next bunch of Wikileaks that are on their way...
He is basically following the "Trick me once, shame on you... trick me twice, shame on me" mentality.
at least it's not the bush version..."fool me once, shame on....shame on...you...................the fool can't get fooled again"
Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
There still is a rather obscure part of the U.S. Constitution:
I don't know what part of "congress shall make no law" those guys can't figure out, but making a law to prohibit the publication of the names of people is unconstitutional. It says so right there.
Then again, if they don't give a damn about the constitution and are willing to be so bold as to shut down a media outlet by legislation, they also don't give a damn about ex-post facto laws either.
(Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4)
Some people thought it was idiotic and wasting time to actually read aloud this document at the beginning of the current session of Congress. Frankly, I don't think it gets pounded into their heads enough and that should be an annual tradition.
Re: (Score:3)
lol.. do you really think they care about what the constitution says?
Seriously, they just pulled stunts and tricks to get a health care bill passed that was declared unconstitutional by a court of law. They are still trying to fund that law. People are reinterpreting the constitution to create whatever authority they want whenever they want it. Look at the bastardization of the general welfare clause in the attempts to justify social spending.
I always told people, if you don't like what it says, amend it. b
Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, but it tries to put a stop on the next bunch of Wikileaks that are on their way..."
Too fucking late.
Only 4,091 of 251,287 of the diplomatic cables have been released so far.
Lets take a look at the way things are playing out. Starting in Tunisia, we have mass protests that eventually lead to the ouster of Tunisia's ruling elite. These protests started on December 17, 2010. Wikileaks had been releasing cables relating to Tunisia starting on November 30, 2010, more then two weeks before Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolated. Next is Egypt. Demonstrations there started on January 25, 2011. Wikileaks started releasing cables from Cairo on December 13, 2010. Next, Jordan. Protests started there in late-January. Wikileaks began releasing cables regarding Jordan as early as November 30, 2010. It goes on and on...
The fact of the matter is the events taking place there have all been preceded by cable releases that directly apply to those countries. I am surprised Brazil hasn't followed suit--plenty of cables to get people riled up in Brazil.
Reading between the lines? You bet. So fucking what--everyone does it. It is part of our "intuition", that inner-self that tells us the truths we do not want to hear. What I see are very scared men trying ANYTHING to stem the flow of cables. Shit is changing fast and Wikileaks is most certainly NOT helping things, as far as the scared little men are concerned. They are losing power, that which they hold in the highest possible esteem. These cables are being released strategically and the little men are starting to realize the shit they are in, finally understanding the true power of truth. To what end are they being released strategically? A shift of power from the elite and corrupt. To whom? Who knows. That remains to be seen.
The US government doesn't want Assange for execution or prosecution--they want to hold him hostage, alive, to stop the flow of cables. Nothing else will do as the little men know he has insurance. But, we all know that will not work. It is TOO FUCKING LATE. Julian knew what he was getting into, and life is full of risks.
The train is just leaving the station, folks. The real changes are still to come. Roughly 246, 000 cables left...
Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but leaving those documents available on WikiLeaks after the law passes (if it passes in to law) would be an on-going act that could be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is wikileaks hosted in the USA?
I really doubt that.
Re:Misleading... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. A country can't unilaterally extend its law's jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it can. And other countries are free to refuse to extradite to them, and set themselves at cross-purposes that may lead to economic sanctions "to fight terrorism".
Re: (Score:3)
The US is not in a position to impose sanctions. As long as you not only live of imports but live of imported money,
Guess you missed the currency dumping the USA has been involved in. We live on exporting funny money.
Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Informative)
Classified documents become declassified once they're in the wild.>
By common sense, yes, by law, no. The executive order handling classified information (currently #13526) explicitly states "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information." in part 1, section 1.1c.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability
you trying to tell a law-maker what the law is? maybe they'll just pass another law making it lawful to enact retroactive law enforcement, bitch! it's not like the US public will say squat about it anyway as long as the cheap gas and Bacon double-cheesburgers keep rolling. and don't try that "i have rights constitution" bs, you must be a terrorist to talk like that. i've heard enough, guards, silently lock him away.
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Except it's already been done, and relatively recently: telcom companies were given retroactive immunity for participation in the Bush warantless wiretapping program [talkingpointsmemo.com].
