Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to fire someone for sticking to the letter of the constitution?
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
U.S. Government spying on entire U.S., to nobody's surprise
- Thread starter frito bandito
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to fire someone for sticking to the letter of the constitution?
Certain yahoo emails I've sent today have been censored and not censored because of what's in the subject line. Censored because of what is contained inside the email.
I sent a few libertarian links to myself. ( Lew Rockwell ) Every one of them bounced back mailer daemon. So I changed the subject line and guess what? It kicked back for the same reason. I tried it nearly 10 times and every mail was kicked back on yahoo. None of them had anything other than "had a great time on vacation" etc on the subject line.
My Wife has noticed emails of hers shaded as though she had opened and read them but she hasn't opened them.
I sent a few libertarian links to myself. ( Lew Rockwell ) Every one of them bounced back mailer daemon. So I changed the subject line and guess what? It kicked back for the same reason. I tried it nearly 10 times and every mail was kicked back on yahoo. None of them had anything other than "had a great time on vacation" etc on the subject line.
My Wife has noticed emails of hers shaded as though she had opened and read them but she hasn't opened them.
the " letter of the law"? really?
SCOTUS sits and decides what "the letter of the law" actually means don't they? and when was the last time they all agreed with each other on anything? from what i have seen even judges can't agree on the letter of the law, or even how many letters are in the alphabet.
all i am saying is that "the letter of the law" is just one more thing that is was and always will be subject to bias on an individual and collective level
i am not trying to bag on the Judge, or piss anyone off, but i don't believe that he (or anyone ever has) walked on water
not to get off the subject, but my original question has still not been answered. did mr. bush sign a law that said big brother was not allowed to open our mail or not? and if he did how the hell did that work if the patriot act was in place?
does it help to know that i do realize that getting us into the mess we are in is the only bipartisan thing ALL the fuckheads in washington and all the pundits have managed to work together on? i'm not on a team because i don't like the games that any of them play and i have learned that there are no absolutes in this life
It works because if you're a terrorist you aren't a citizen with rights, at best you're an enemy combatant I believe is the buzz word. This lets them throw you in a hole and forget about you if they want.
The main thing the patriot act did was remove the process by which agencies had to get court approval to violate someone's rights. Nothing they couldn't already do was added they just sped up things so they could just decide to listen in or in this case look at mail whenever they wanted without a judge's approval. In essence it removed a critical check and balance and people feared it would be abused to do more then just watch and catch terrorists so things like this other law were to say, "If you aren't doing anything wrong you got nothing to worry about".
It wasn't really a threat, just a simple case of having some insurance. GG was only relaying what ES has told him. I would imagine he has rigged up his computer so that he has to enter a password every so often within a fixed period, and if not, the info that he hasn't released will be released automaticcally.
Re Russia handing him over, Putin would have to break their own laws(I'm not that would be a leap for him LOL) because Russia does not extradite. Maybe He'll swap him for Victor Bout
I;m kinda hoping Vlad shoves ES onto a submarine and takes him to Cuba. Not likely mind you but it's a thought.
To risky, too many other things could cause an unintended release of info which could cripple ongoing negotiations. Once a secret is out it's no longer a bargaining chip.
Ohh the pat act does sooo much more than speed up the process...
This current spying morass is more a fisa/ndaa issue than a pat act issue.
The pat act effected me personally today(on a side note)trying to transfer funds from one account to another. Same bank and both my accounts but ohhh no! No online transfers for dag.
People should actually read the whole thing(and all the pertinant cross referencing)it took quite some time to do and would be impossible without the internet.
What the pat act does most insidiously is tiny changes to existing law.
Shifting burdens by changing "and" to "or" and v.v. adding or removing small protective clauses.
This current spying morass is more a fisa/ndaa issue than a pat act issue.
The pat act effected me personally today(on a side note)trying to transfer funds from one account to another. Same bank and both my accounts but ohhh no! No online transfers for dag.
People should actually read the whole thing(and all the pertinant cross referencing)it took quite some time to do and would be impossible without the internet.
What the pat act does most insidiously is tiny changes to existing law.
Shifting burdens by changing "and" to "or" and v.v. adding or removing small protective clauses.
