Re: Judy Miller needing killing
Dave Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gil Hamilton wrote: I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller had had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway. The question is, can she defy a subpoena based on membership in the privileged Reporter class that an ordinary person could not defy? Why not? while Miller could well be prosecuted for revealing the identity, had she done so - she didn't. Why should *anyone* be jailed for failing to reveal who they had talked to in confidence? I am all in favour of people being tried for their actions, but not for thoughtcrimes. Miller wasn't prosecuted. She was not charged with a crime. She was not in danger of being charged if she had revealed the identity. She was jailed for contempt of court for obstructing a grand jury investigation by refusing to testify. Perhaps no one should be required to testify but current law here is that when subpoenaed by a grand jury investigating a possible crime, one is obliged to answer their questions except in a small number of exceptional circumstances (self-incrimination would be one example). Miller is seeking to be placed above the law that applies to the rest of us. And yet Novak is the one who purportedly committed a crime - revealing the identity of an agent and thus endangering them. So the actual crime (of revealing) isn't important, but talking to a reporter is? You're confused. AFAIK, no one has suggested that Novak commited a crime in this case. The actual crime (of revealing) is what the grand jury was attempting to investigate; Miller was jailed for obstructing that investigation. GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're just trolling, right? [snip] Major Variola (ret.) wrote: So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema. The problem is that reporters want to be made into a special class of people that don't have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you a reporter? Am I? Is the National Inquirer? How about Drudge? What about bloggers? Which agency will you have to apply to in order to get a Journalism License? And will this License to Report entitle one to ignore subpoenas from federal grand juries? Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government. GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On 2005-10-19T19:59:18+, Gil Hamilton wrote: Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government. Blame the framers. They separately enumerated freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which suggests at least a little bit that freedom of the press includes something extra. Yes, it specifies printed material rather than spoken; this wouldn't have been unusual to them -- English law has long distinguished libel from slander, for example. Your statement implies that you think the framers were being deliberately vague or encoding various sorts of subtle nuances in the amendment's language. It's much simpler to presume that they said what they intended to say. GH _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
Dave Howe wrote: Gil Hamilton wrote: The problem is that reporters want to be made into a special class of people that don't have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you a reporter? Am I? Is the National Inquirer? How about Drudge? What about bloggers? Which agency will you have to apply to in order to get a Journalism License? And will this License to Report entitle one to ignore subpoenas from federal grand juries? Problem there is - Miller didn't write the story, pass on the info to anyone else, or indeed do much more than have a conversation with an unnamed source where a classified name was revealed. The Grand Jury is aware that Miller had this info but refused to reveal who the informant was. I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller had had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway. The question is, can she defy a subpoena based on membership in the privileged Reporter class that an ordinary person could not defy? On the other hand - Robert Novak got the same information, REPORTED it - and isn't in any sort of trouble at all. Somehow this isn't the issue though... and I wonder why? I don't know this either; perhaps because he immediately rolled over when he got subpoenaed? GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Well, they got what they want...
sunder wrote: Tyler Durden wrote: In other words, everyone here in NYC knows that we've given up a lot for the sake of the appearence of security, but no one seems to give a damn. I wouldn't say we've given up at all - after all, we've had no choice in the matter. We weren't asked if we wanted to be searched, we weren't asked if we were willing to give up liberty for the appearance of security, we weren't asked if we were ok with atrocities such as the unpatriot act, or the national ID disguised as a standardized driver's license, we weren't asked if we were willing to pay lots of tax dollars to finance more police on every corner and all the toys that they have purchased for these tasks, or the various hollow cement flower pots, and other barricades. Sure we have been asked. We get asked every two years, which means twice already since 9/11. We keep electing the same assholes who gave us the patriot act, and the national ID cards, and the assault weapons ban and all of the Know Your Customer / anti-money-laundering regulations, and the anti-drug laws. We have the power to stop all of this if we choose. GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is but another variation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=usvol=467invol=229 Interesting that the author of that opinion was O'Connor, who authored the *dissent* from this week's opinion. Apparently, taking property from one private individual and giving it to another is fine with her if the one you're taking it from is a member of an (evil by definition) oligopoly. O'Connor's dissent in the recent case is full of hair-splitting about why this transfer isn't for public use while the other one was, but all of her arguments would have and should have applied to the earlier case as well. There is a special place in Hell reserved for people like her who open the proverbial barn door and then proceed to complain when the whole herd stampedes through. The key word is principles: O'Connor should find some and try applying them consistently. GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