Make no mistake: despite what politicians of both sides of the aisle say, no Republican, and far too few Democrats, really know or agree with what's actually in the Constitution.
Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
Retroactively granting someone immunity (which is a limited form of retroactively making something legal) is very different from making something retroactively illegal. For example, if Congress were to repeal the prohibitions on marijuana and apply that retroactively, people could be released from jail. On the other hand, if Congress made possession of ibuprofen illegal retroactively, the fact that someone owned Advil (and took it all) last year could land them in jail. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that making something legal retroactively would not run afoul of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws.
I'm not taking a position, in this post, on the wiretapping immunity law itself, the legality of said wiretapping, or the legality of Congress granting such immunity.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, it doesn't say anything about 'illegal', it just says 'ex post facto Law'. It's like say, being convicted on a possession of marijuana charge, and then two weeks later they make marijuana legal. You don't get to go free because it's legal now; it wasn't legal when you committed the act.
Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they can't do that. It's expressly forbidden to do this in the US Constitution. It's called "Ex Post Facto" and it's not allowed.
I could be wrong, but I don't even think an amendment to the constitution can allow ex post facto laws, since it's explicitly in the section called "limits on congress".
Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to think things forbidden by the constitution can't be done.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry to say, we left the Constitution behind quite some time ago. In earlier times (like when I was sitting in my constitutional law class @ Boalt), you're right, it would have been ex post facto and prohibited. No more. Stuff that I would have bet my life I'd not see in the USA (warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention without trial, etc.) is now just doin' business. No constitutional amendments needed. Just aquiescence by all concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is Australian. He never committed any "crime" on US soil. How the hell can any US law be legally binding on him? It has to be either an Australian law or the law of the land where he's staying. Or do I not understand what's going on? The US cannot for example pass a law saying "Shouting 'zigaboob' in Italy in a public space" is illegal. It can only say it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What puzzles me is how can the US (or any country) make a law that can possibly apply to what a citizen of another country does outside the US?
No, any country can declare anything, anywhere illegal, if it wants to. I don't understand why that would not be so.
The US has had laws like that for a very long time, such as the Alien Tort Claims Act from 1789, which is still on the books, and still used at times. Of course, enforcing such a law can be rather tricky. Just because something is made illegal worldwide by one country, there's no obligation for any other country to recognize that or to cooperate.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they're usually idiots. Most of the guarantees of rights in the Constitution apply to 'people' or 'persons' and not merely citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution explicitly outlaws Ex Post Facto laws - and does so twice, to be sure.
However, the U.S. government has a way around Constitutional limitations it does not like. It simply ignores them. They all pretend that the limitation is not there, and just do what they want.
In recent years the usual "justification" for usurpation of power are the twin "threats" of terrorism and pedophilia. The "terrorists" are generally people who are upset because the United States government - or the thugs it
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, we don't. The first crack might have been the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited felons from owning firearms, even if their crimes were committed before the effective date of the law. The various Megan's Law decisions widened that considerably, and US v. Comstock (allowing indefinite "civil commitment" for sex offenders following their pri
Can this be applied retroactively? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, we have the minor problem that nobody in government has glanced at or otherwise considered the contents of the Constitution since... I'm going to say 9/12/2001.
Re:Can this be applied retroactively? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't remember anything particular happening on Sunday, december 9th, 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why I always use CCYY-MM-DD format.
That and you can compare two dates as strings to see which one is earlier.
No (Score:3)
That is one of the things the Constitution has a specific thing to say about. Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3 says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
So if the law were passed it would make such an act illegal in the future, but would not apply to what has already been done.
Now what this would do it make it illegal for Wikileaks to release more information along the lines specified in the bill. Just because they had it before the law was passed wouldn't mean they could freely releas
article 1 section 12 (Score:2, Informative)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we have laws impairing the obligation of contracts and those that result in the forfeiture of estate through conviction, so it's only a matter of time before the rest of the section is ignored as well.
Uh... what? (Score:2)
I'm not sure exactly why this would apply to Assange. US law, last I checked, doesn't allow for prosecution of an act committed while it was still legal.
Re: (Score:2)
http://vlex.com/vid/sec-disclosure-classified-information-19190926 [vlex.com]
if he didn't pull the information down from the site after it gets passed, he'd be in violation of the first paragraph - namely "or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person" .