Yeah who would have ever thought Paula Deen admitting she once used the N - word would do the trick?
Unless of course it's the tyranny featured in the next episode of "Keeping Up With the Kardasians"
Yeah, I guess repealing the Patriot Act wouldn't really do any good when we have SCOTUS interpreting the "laws" in a way that is most convenient to the executive branch, instead of the citizenry. When you write and interpret the laws any way that you want, what good are laws in the first place? Fuck this shit man, it makes me SO ANGRY!!!
Not to mention we're well beyond March 2013, unless they implanted the chips with nobody knowing.
i can agree with that !!!!!!
and it has been going on for a while, and by while i mean 50 years or so.
how anybody can miss the fact that both parties suck is beyond me.
We ALL know that both parties suck. That isn't a mystery. The mystery is why don't people support a third party that is so desperately needed? It's common sense, yet it seems to escape the masses.
http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/...-the-u-s-obama-admin-files-espionage-charges/
^ strong reader discretion advisory warning as this is a "developing story".
yeah this is not true, all the links lead to stories about snowden. the only true part is that they gave evidence to congress and explained that the scope was even wider then previously imagined.
FISA court renews NSA surveillance program
http://rt.com/usa/fisa-court-renew-authority-340
The Obama administration has renewed the authority for the National Security Agency to regularly collect the phone records of millions of Americas as allowed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The United States government has reportedly asked the FISA court every 90 days since 2006 to renew an order that compels the nation’s telecommunication providers to hand over telephony metadata pertaining to millions of US citizens. The program has been conducted in near total secrecy, however, until NSA leaker Edward Snowden released top-secret documentation to the Guardian newspaper which caused an international backlash upon being published last month.
In that Guardian article, the paper showed that the NSA could collect metadata for 90 days up until July 19, at which point that power would expire if a reauthorization was not resubmitted. Just moments before the 5 p.m. deadline on Friday, though, the Officer of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed that the FISA court has reaffirmed that authority.
“On June 6, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence declassified certain information about this telephony metadata collection program in order to provide the public with a more thorough and balanced understanding of the program,” the statement reads in part. “Consistent with his prior declassification decision and in light of the significant and continuing public interest in the telephony metadata collection program, the DNI has decided to declassify and disclose publicly that the Government filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and that the Court renewed that authority.”
898 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Renews Authority to Collect Telephony Metadata
"The Administration is undertaking a careful and thorough review of whether and to what extent additional information or documents pertaining to this program may be declassified, consistent with the protection of national security,” it concludes.
The news comes only one day after Guardian journalist Spencer Ackerman reported that neither the White House, Justice Department, NSA, DNI or FISA Court would respond to whether or not the authority would be sought again in the wake of a scandal that’s spawned an international manhunt for Snowden, who has since been indicted in the US on counts of espionage.
A week earlier, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) told the New York Times, “I have a feeling that the administration is getting concerned about the bulk phone records collection, and that they are thinking about whether to move administratively to stop it.”
Pres. Obama and his administration’s top intelligence officials have largely endorsed the surveillance program and credit it with assisting in the thwarting of attempted terror plots both on US soil and abroad.
http://rt.com/usa/fisa-court-renew-authority-340
The Obama administration has renewed the authority for the National Security Agency to regularly collect the phone records of millions of Americas as allowed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The United States government has reportedly asked the FISA court every 90 days since 2006 to renew an order that compels the nation’s telecommunication providers to hand over telephony metadata pertaining to millions of US citizens. The program has been conducted in near total secrecy, however, until NSA leaker Edward Snowden released top-secret documentation to the Guardian newspaper which caused an international backlash upon being published last month.
In that Guardian article, the paper showed that the NSA could collect metadata for 90 days up until July 19, at which point that power would expire if a reauthorization was not resubmitted. Just moments before the 5 p.m. deadline on Friday, though, the Officer of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed that the FISA court has reaffirmed that authority.
“On June 6, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence declassified certain information about this telephony metadata collection program in order to provide the public with a more thorough and balanced understanding of the program,” the statement reads in part. “Consistent with his prior declassification decision and in light of the significant and continuing public interest in the telephony metadata collection program, the DNI has decided to declassify and disclose publicly that the Government filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and that the Court renewed that authority.”
