Look what's happening with this Wikileaks deal. To recap:
The US government screwed up big-time by giving a 22 year old Specialist, access to classified information which had nothing whatsoever to do with his duties in Iraq. He got hold of stuff, and like the spineless maggot he is, he released the information.
That's treason, and if found guilty, he should die for his crimes.
To deflect the heat from their inept data security procedures, they're employing subterfuge by puffing up their chests and going after Wikileaks.
Their response is to chase the cow that's walked out of the barn instead of closing the barn door. But the barn door is still open.
Like the actions taken after 9/11 with the USA PATRIOT act, we're all going to pay for their ineptitude by having more of our rights taken away from us.
Also, like the USA PATRIOT act, they're giving it a snazzy, patriotism-inspiring title -
The Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination Act (SHIELD) would give the government the flexibility to pursue Assange for allegedly outing confidential US informants.SHIELD - I feel safer already.
Yeah. Sure. Can I see a show of hands from anyone who thinks this law will be used exclusively to go after individuals whose only act is to disclose the names of confidential informants?
Are you folks the same ones that raised your hand when you were told that the RICO laws would only be used against mob bosses, and the PATRIOT act was only going to be used to stop evil terrorists?
Senator Brown said the law would prevent anyone from compromising national security in a similar manner.Ahhhh. The fascists have shown their hand a bit early. Can I see another show of hands from anyone that DOESN'T think the definition of, "compromising national security" will be expanded? Say, to be used to go after anyone who does anything that isn't in the perceived best interest of our governement.
I wonder if the Pentagon Papers would have seen the light of day if this law were in place. Surely, it was clear as day that their disclosure would bring down the presidency of the US. Isn't taking down the Commander In Chief a compromise of national security?
---
This disclosure of classified information should be used as a wake up call to our government about the porous nature of our national data security practices. A private business would have already completed a review and implemented internal changes.
"But the US data stores are too large to manage" or some other excuse would be used. How often do you hear of massive data owners like WalMart or IBM or credit reporting agencies being hacked and their most precious secrets being released?
Never.
Those companies have massive data stores. The lower security stuff might get hit once in a while, but their business and strategic plans are tightly controlled, with "Need To Know" access. Top Secret, if you will. They realize that if these secrets fall into the wrong hands, it could mean the end of their company.
A government has no such incentives. If they mess up, they employ subterfuge and mis-direction and, in this case, put the Fear of God into the press. Rat us out, and you're comin' after you.
---
Look at the propaganda tools our "leaders" are using to sell this rotting corpse of a bill to the gullible public -
"WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States,"The way you protect the lives of our buddies is to do your job, and protect our data. It's really that simple.
...
"Our sources are bravely risking their lives when they stand up against the tyranny of al Qaeda, the Taliban and murderous regimes,"
...
"Our foreign representatives, allies and intelligence sources must have the clear assurance that their lives will not be endangered by those with opposing agendas,"
Coming after whistleblowers - official journalists or not - sends a chilling signal to the free press. That includes websites like Wikileaks, bloggers, forum participants, and the Main Stream Media.
We must not allow that to happen. This is America, after all. Right?
Accept The Challenge
We can't dismantle the Constitution in order to protect it.
It's because of crap like this that I've never been a Republican or a Democrat. The Dems expand the scope of government hand-outs, and the Repubs expand the fascist state.
Both of them do this in the name of making America a better place.
I've noted in the past how our laws have been turned upside down with regards to banking. The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) used to require a government official to present a subpeona before they could access your personal records.
It was slowly being changed leading up to 9/11. Then, after the PATRIOT act, if a bank didn't report on your vaguely defined "suspicous" activities - like taking out more than some bureaucrat-determined dollar amount - the bank is punished.
They are now required to breach your privacy - all in the name of safety and The American Way.
SHIELD me, baby. SHIELD me?
---
Please click our advertiser links. They pay us so you don't have to. A click a day is all we ask!
Copyright 2010 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com
7 comments:
It doesn't matter how many laws you make if you don't enforce them.
On the other hand...like Ayn Rand said...if you make enough laws it will be impossible for a citizen not to break some of them - and then you can enforce at will. Which, of course, makes a mockery of "equal justice under the law" and is the soul of corruption - when a government can enforce the laws it _chooses_ to enforce on those whom it chooses to enforce them.
Okay, the title was so horrifying I almost didn't read the post.
Good post, by the way.
What scares me is that the PTB may end up using Assange as an excuse to shut down the internet. Seems as likely an excuse as any other.
Sue, yep, Rand hit the nail on the head. People will consciously work to find ways around the laws or simply ignore them. Regular, law-abiding citizens.
Andrea, LOL, sorry about that!
I think this is exactly the kind of event that TPTB will use to shut down Internet access, "crazy" TV networks and talk radio.
Subversives! All of 'em!
I've finally reached the point where I try to envision the slimiest, most dirty rotten thing imaginable - and there's my government's fingerprints all over it!
Anyone who leaks classified information should get life in prison. Anyone who conspires with the leaker to make that information public should get life in prison as well. The are nothing more or less then spies. Our justice system may indeed fail us and if it does I hope everyone involved in putting this information on line is suicided or disappeared. These spies do not like us or want some kind of international democracy. They are simply useful idiots for the communist nations that wait for any weakness to take over the world.
I found the text of the bill. The bill amends 18 U.S.C. § 798 : Disclosure of classified information. The current statute only lists communication intelligence and the amended bill adds human intelligence activities and identity of humint sources.
The real question is not the bill, it's the fact the government has said they have never prosecuted a journalist under that statute. They do not consider Wikileaks/Assange a journalist. That means the only people they will consider a journalist will be who they want and everyone else will be prosecuted.
Guns, Indeed. What's up with that? It seems like people get into government and they get this omnipotent complex where they feel they can do as they please. Most of the time they do. Only rarely are they caught or exposed.
Anon 7:15 - I'm with you on the leakers as long as we're talking about military secrets. When the broad brush is used to make everything a state secret, I disagree.
I strongly disagree about the publishers of the information. It is their Constitutionally guaranteed right to publish as they see fit. America lovers and haters alike. It is our government's job to ensure the truly sensitive information is kept locked up.
Anon 2:35 - you hit the nail on the head. If the government doesn't like a news organization - such as labeling Fox as not being a news station - where does that end?
Only the patsies and sycophants get to print what the government wants them to publish.
Seems kind of counter to the first amendment, no?
Post a Comment