If there is a leak, the media source shouldn't be punished at all, it's not their fault that someone spilled the beans. If the government wants to fire the person that leaked it, then fine, but it was their fault for hiring them. I still do not see how it is okay to hide things from the people. I also do not see how harmful this was, especially if it was this easy for someone to leak it to the press. I wonder just why they decided to do that.

Really Linus, punish the news papers? You grow more and more into the facist mindset everyday.

Am I the only one that thinks it IS the government's JOB to spy on me and every other person in the United States in order to protect us?

If you're not doing anything wrong why should you worry? If you're not talking about illegal stuff on the phone why care about Wiretaps? If you're not buying and selling drugs and weapons why care about seeing where your money goes?

The government isn't going to sell your information(Which they have anyway) and they don't care about your personal problems.

The people complaining about this are the same people that are going complain if we were ever attacked again "The government didn't do enough. We need another 9/11 comission"

Cedric wrote: jmac3 wrote: Am I the only one that thinks it IS the government's JOB to spy on me and every other person in the United States You seriously think that? I think you should go live in China. You'd love it there.

Well other than the fact I can still do whatever I want here China would probably be pretty cool.

Now Die.

Linus wrote: If youre not doing anything wrong, WHY CARE? .

What an awful way to think.

This country was based on freedom. Enough said.

jmac3 wrote: Well other than the fact I can still do whatever I want here China would probably be pretty cool.

My family used to live in China.  NOT pretty cool.

Hidden (somewhat) hidden cameras in the apartment, maids that were assigned to you by the government, tapped phones...

Most definitely NOT cool, even if you aren't a spy.

The argument that we shouldn't care unless we are doing something wrong is horrible.  Absolutely horrible.

Linus wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Linus wrote: If youre not doing anything wrong, WHY CARE? . What an awful way to think. This country was based on freedom. Enough said. Not a single freedom is being infringed or taken away from ANYONE by this, and you arent doing anything wrong. So tell me, why do you care?

Becuase freedom-loss is a slippery slope.

jmac3 wrote: Am I the only one that thinks it IS the government's JOB to spy on me and every other person in the [our country] in order to protect us?

Not at all.  Stalin agrees completely.

*narrowly dodges rule violation*

People who often touted the idea "If you have nothing to hide, don't worry" ended up almost killing off a generation of peoples.

Lets not forget that we have a country based off of freedom.

The idea of "Well I have nothing to hide" won't cut it.

Linus wrote: If they refuse to say who their source is, it's aiding and abetting in a crime. You as a cop know that is illegal.

Wa-wa-whaaaat?

It is aiding and abetting for a journalist to conceal its source?

That's a bit of an overstatement...  It may on occasion be obstruction of justice, but A&A is something else entirely.

EDIT - man, I pushed myself off the page again.  Hate when that happens.

Cedric wrote: jmac3 wrote: Cedric wrote: jmac3 wrote: Am I the only one that thinks it IS the government's JOB to spy on me and every other person in the United States You seriously think that? I think you should go live in China. You'd love it there. Well other than the fact I can still do whatever I want here China would probably be pretty cool. ...What?

Maybe I'll rephrase it.

If I could be in China and say I hate the government and have freedom of speech, and freedom to do basically anything, freedoms we all enjoy, then I would go there.

Linus wrote: How'd I know either Clark or Dune would question my A&A bid? It fits completly, all criteria filled. http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html - A&A Lets see... "The person usually wasnt present at the time the crime was committed, but has knowledge of it, either before or after the fact"

Uh-huh - yeah. 

And if you check the legal definition of "battery" in most jurisdictions, you will find that you break that law a dozen times a day, by the literal reading.  The law doesn't work like that. 

Go do some caselaw research to determine how courts have interpreted your local A&A statute before determining if it applies to newspapers in this context - oh, you didn't actually look at a statute, but some textbook definition?  That doesn't count either.

Your "legal" argument is inadequate.

Linus wrote: Espionage and Sedition acts of 1917 and 1918. Look them up and then tell me about prosecuting the media.

I just love when people bring up the various Sedition Acts.  At least you didn't bring up the 1798 Sedition Act, but the 1918 Sedition Act is bad enough.

That act is generally considered one the worst transgressions against the Constitution ever committed by Congress (the 1798 Act being maybe the worst).

The Sedition Act provides a wonderful argument AGAINST your position.

Cedric wrote: jmac3 wrote: Ok then, why? Because having the govnerment take your privacy gives you comfort.