898 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Renews Authority to Collect Telephony Metadata
"The Administration is undertaking a careful and thorough review of whether and to what extent additional information or documents pertaining to this program may be declassified, consistent with the protection of national security,” it concludes.
The news comes only one day after Guardian journalist Spencer Ackerman reported that neither the White House, Justice Department, NSA, DNI or FISA Court would respond to whether or not the authority would be sought again in the wake of a scandal that’s spawned an international manhunt for Snowden, who has since been indicted in the US on counts of espionage.
A week earlier, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) told the New York Times, “I have a feeling that the administration is getting concerned about the bulk phone records collection, and that they are thinking about whether to move administratively to stop it.”
Pres. Obama and his administration’s top intelligence officials have largely endorsed the surveillance program and credit it with assisting in the thwarting of attempted terror plots both on US soil and abroad.
Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to fire someone for sticking to the letter of the constitution?
No. He was fired by his employer as a commentator and show host. Told it like it was and wouldn't compromise his beliefs to satisfy his corporate bosses. Resigned as a NJ Superior court Judge in 1995 to pursue his writing and television career..
I don't think this clip can be over-posted:
[YOUTUBEIF]juFSNpjbVN4[/YOUTUBEIF]
[YOUTUBEIF]juFSNpjbVN4[/YOUTUBEIF]
What's the deal with these fake stories? I knew that the HAARP mind control story sounded fishy from the start, but this one on the NSA and CIA defectors was a little more believable. Are they simply websites pandering for internet traffic? Or could it be a more insidious plot by the government to discredit and brand theorists as tin-foil hat wearing crazies?
NYTimes-
In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
WASHINGTON — In a major decision about press freedoms, a divided federal appeals court on Friday ruled that James Risen, an author and a reporter for The New York Times, must testify in the criminal trial of a former Central Intelligence Agency official charged with providing him with classified information.
In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. — the court whose decisions cover the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — ruled that the First Amendment provides no protection to reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them.
“Clearly, Risen’s direct, firsthand account of the criminal conduct indicted by the grand jury cannot be obtained by alternative means, as Risen is without dispute the only witness who can offer this critical testimony,” wrote Chief Judge William Byrd Traxler Jr., who was joined by Judge Albert Diaz.
Mr. Risen has vowed to appeal any loss at the appeals court to the Supreme Court, and to go to prison rather than testify about his sources. On Friday, he referred a request to comment to his lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, who wrote in an e-mail: “We are disappointed by and disagree with the court’s decision. We are currently evaluating our next steps.”
Judge Roger Gregory, the third member of the panel, filed a vigorous dissent, portraying his colleagues’ decision as “sad” and a serious threat to investigative journalism.
“Under the majority’s articulation of the reporter’s privilege, or lack thereof, absent a showing of bad faith by the government, a reporter can always be compelled against her will to reveal her confidential sources in a criminal trial,” he wrote. “The majority exalts the interests of the government while unduly trampling those of the press, and in doing so, severely impinges on the press and the free flow of information in our society.”
The Justice Department offered no immediate comment. The ruling raises an awkwardly timed question for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has portrayed himself as trying to rebalance the department’s leak investigations in response to the furor over its aggressive investigative tactics, like subpoenaing Associated Press reporters’ phone records and portraying a Fox News reporter as a criminal conspirator in order to obtain a warrant for his e-mails.
Last week, Mr. Holder announced new guidelines for leak investigations that significantly tightened the circumstances in which reporters’ records could be obtained. He also reiterated the Obama administration’s proposal, made in response to the controversy, to revive legislation to create a federal media shield law that in some cases would allow judges to quash subpoenas for reporters’ testimony, as many states have.
“It’s very disappointing that as we are making such good progress with the attorney general’s office and with Congress, in getting them to recognize the importance of a reporter’s privilege, the Fourth Circuit has taken such a big step backwards,” said Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Mr. Risen is a national security reporter for The Times, but the case revolves around material he published in his 2006 book, “State of War,” not in the newspaper. A chapter in the book recounted efforts by the C.I.A. in the Clinton administration to trick Iranian scientists by having a Russian defector give them blueprints for a nuclear triggering device that had been altered with an error. The chapter portrays the operation as reckless and botched in a way that could have helped the Iranians gain accurate information.
