Just one more example of the Bush admins wanting to hide their runnong of our government. This is not an attempt to hide official secrets it’s an attempt to quash any information not officially approved for release.
Is this a good idea?
What are the first amendmentment ramifications?
Of course it’s not a good idea. They want to hide everything behind a wall of secrecy.
Well, your link doesn’t seem to work and the quote doesn’t give a full idea of what specific laws are being used in this fashion. It would help if the OP or someone else could provide one or two examples of persons currently being prosecuted, or even being threatened with prosecution, for supposed violations of a US “official secrets act”, as this is the first I’ve heard of it.
I just want everyone to know that I get no satisfaction from the daily proofs that my fears were, if anything, not profound * enough. *
And I can only pray that they will continue to behave so badly that the the only votes remaining for his regime by next year will be the hardcore true believers, the rest of the country having fled in horror.
The link is working now. The only case the author cites is one in which an individual government employee chose to leak to a journalist confidential (but not classified) innuendo about a private citizen from a DEA file in order to slur him.
Is it your contention, Reeder, that IRS employees ought to be able to send your tax returns to a newspaper without fear of prosecution? That an individual FBI employee who comes across your file can send give it to a journalist for publication without criminal consequence?
I swear to Cecil, I’m gonna take Bricker’s approach and make you promise to read citations, including your own, and to admit when you are in error, before responding to your threads.
Re-read the article. It was handled purely as a theft case. Just because John Dean says it was a leak case doesn’t mean it was.
Do you think he should not have been prosecuted? Why? Personally, I believe that government employees who release personal information on people except pursuant to statute and/or after due process ought to go to jail for a very, very long time and that if legislation doesn’t exist to provide specifically for that than it ought to. Don’t you?
Thing worth remembering folks is you’ve got to get a criminal conviction under this kind of legislation – least you have here. The answer, then, is to make sure the public is informed and sensible, that way the jury acquits the defendant regardless of the evidence if they feel the public interest is better served by this individual releasing the information. Nothing the judge can do.
It also means that the next time ‘they’re’ contemplating a charge, they have to think twice about bringing the prosecution (for fear of another humiliation). We call these ‘perverse’ verdicts (against all the evidence).
Well, certainly the author claims that, but it ain’t so based solely on the facts cited in the article.
Look, I think most of us can agree that leaking evidence of misdeeds in a government agency, and handing goverment information to the press with apparent intent to libel an individual, are two very different things, and that government attempts to suppress the former are more of a threat to an open society than government attempts to suppress the latter.
Be sure to let us know when you’ve got something a little more solid.
Does that not say they can classify a previously unclassified document merely because someone asked for it?
[/quote]
No, it does not. It says that if information was properly classifiable under the act but was not (in error, for example), then the only way to get it classified is not through the normal, routine means but only with the certification of a senior official of the relevant agency. In other words, if something was not classified in error and is requested by FOIA or the Privacy act, a low or mid-level employee may not choose to classify the document, even if he could classify it in the absence of the request.
Man, did I ever screw that up. I wish I had my moderator superpowers for a sec. Please accept my apologies, ignore that post and accept this repost.
No, it does not. It says that if information was properly classifiable under the act but was not (in error, for example), then the only way to get it classified is not through the normal, routine means but only with the certification of a senior official of the relevant agency. In other words, if something was not classified in error and is requested by FOIA or the Privacy act, a low or mid-level employee may not choose to classify the document, even if he could classify it in the absence of the request.
Just for the record the article actually talks of a DEA employee who leaked the fact that the DEA was keeping a file on the “slurred” individual. The existence of that file, according to the paper that published the leak, contradicted DEA statements. It’s also noted that the leaker was not paid. It could be argued that he didn’t release the info in order to slur Lord Ashcroft(millionaire Brit, no relation) but rather to call his bosses on a lie. Do you have some reason to believe that this research worker has some axe to grind with Lord Ashcroft?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by manhattan *
Re-read the article. It was handled purely as a theft case. Just because John Dean says it was a leak case doesn’t mean it was.