From: Jay Listo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Yes, because so many of the current justices have been appointed by Bush... ..oh, wait (You might want to look at which justices joined this opinion and which dissented before you launch into an Evil Republicans rant.) GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: [rationalchatter] Interesting Trial - IRS trial - July 11th (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT) From: marc guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [rationalchatter] Interesting Trial - IRS trial - July 11th This is an interesting trial. Men with guns. Tessa and Larken Rose may be sent to jail. Watch 3 min. - video - http://www.861.info/tessa.html Trial starts July 11th. There is a petition to encourage that it be videotaped. While anyone can empathize with their desire not to pay taxes and many of us can even disagree with the moral justification for taxes, these people are idiots. Their entire case boils down to quibbles over arguably poorly worded regulations. And even if you take their argument at face value, if you go read the sections of the Code of Federal Regulations they cite, they're just plain wrong: they're willfully misreading the plain language of the regulations. (Okay, plain language is probably not the right phrase to apply to any part of the CFR, but...) They're definitely going down; probably to jail, but at the least they'll be subject to massive fines, property seizures, etc. Nothing to see here, folks; move along. GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Fornicalia Lawmaker Moves to Block Gmail
Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Riad S. Wahby (2004-04-13 01:49Z) wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/nm/20040412/wr_nm/tech_google_dc_1 A private interaction between two consenting parties has absolutely nothing to do with the state, period. The bitch supporting this shit should be removed from office forthwith. It's not just a private interaction between two consenting parties. It's a contract that grants power to a third party eliminating traditional legal guarantees of quasi-privacy in communication from sender to recipient, one of which is not a party to the contract. No privacy is lost in the gmail system; no information about either party is disclosed to any third party. The information contained in the message still remains private to the sender and recipient (well, to the extent that any web-based mail can be considered private). Exactly what traditional legal guarantees do you think would be lost in the gmail system? There's no guarantee the average sender would know that mail to gmail is intercepted and parsed. So what? The average sender doesn't understand that mail is intercepted and parsed by each SMTP or POP server encountered in the path from sender to recipient. Or that their message is written to the hard disk of each of those systems as well. What the average sender understands is irrelevant unless there is some bearing on his expectation of privacy in the message contents. Really, what's the difference between scanning the message in order to, say, render HTML tags it may contain, and scanning it in order to generate targetted advertising based on keywords it contains? The latter could also be considered as merely part of the rendering process. - GH _ Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health Wellness for information and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
If they want to do some good, how about investigating these criminals? http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0304/23senators.html Have to confess I'm a little confused, though. On the one hand, the article insists they broke no laws; on the other, it says they trade on privileged information not available to the public. Isn't this the very definition of insider trading? Isn't it what they were originally pursuing Martha for? - GH _ Check out MSN PC Safety Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp
JetBlue Shared Passenger Data
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60489,00.html wherein JetBlue helps you bend over while TSA unbuckles... - GH _ Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam functionality! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_webcam
Re: Among the Bourgeoisophobes
F. Marc de Piolenc forwards: Among the Bourgeoisophobes Why the Europeans and Arabs, each in their own way, hate America and Israel. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/102gwtnf.asp While it drops off into a bit of jingoism near the end, the first three quarters of this essay is spot on and expresses well the ideas I've held about Muslim terrorists for a long time. Also, it eloquently puts the lie to the notion that those terrorists attacked the WTC because they hate freedom. It may be true that they hate freedom in some narrow sense, but it misses the point: what they really hate is the godless, arrogant, materialistic, undeserved (etc. from the article) appearance communicated by the exports of our culture. It is this hatred of the perception of our culture that is misinterpreted (by shallow and jingoistic analysts on *our* side) as they just hate our freedom. Which leads me to a couple of other comments. The additional security restrictions imposed on Americans since 9/11 clearly play right into their hands. No doubt it's very satisfying to bin Laden that he's put the infidel Americans to huge additional inconvenience and substantially decreased their liberties. (Again, though, it isn't primarily liberty itself that he hates, but the cultural exports that flow from the western version of it.) Also, it isn't only the Americans and Israelis that are so regarded - other western nations are ultimately targets as well -- but the Americans and Israelis are seen as by far the most egregious examples. Or, in other words, we'll bring down Britain, Germany and the rest after we dispose of the Americans and Israelis. (Though perhaps France will escape being a target - the French seem to be born with an innate bourgeoisophobia, manifesting itself in such silliness as their government's continual attempts to prevent their language from being corrupted by English imports.) Another point well made here is the notion that American left-wing intellectuals and politicians, as well as right-wing fundamentalists and their politicians, all fall into this same boat. The left-wingers - from Chomskyites to Kennedy/Clinton/Gore liberals - think they need to protect us from our crass obsession with the pursuit of wealth and our selfishness, while the right-wingers - from Falwell and Pat Robertson to more mainstream Republicans - think we've been consumed by licentiousness and immorality and that they need to force us to go back to church. To those of us who admire all types of liberty, it shows why we need to keep sticking fingers into the eyes of both sides, or monkeywrenching, as Tim puts it. At the same time, none of this justifies many of the arrogant and inflammatory actions taken by our government which serve as irritants to the bourgeoisophobes and ultimately give them justification for their hatred and their retaliation. For example, why do we give billions of dollars every year to Israel? We get little or no benefit from it, while it antagonizes the hell out of many Arabs. - GH (preaching to the choir again) _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
