1 vote

Obama tries for total internet censorship via precedence from the Manning case

What Fein said in those closing arguments was absolutely chilling.
“Pfc. Manning was not a humanist; he was a hacker,” Major Fein noted.
“He was not a whistle-blower. He was a traitor, a traitor who understood the value of compromised information in the hands of the enemy and took deliberate steps to ensure that they, along with the world, received it.”
The quote is scary.
Critics of this case have warned that a Manning conviction of “aiding the enemy” would criminalize journalism. Even here in this quote, Fein alludes to journalists as being "the hands of the enemy."
As the New York Times explains:
"As the trial has moved toward its conclusion, the more philosophical questions confronting [Col. Denise Lind] are re-emerging center stage — including whether WikiLeaks played a journalistic role and whether providing information to the anti-secrecy group was any different, for legal purposes, from providing it to a traditional news outlet."
It is believed that a guilty verdict for aiding the enemy would establish a government precedent that giving information to an outlet that publishes it online is the same as handing it over to an enemy, the Times adds.
Read more at:-
http://www.policymic.com/articles/56677/the-scariest-quote-y...

Obama steps up his war on the press

The part of the First Amendment that prohibits “abridging the freedom … of the press” is now up against the wall, as the Obama administration continues to assault the kind of journalism that can expose government secrets.

Last Friday the administration got what it wanted—an ice-cold chilling effect—from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled on the case of New York Times reporter James Risen. The court “delivered a blow to investigative journalism in America by ruling that reporters have no First Amendment protection that would safeguard the confidentiality of their sources in the event of a criminal trial,” the Guardian reported.
Read more at:-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023312251



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

although it's a military tribunal (correct me if im wrong)

I think that how this was executed by manning would be very difficult for them to turn around and say that the internet needs to be censored to prevent classified information from getting into the hands of journalists ("the enemy").

However, one could say that with the revealing of what the NSA does that our internet is already technically censored. It's more or less screened and they can go back through what we receive by email or what we download to our computers. Since when manning did it though, he was using military satellite internet while he was in Iraq (again correct me if I'm wrong please) you'd think that there would be tighter security on it but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I was always nervous when I sent emails and talked on facebook with my friend while he was deployed in Afghanistan. He didn't seem to have a care in the world though about it. Granted, he is a Sergeant but still. From the way he spoke about it he made it sound as though there was no monitoring going on behind the scenes. Whether that's true or not I don't know.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

"compromised

"compromised information"

what information is exactly comprimising, all i see here is a deliberate effort to deny the american public the right to know what their representatives are doing in THEIR name

Do they think these play on words will not one day come back and bite them in the posteria, are they so completly arrogant, or completly delusional in their belief of their words, or is it, the end justifies the means mentality, do whatever, say whatever, just so long as they remain in power in order to do what THEY believe is right

that last one is not a representation, its a dictatership, when the "represented" are saying one thing, and the represent/ers are saying another, its a dictatorship.......but they'll never admit it, neither to us, and i suspect with some of them....to themselves