In December 2010, a former C.I.A. officer, Jeffrey Sterling, was accused of being Mr. Risen’s source and indicted on Espionage Act charges. His is one of seven leak-related cases brought so far by the Obama administration, more than twice as many as under all previous presidents combined.
The appeals court’s move, which came more than a year after it heard oral arguments in the case, reversed a ruling by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., who had sharply limited what prosecutors could ask Mr. Risen about his sources. She had written that he was protected by a limited “reporter’s privilege” under the First Amendment.
“A criminal trial subpoena is not a free pass for the government to rifle through a reporter’s notebook,” she wrote.
Her ruling was hailed by press freedom advocates as the first time that a judge had quashed a subpoena requiring a journalist to testify about sources in a national security case. But the Obama administration argued that such a reporter’s privilege did not exist under First Amendment law, and appealed.
A coalition of more than two dozen media organizations, including The Times and Fox News, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case arguing that a qualified reporter’s privilege — allowing judges to protect reporters from testifying under some circumstances — was crucial for the “dissemination of news and information to the public.”
On Friday, Judges Traxler and Diaz agreed with the Obama administration that no such protections for reporters exist in federal law.
“There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source,” Judge Traxler wrote.
The majority based its ruling on a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Branzburg v. Hayes, which rejected an effort by a reporter to avoid testifying before a grand jury. Mr. Risen’s lawyers had argued that the 5-4 ruling was ambiguous and left room open for Judge Brinkema to shield him from testifying in the criminal trial. The appeals court did not agree.
Like the reporter in the 1972 case, Mr. Risen “can provide the only firsthand account of the commission of a most serious crime indicted by the grand jury — the illegal disclosure of classified, national security information by one who was entrusted by our government to protect national security, but who is charged with having endangered it instead,” Judge Traxler wrote. “The subpoena for Risen’s testimony was not issued in bad faith or for the purposes of harassment.”
The court also rejected Mr. Risen’s arguments that it should recognize a common-law reporter’s privilege for criminal cases, as exists in some civil litigation contexts. But even if there were one, the judges said, they would still reverse the district court’s ruling because the government had a “compelling interest” in his testimony; prosecutors have said there is no other way to gain the information they said they needed to convict Mr. Sterling. Their reasoning suggested that even if there were a federal media shield law, Mr. Risen still might be forced to testify.
“Risen is the only eyewitness to the crime,” Judge Traxler wrote. “He is inextricably involved in it. Without him, the alleged crime would not have occurred, since he was the recipient of illegally disclosed, classified information.”
In his dissent, Judge Gregory said that he would recognize a qualified reporter’s privilege in criminal cases, including cases related to national security, depending on the newsworthiness of the information and the potential harm its dissemination could cause. He also argued that prosecutors had enough other evidence to make their case without Mr. Risen’s testimony.
“Whatever the limits of who may claim reporter’s privilege, it is clear that Risen – a full-time reporter for a national news publication, The New York Times – falls into the category of people who should be eligible to invoke the privilege,” he wrote.
The court also reversed Judge Brinkema’s decision to exclude two other witnesses from the trial.
Nearly two dozen journalists have been jailed — some for only a few hours, some for months — in the United States for refusing to testify or disclose sources or other types of reporting information over the past three decades, according to a list maintained by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. But it has been nearly seven years since the last time that happened.
In 2006, Josh Wolf, a freelance video blogger, was jailed on a contempt order for refusing to turn over a video that prosecutors believed showed protesters damaging a police car. Around the same time, a judge threatened to send two reporters for The San Francisco Chronicle to prison for refusing to identify who had leaked them transcripts of grand-jury testimony by prominent athletes in the Balco steroids investigation, but that case was made moot when their source came forward.