Well, the day they start placing cameras in my home is the day I will care.

They are just checking money transactions. Not to mention they are probably checking like 2% of the population. Same with the wiretaps. They are not wiretapping everyone. They would wiretap people they think they should.

2% is a much larger number than it probably really is getting monitored.

Clark and Brihard are just smoking the competition. I can't even get a word in edgewise anymore. Too good with the A&A laws Clark, you have done your research.

There are plenty more things in this world that scare me more than terrorism. One of those is government intervention in everyday lives. That, plus the millions of domestic problems we have that aren't being delt with.

dune, yeah it's funny though because all i ever see are you people <poopy> about the programs. never have i seen you draw up in protest to change the laws that allow them to do it. or would that take away the fun stopping these little programs once and for all?

<relying on the filter to take of your language is not what we are hoping for here...>

First, battery:

In most states, this is defined by statute as some variety of "unwelcome touching."  An example is the Illinois statute:

Illinois Law wrote: 720 ILCS 5/12‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 12‑3)     Sec. 12‑3. Battery.     (a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.

Take note of (2) - "insulting or provoking nature".  That teasing slap on the back?  Insulting.  Roughing your way through the lunch line?  Provoking.  And so forth.  Almost any time you intentionally touch somebody an argument can be made for insulting or provoking to some degree.

Other statutes have, on their face, even lower thresholds (this was just the first one I picked, please check others for your own enjoyment).

My point with this example is simply that you cannot look merely at the statute.  You have to read the caselaw.  It isn't Linus' (or mine) interpretation of the statute that matters - it is the interpretation of the courts.  And until you have researched the interpretation of the courts, you don't know squat.

On to A&A: You found a specific statute - good.  You even found some annotations - better.  But you are still a LONG way from completing your research on this subject.

Don't you think that this issue has been addressed before, specifically as to newspaper sources?  I can promise you that you will find hundreds or thousands of cases involving publication of sensitive materials, the first amendment interactions, state-level privileges, and other relevant considerations.  You have not considered any of these.

There are thousands of lawyers who spend their entire careers doing nothing but work on THIS EXACT ISSUE - when/how/whether a newspaper can publish something, and when/how/whether they have to or can disclose their source.

Hundreds of thousands of man-hours have been spent by trained professionals on figuring this out - and you honestly think you got it licked in 20 minutes?  That's pretty arrogant.  And coming from me, that's saying something.

As to the substance - could an A&A charge be brought against the papers here?  Honestly, I don't know.  Because I haven't done the research.  My gut tells me no, on First Amendment grounds, and no again because it won't meet the prima facie requirements.  I very strongly doubt that such a charge would ever stick.

High Voltage wrote: did some people miss the part that they are getting subpoenas legally?

I certainly noticed that.  I also noted that Alan Greenspan apparently blessed the program and determined that he thought there were sufficient controls in place, and I have a LOT of respect for Alan Greenspan.

This is why, in a different thread, I posted that I am yet undecided on the substance of this issue.  I will have to learn more before forming an opinion on the surveillance itself.

Linus wrote: Agreed, and through out history, cases have gone both ways, as they alays do depending on the judge that is presiding over the case.

ALL that needs to take place for this to be an A&A lawsuit is a willing lawyer and a judge willing to listen to it, because from what I know, it fills the criteria.

No.  Wrong.

Trial judges are bound by law.  They can't just decide for themselves which way to rule.  If there is established law that newspapers are not liable as accessories, for whatever reason, then that criminal case (not lawsuit, btw) will get dismissed EVERY TIME.  There is no discretion involved unless the prosecutor can convince the judge that this case is different, for whatever reason.

If a rogue judge goes against established law he is overturned on appeal.  Generally speaking, trial judges have virtually no discretion in these matters and have to follow the law as interpreted by the appellate courts.

Only if there is not established law on this subject (which I seriously doubt) can a trial judge rule "on his own", and even then he is limited by parameters established in other First Amendment contexts, in other newspaper cases, in other A&A cases, and so forth and so on.

Linus wrote: Clark, I know what precedent is, and in my searches, I havent found a single case setting precedent ...

Caselaw is not generally available online.  There are three sources for complete caselaw research.  Your local law library, WestLaw, and Lexis.  I am pretty sure you don't have access to WestLaw or Lexis, and I am also pretty sure that you haven't spent the morning at the local law library.

Therefore, you have not been looking in the right places.  Google will not help you here.  Check the law library, and I guarantee that you will find hundreds of relevant cases.