At that point he could be prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also questionable how it could apply to a non-citizen for an act that didn't take place on U.S. soil...
Constitutional? I doubt it. (Score:2)
I don't see how the courts would uphold this outside of wartime (in wartime courts routinely let Congress and the Executive Branch run all over the Constitution), assuming the publisher didn't have "dirty hands" in obtaining the information in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the constitution? Well, you and I likely do, but the government as of late doesn't seem to.
Re: (Score:2)
in wartime courts routinely let Congress and the Executive Branch run all over the Constitution
Doesn't this policy implicitly encourage warmongering?
Re:Constitutional? I doubt it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Question: When was the last time the US was not at war?
Although this might stop wikileaks in the US (Score:2)
How about (Score:5, Interesting)
Bills should be introduced in the USA, UK, Australia and lots more places saying things like
It is a crime to hide things from the electorate. (This should not be mixed up with "Freedom of Information acts" that rarely work.)
It is a crime to govern by misdirection of public attention.
It is a crime to protect the powerful to the detriment of the weak or less powerful.
It is a crime to take away civil rights, whatever the state of the nation
It is a crime to introduce 'knee jerk' legislation.
It is a crime to retrospectively criminalise something. It can only be criminalised from the introduction of the law
It is a crime to give or accept identifiable corporate campaign donations
That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.
Re: (Score:2)
That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.
No, it would violate an individual's right to free speech. Because money is speech (somehow)! Sure, it causes so many problems and the average person has no chance against people with seemingly unlimited supplies of money (outside of unrealistic boycotting, which may or may not work), but it's speech somehow, and therefore we can't make that a crime!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not that money isn't speech -- of course it is
How?
Re: (Score:2)
It is a crime to protect the powerful to the detriment of the weak or less powerful.
So, the US emergency response plans would become illegal, where the government is scattered across the US while regular citizens are left to die?
It is a crime to retrospectively criminalise something. It can only be criminalised from the introduction of the law
This is already illegal in the US and, more than likely, the UK and Australia as well.
Re: (Score:2)
clarification (Score:3)
in a way this could be good.
now there's no doubt about what needs to be redacted, and wikileaks can get on with their job without that extra accusation being thrown at them. just redact protected names and be done with it.
Re:clarification (Score:5, Funny)
Could be worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. this pathetic law he's pitching is about reinforcing the state of immunity from accountability for those very criminals (himself included)
3. they're all human rights violators, putting it politely
But (Score:4, Funny)
And they want to use the new law retroactively? (Score:3)
Gee, I wonder if anyone could use the SHIELD Act to prosecute Karl Rove or someone for leaking Valerie Plames CIA cover.
Oh that's right. It's not a crime when Republicans do it.
we are the world? (Score:2)
Somethings is Rotten in the District of Columbia (Score:5, Informative)
Anonymous seems to have stumbled upon a much bigger problem. Read Glen Greenwald's piece [salon.com] on the collaboration between DoJ, BoA and rogue 'security' companies. Greenwald was to be personally targeted, and now he's taking names:
It's his most powerful piece to date.
We need S.H.I.E.L.D. (Score:2)
"... it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."
I agree with this statement.
By all means, pass it as a law and then bring in Samuel L. Jackson sporting an eyepatch to start an agency named after this Bill.
Backronym abuse (Score:3)
How about a bit of legislation prohibiting the titling of bills in a manner that constitutes blatant propaganda? It's perhaps not as bad as the PATRIOT act, which is the most crotch-punchingly offensive example I've come across, but it's the same fucking ballpark. I'm not sure who should be most insulted: people who don't back the legislation, or the general public whose intelligence is held in such dim regard (and all snark aside, I don't think that most people are really all that stupid).
If simply using sequential numbers is too boring, I propose that the opposing team be allowed free rein to add words to the title of the bill, with no right of appeal or amendment granted to the originator. In this case, for instance, the 'no' camp could insist that the title be amended to Another Nugget of Awful Legislation Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination.
Who's the enemy here? (Score:4, Interesting)
"The bill would clarify U.S. law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the U.S. military or intelligence community."
Anyone who would want to create a classification of people who are immune from public scrutiny is definitely an enemy of United States. That's you Rep. King.
not retroactive, but effective (Score:2)
wikileaks won't be able to be prosecuted for the leaks they've done, but they won't be able to make any new leaks. This isn't about retaliation or damage control, but about giving them some legal teeth for later.