In 2005, a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was jailed for 85 days for refusing to testify about sources in the investigation into who leaked the identity of a C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson. She was released after her source, I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, released her from the confidentiality agreement and she testified before a grand jury.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/u...er-to-testify.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig
In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
WASHINGTON — In a major decision about press freedoms, a divided federal appeals court on Friday ruled that James Risen, an author and a reporter for The New York Times, must testify in the criminal trial of a former Central Intelligence Agency official charged with providing him with classified information.
In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. — the court whose decisions cover the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — ruled that the First Amendment provides no protection to reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them.
“Clearly, Risen’s direct, firsthand account of the criminal conduct indicted by the grand jury cannot be obtained by alternative means, as Risen is without dispute the only witness who can offer this critical testimony,” wrote Chief Judge William Byrd Traxler Jr., who was joined by Judge Albert Diaz.
Mr. Risen has vowed to appeal any loss at the appeals court to the Supreme Court, and to go to prison rather than testify about his sources. On Friday, he referred a request to comment to his lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, who wrote in an e-mail: “We are disappointed by and disagree with the court’s decision. We are currently evaluating our next steps.”
Judge Roger Gregory, the third member of the panel, filed a vigorous dissent, portraying his colleagues’ decision as “sad” and a serious threat to investigative journalism.
“Under the majority’s articulation of the reporter’s privilege, or lack thereof, absent a showing of bad faith by the government, a reporter can always be compelled against her will to reveal her confidential sources in a criminal trial,” he wrote. “The majority exalts the interests of the government while unduly trampling those of the press, and in doing so, severely impinges on the press and the free flow of information in our society.”
The Justice Department offered no immediate comment. The ruling raises an awkwardly timed question for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has portrayed himself as trying to rebalance the department’s leak investigations in response to the furor over its aggressive investigative tactics, like subpoenaing Associated Press reporters’ phone records and portraying a Fox News reporter as a criminal conspirator in order to obtain a warrant for his e-mails.
Last week, Mr. Holder announced new guidelines for leak investigations that significantly tightened the circumstances in which reporters’ records could be obtained. He also reiterated the Obama administration’s proposal, made in response to the controversy, to revive legislation to create a federal media shield law that in some cases would allow judges to quash subpoenas for reporters’ testimony, as many states have.
“It’s very disappointing that as we are making such good progress with the attorney general’s office and with Congress, in getting them to recognize the importance of a reporter’s privilege, the Fourth Circuit has taken such a big step backwards,” said Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Mr. Risen is a national security reporter for The Times, but the case revolves around material he published in his 2006 book, “State of War,” not in the newspaper. A chapter in the book recounted efforts by the C.I.A. in the Clinton administration to trick Iranian scientists by having a Russian defector give them blueprints for a nuclear triggering device that had been altered with an error. The chapter portrays the operation as reckless and botched in a way that could have helped the Iranians gain accurate information.
In December 2010, a former C.I.A. officer, Jeffrey Sterling, was accused of being Mr. Risen’s source and indicted on Espionage Act charges. His is one of seven leak-related cases brought so far by the Obama administration, more than twice as many as under all previous presidents combined.
The appeals court’s move, which came more than a year after it heard oral arguments in the case, reversed a ruling by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., who had sharply limited what prosecutors could ask Mr. Risen about his sources. She had written that he was protected by a limited “reporter’s privilege” under the First Amendment.
“A criminal trial subpoena is not a free pass for the government to rifle through a reporter’s notebook,” she wrote.
Her ruling was hailed by press freedom advocates as the first time that a judge had quashed a subpoena requiring a journalist to testify about sources in a national security case. But the Obama administration argued that such a reporter’s privilege did not exist under First Amendment law, and appealed.
A coalition of more than two dozen media organizations, including The Times and Fox News, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case arguing that a qualified reporter’s privilege — allowing judges to protect reporters from testifying under some circumstances — was crucial for the “dissemination of news and information to the public.”
On Friday, Judges Traxler and Diaz agreed with the Obama administration that no such protections for reporters exist in federal law.
“There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source,” Judge Traxler wrote.
The majority based its ruling on a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Branzburg v. Hayes, which rejected an effort by a reporter to avoid testifying before a grand jury. Mr. Risen’s lawyers had argued that the 5-4 ruling was ambiguous and left room open for Judge Brinkema to shield him from testifying in the criminal trial. The appeals court did not agree.