Linus wrote: I was using BigChalk, which is a lisenced search engine, 10000000x better than google.

Bigchalk won't help you here either.  You didn't find any cases because Bigchalk can't access them.

But, if you have Lexis and/or Westlaw, why dont you enlighten me?

Because that is way more work than I am willing to undertake in support of this silliness. 

And, more importantly, it isn't the point.  I honestly don't particularly care whether newspapers could be prosecuted for A&A.  My point here is that you continue to push forward, with great confidence and certainty, into areas where you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding.  Instead of asking the question, you simply declare the answer, ignorance and/or contrary evidence be damned.

So even if it turned out that you COULD prosecute newspapers for A&A in this context, you would still be wrong, because you would have based your conclusion on guesswork and speculation instead of knowledge.

You are a smart fellow, Linus, but seriously - you have GOT to have an open mind.  The conclusion is supposed to FOLLOW the evidence - not PRECEDE it.  And we are all ignorant in different things; it is ok to say that you don't know something.

You are WAY out of your depth here, Linus.  You could learn a lot if you would just ask and listen instead of trying so hard to find evidence to support a conclusion you reached a long time ago.

Linus wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Anyone else think its funny that Linus is attempting to argue law with Rambino? I'm argueing with Clark.. I havnt seen Rambino post once in this thread. .

Aaaaaaaahahahahahahaha.

I have BigChalk as well. Its for use in middle/highschools.

It has newspaper articles and books. Not law cases.

Linus wrote: Clark Kent wrote: So even if it turned out that you COULD prosecute newspapers for A&A in this context, you would still be wrong, because you would have based your conclusion on guesswork and speculation instead of knowledge. Confusing... I'd be right, yet I'd be wrong? It's not guesswork and speculation, its going off the literal definition of the law, which is what laws are... literal. I agree the whole A&A call is a stretch, but it is a real possibility.

And so it came to pass.

While I was too lazy to research this subject myself, I did something better - asked somebody who already knows about this stuff.  Here is what he said (first paragraph is most relevant):

Experienced Media Lawyer wrote: Technically the reporter or newspaper could be guilty of aiding and abetting.  Traditionally, this was never prosecuted.  Supposedly in some of the recent cases, there are at least some officials within the Bush administration who are advocating pursuing reporters who might be involved.  Such a prosecution would be sure to raise issues of constitutional magnitude.   Many states have reporter shield laws, either statutory or court-made.  Most protect reporters against disclosure of their confidential sources unless the information is relevant to some legal action and is unavailable elsewhere.  Standards very.   The US Supreme Court, in the recent round of cases involving the Scooter Libby leaks, made clear that there is no reporter's privilege under federal law.  In federal court, therefore, a reporter must answer to a subpoena that seeks such information, subject however to defenses such as stating that the discovery would be unduly burdensome (i.e., would make future reporting very difficult, or ruin relations with sources) and information is available elsewhere, not germain, etc., etc.  Then it would be up to the judge in each case to make a ruling, and I think results would very widely.

So, in his opinion, a newspaper might technically be charged with A&A under these circumstances, although it historically has not been done.  I was surprised to learn that there have not been prior rulings that newspaper publication does not meet the A&A standards, but I'll take my friend's word for it. 

Linus was right; I was wrong.

BUT - giant "but" - as I mentioned earlier, even as Linus is right, he is still wrong, because his opinion was based not on proper research or knowledge or understanding, but on guesswork.

Linus, the point I have been trying to beat down over the last couple of pages is that you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how the legal system and laws work.  More importantly, you have a seriously flawed understanding of your understanding.

Just because your guesswork happened to land on the mark doesn't make you truly right - it just makes you lucky.  A literal reading of the statute is NOT the law.  It just isn't.  You may think that it SHOULD be so, but that does not make it so.  The law is a complex interaction between the legislatures and the courts - looking only at the legislative piece and ignoring the judicial piece is wrong and will give you the wrong answer.  Like the battery statutes - a literal reading of the battery statutes (and other criminal statutes) might lead you to think that a variety of normal behaviors were criminal, when the courts have made it quite clear that they are not.

You have to look at the whole picture, and the statute is not even half the picture.  Simply pointing to the statute and saying "see?!" is not persuasive.

But mostly I plead again with you to look at the evidence first, BEFORE reaching your conclusion, and modifying your position as evidence arises.  To quote the great En Vogue:  Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

/lecture