Publishing name (Score:3)
Didn't WikiLeaks ask at least one federal department for help redacting names and other identifying info from the documents, and those departments declined to do so?
I bet the people who drafted this Bill for him (and I don't mean his staff) didn't know that, or conveniently forgot about it.
First prosecute Curveball, Scooter and Cheney (Score:2)
Today, Curveball admitted he lied to start the Iraq War.
Millions dead - mostly civilians and drafted Iraqi soldiers.
Bankrupt nation - both Iraq and America.
After the war crimes trials for all three ... then they can come for Assange.
And NOT a MOMENT before.
They are Punishing the wrong person. (Score:4, Interesting)
They should throw the book and the bench at Pfc. Bradley Manning and not touch Jullian Assange. Manning was the one who STOLE the information in the first damn place.
This amounts to trying to "kill the messenger" if the messenger was telling everyone about something he heard from from someone who stole the information. It has a bad "chilling effect" and is not good for free speech.
It is like trying to shut down a newspaper that published stolen state secrets, instead of going after the person who stole them in the first place.
Good luck with this. (Score:3)
US law to apply to foreign citizens? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US law to apply to foreign citizens? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, No.
Yes, the US routinely applies US laws to foreign citizens. I have first hand experience of that, as one of the defendants back in the DeCSS case.
No, the same does of course not apply the other way around. The US does not consider itself a peer amongst peers, it thinks of itself as the greatest nation on earth, chosen by god himself, above all international law save the one they bring themselves, with guns and tanks.
But it's good that they're doing it now. Julian has hinted towards this from the beginning, it will give his fight against extradition more strength.
So Dick goes to Jail? (Score:4, Informative)
Lets make sure it's retroactive so Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney can go to jail for espionage as well! After all they did compromise the identity of a secret agent of the CIA.
US Gov gone rough... (Score:3)
I am an American, but I do not see the US government being any longer a genuine American government consistent with its founding documents. But only drifting further and further away, becoming a rouge government. And now its becoming quite obvious the US government is disconnected from the people it is supposed to represent, but instead leads the people with deception.
What began in north Africa is spreading and it will come around to the US too.
The math is to simple. there will be 7 billion people on this planet this year and its only some fraction of 1% of the population that is causing all the trouble and waring wasteful expense of the mind games of these few rather than correcting real world problems for the rest of us, RE: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml [unesco.org] which would be much more effective at reducing the motives of others to attack us, as well.
This is the best indicator of a government that can be rightfully diagnosed as being psychologically unfit to command anyone.
Making up the rules as they go along does not work in this country as its supposed to be a democracy but where is our opportunity to vote on this?
Sept 10, 2001, Rumsfield publicly stated that they cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars of Pentagon spending.... Thats about $8,000 per man, woman and child in the US..... Its also taxation without representation... striking at the very heart of the birth of the US.... the Boston Tea Party... And they continue to spend massive amounts for defense.... 47% of the total world defense spending. Add in the Allies spending and we are over 60% of world spending where teh remaining 40% is divided amount many many poor countries. We don't need to spend anywhere near that much on defense... unless we are going to be attacked by Aliens... Yeah right....
What began in north Africa is spreading and it will come around to the US too, for teh US government continues to show evidence of their failure to understand the founding documents of this country and even teh Declaration of Independence states its not only our right but duty to put of such corrupt government and make the corrections ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and if you're an American citizen, they delcare you an "enemy combatant" and snatch you off to gitmo in the night.
What a lovely place we live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:de facto (Score:4)
I think the "facto" phrase you're thinking of is "Ex post facto [wikipedia.org]. As in "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." (Section 9 of Article I of the United States Constitution).
So no, it won't be made retroactive, because no amount of OMG WAR ON TERROR fearmongering will make the US Supreme Court sustain an overtly unconstitutional law.
Well, almost none [wikipedia.org]. But at least recently, the Supremes have resisted the siren call of undeclared war and "no express grant of rights".
Re: (Score:2)
Please! Any information the government deems as a secret is no longer considered free speech. Sure, that doesn't make sense at all but it's completely true!
Re:Marvel should sue (Score:5, Funny)
I'd ask you who "Nick Furry" is, but I'm afraid of what the answer might be.