Like the reporter in the 1972 case, Mr. Risen “can provide the only firsthand account of the commission of a most serious crime indicted by the grand jury — the illegal disclosure of classified, national security information by one who was entrusted by our government to protect national security, but who is charged with having endangered it instead,” Judge Traxler wrote. “The subpoena for Risen’s testimony was not issued in bad faith or for the purposes of harassment.”
The court also rejected Mr. Risen’s arguments that it should recognize a common-law reporter’s privilege for criminal cases, as exists in some civil litigation contexts. But even if there were one, the judges said, they would still reverse the district court’s ruling because the government had a “compelling interest” in his testimony; prosecutors have said there is no other way to gain the information they said they needed to convict Mr. Sterling. Their reasoning suggested that even if there were a federal media shield law, Mr. Risen still might be forced to testify.
“Risen is the only eyewitness to the crime,” Judge Traxler wrote. “He is inextricably involved in it. Without him, the alleged crime would not have occurred, since he was the recipient of illegally disclosed, classified information.”
In his dissent, Judge Gregory said that he would recognize a qualified reporter’s privilege in criminal cases, including cases related to national security, depending on the newsworthiness of the information and the potential harm its dissemination could cause. He also argued that prosecutors had enough other evidence to make their case without Mr. Risen’s testimony.
“Whatever the limits of who may claim reporter’s privilege, it is clear that Risen – a full-time reporter for a national news publication, The New York Times – falls into the category of people who should be eligible to invoke the privilege,” he wrote.
The court also reversed Judge Brinkema’s decision to exclude two other witnesses from the trial.
Nearly two dozen journalists have been jailed — some for only a few hours, some for months — in the United States for refusing to testify or disclose sources or other types of reporting information over the past three decades, according to a list maintained by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. But it has been nearly seven years since the last time that happened.
In 2006, Josh Wolf, a freelance video blogger, was jailed on a contempt order for refusing to turn over a video that prosecutors believed showed protesters damaging a police car. Around the same time, a judge threatened to send two reporters for The San Francisco Chronicle to prison for refusing to identify who had leaked them transcripts of grand-jury testimony by prominent athletes in the Balco steroids investigation, but that case was made moot when their source came forward.
In 2005, a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was jailed for 85 days for refusing to testify about sources in the investigation into who leaked the identity of a C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson. She was released after her source, I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, released her from the confidentiality agreement and she testified before a grand jury.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/u...er-to-testify.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig
Another notch in Holders belt. And another ones gone, and another ones gone, another on bites the dust!!
the elite dark cabal will continue to punish patriots as traitors for as long as they can get away with it.
as far as the disinfo campaign, it's been their agenda for a very long time.
the only power in america powerful enogh to take on the cabal's choke hold on msm, politicians, judges, financial system et al is the us military. contrary to what msm would have the public believe the overwhelming number of past and present military members are true patriots and there is a massive organized movement by the loosely aligned "white knights" to bring america and the world back to "governed by the people".
the deep woo part of this story involves aliens; beneficial and malevolent.
as far as the disinfo campaign, it's been their agenda for a very long time.
the only power in america powerful enogh to take on the cabal's choke hold on msm, politicians, judges, financial system et al is the us military. contrary to what msm would have the public believe the overwhelming number of past and present military members are true patriots and there is a massive organized movement by the loosely aligned "white knights" to bring america and the world back to "governed by the people".
the deep woo part of this story involves aliens; beneficial and malevolent.
This thread is spinning off from topic, lets keep it to Edward Snowden and the NSA scandal(?) shall we.
Will he release more information?,
What could his next revelation be?,
How do you think he will be able to leave Moscow?,
Will he be able to leave Moscow?,
Whats his next move folks?,
Very quiet in the media about this, really thought this wouldnt be one of those "Two week storys" that they just put on the shelf.
Whats the fucking NEWS?
Will he release more information?,
What could his next revelation be?,
How do you think he will be able to leave Moscow?,
Will he be able to leave Moscow?,
Whats his next move folks?,
Very quiet in the media about this, really thought this wouldnt be one of those "Two week storys" that they just put on the shelf.
Whats the fucking NEWS?
- Status