[QUOTE]
Umm yeah theft of information, AKA a leak. Your differentiation here is clearly meaningless.
It’s this willingless to prosecute as such that John Dean is pointing out. The Bush admin is not responsible for the court’s interpretation of information as government property, but you can clearly see the contrast in administrations’ approaches by Clinton’s pardon of Morison.
The part of Dean’s contention’s that I think are most vital are:"The information was not classified. It did not compromise any investigator, investigation, or investigative method. Clearly, the warning is this: Keep your mouth shut at all costs, no matter how intensely a leak might be in the public interest, and no matter how integral leaking might be to the way a free press operates. "
IF indeed it did not jeopardize an ongoing investigation, then I would say the leak did indeed serve the public interest and I would be disturbed by the DEA’s initial denial of that information.
Not necessarily, that’s what whistle blowers do. Going through the “proper channels” can simply cost you job and reputation. Go directly to the press (as opposed to those with an interest in keeping your mouth shut) and justice might be better served.
Now I may agree with you that some legislation might be in order to prevent the sort of thing I think you’re trying to address. But that would go hand in hand,IMO, with not using such a broad interpretation of information as property that the current admin is using to prosecute.
Something about this thread seems to be wreaking coding havoc. I’ll try again
Umm yeah theft of information, AKA a leak. Your differentiation here is clearly meaningless.
It’s this willingless to prosecute as such that John Dean is pointing out. The Bush admin is not responsible for the court’s interpretation of information as government property, but you can clearly see the contrast in administrations’ approaches by Clinton’s pardon of Morison.
The part of Dean’s contention’s that I think are most vital are:"The information was not classified. It did not compromise any investigator, investigation, or investigative method. Clearly, the warning is this: Keep your mouth shut at all costs, no matter how intensely a leak might be in the public interest, and no matter how integral leaking might be to the way a free press operates. "
IF indeed it did not jeopardize an ongoing investigation, then I would say the leak did indeed serve the public interest and I would be disturbed by the DEA’s initial denial of that information.
Not necessarily, that’s what whistle blowers do. Going through the “proper channels” can simply cost you job and reputation. Go directly to the press (as opposed to those with an interest in keeping your mouth shut) and justice might be better served.
Now I may agree with you that some legislation might be in order to prevent the sort of thing I think you’re trying to address. But that would go hand in hand,IMO, with not using such a broad interpretation of information as property that the current admin is using to prosecute.
The DEA did not lie, according to Dean’s article. They (well, State, but still) reported (and again, I’m working simply with the cited source here) that “it had no conclusive proof connecting Ashcroft to money laundering, or anything else.” Which was true.
What the guy leaked was that the DEA had a file on the guy, and that the kind of file it was was generally just kept on guys about whom the agency had “serious suspicions.”
Cecil on a centrifuge! Imagine that nasty rumors started to circulate about you – you’re into drug dealing and money laundering. The DEA says, “we have no conclusive information that he’s involved in anything like that,” a true statement. If some guy leaked to the papers that the DEA had you in a file for people who are suspicious, you’d go nuts! Even though that is also a true statement. You’d demand the guy go to jail. He should go to jail. His motivation is irrelevant.
This isn’t the Pentagon Papers, this is a guy who leaked private freaking information about a private freaking citizen which information was used to slur the citizen despite the absence of proof. This is exactly what scares people about the government’s information gathering and it should.
If there wasn’t a specific law to get this guy, there should be. And if it took a technicality to jail him, I’m all for it.
And errata information has value. I’m in the information business. Steal my info and I’ll expect the government to prosecute you for it.
Morison should have been put to death for releasing those photos.
Well sorry to ruin your ESP record, but I wouldn’t want him to go to jail. Actually it would be nice to know if the DEA is watching me or not. I wonder if he already knew or not.
It probably was inappropriate action and he should be disiplined/fired. Your opinion notwithstanding, motivation is usually a factor in deciding punishment. I’m sure Lord Ashcroft can ruin his career and sue him to oblivion if he wants his revenge.