Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags '1st Amendment'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome to DinarVets!
    • Rules, Announcements & Introductions
    • Questions and Tech Support
  • VIP Area
    • VIP Section
    • VIP Section
  • Iraq Topics
    • Iraq & Dinar Related News
    • Dinar Rumors
    • RV & Dinar Questions
    • Opinions, Perspectives, and Your Two Cents on the Iraqi Dinar
    • Chat Logs
    • ISX (Iraqi Stock Exchange)
    • Warka and Iraqi Banking
    • Dinar-ify me!
    • Buying and Selling Dinar
    • LOPster tank
    • Debate Section
  • General Topics
    • Off Topic posts
    • Natural Cures and Health Talk
    • Politics, 2nd Amendment (Gun Control)
    • Iraqi Inspiration and Stories of our Soldiers
    • World Economy
    • Music Videos etc
    • DV Weekly Powerballs.
  • Investing
    • Forex Discussion
    • Penny Stocks
    • Wall Street
    • Gold & Precious Metals
    • Foreign Currencies
    • Tax Discussion
    • Investment Opportunities and Wealth Management

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

  • VIP Membership Packages
  • OSI Products
  • Just a Text
  • RV Intel and the Cash In Guide!

Genres

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Phone Number (for VIP text message)


AIM


ICQ


Jabber


Location


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


My Facebook Profile ID


My Twitter ID

Found 5 results

  1. FOX FLASH NEWS this morning reported the indictment of a former military and later civilian employee for leaking top secret documents, complete with security markings, directly to a lefty on-line "news blog" using direct and encrypted online two way communications repeated over more than two years. They contained detailed information on then current and planned operations in the mid east anti-terror campaign against targeted leadership. The FOX report is at: https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-government-intelligence-analyst-leaked-classified-al-qaeda-documents-to-reporter-indictmentT [Sorry, I couldn't find a way to make the above address an active link; you'll have to copy it to your search bar] The reader replies immediately focused on the lack of an indictment of the reporter, and a few pointed out that SCOTUS seemed to protect news media reporting no matter what citing the NY Times Viet Nam era Ellsburg case, which sort of exempted media unless that paid for the information in some manner. At first blush the facts of this case seem to be very distinguishable from that case. Here we have two people, one a government agent with a clearly inappropriate top secret code word access job, and a like minded an anti-American ideologue well known for his willingness to expose secret materials [charges have previously been brought against several of his leak sources]. Leaking classified materials, or aiding in that activity are felonies. Conspiracy to commit one or more felonies with others is itself a felony, usually with harsher penalties than the underlying felony itself. Given their ongoing communications as reported by FOX, the existence of a criminal conspiracy seems to me to be as clear as day. The question is: whether the media discloser of the information is exempt from prosecution by virtue of the 1st Amendment. I would argue not. Yes, the "media" here did not pay cash or whatever to the leaker, but, the achievement of their mutual goal to actively harm American interests by treasonous leaks, was clearly itself a reward to both. The blogger no doubt benefited financially from increased site hits and ad revenue if SCOTUS remains interested in the factor of economic benefit. I hope that Barr goes after the blogger on the basis that such disclosures can be straight treason conspiracy by all parties acting in concert, and/or that our changing world of bartering sensational ideological and political "news" for all sorts of diverse benefits (almost inevitably resulting in economic gain to all parties) moots the issue of clear, one-way financial compensation. I think the current SCOTUS a bit more likely than not to adopt this view, but that one or two more appointments by Trump before the case gets to them would insure a big time "clarification" of 1st Amendment rights. Consider, what would we have done if the NY times printed the OVERLORD plans in late May, 1944, without cash payment to the undercover Nazi in the Pentagon. I have no doubt that that leaker and a bunch of NY Times a-holes would have simply disappeared that night. This is different only in the magnitude of the underlying events. The magnitude of an evil does not alter its existence, but ony, perhaps, the harshness of the penalties that the criminals should suffer. HAND!
  2. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-12/feds-hold-hearing-whether-they-should-%E2%80%98regulate%E2%80%99-sites-zero-hedge Feds Hold Hearing On Whether They Should ‘Regulate’ Sites Like Zero Hedge Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/12/2015 15:57 -0500 Barack Obama George Orwell Obamacare President Obama Saudi Arabia Totalitarianism inShare1 Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog, The control freaks that run our government always seem to want to “regulate” things that they do not like. And so it should be no surprise that there is a renewed push to regulate independent news websites. Sites like the Drudge Report, The Economic Collapse Blog , and Zero Hedge have been a thorn in the side of the establishment for years. You see, the truth is that approximately 90 percent of all news and entertainment in this country is controlled by just six giant media corporations. That is why the news seems to be so similar no matter where you turn. But in recent years the alternative media has exploded in popularity. People are hungry for the truth, and an increasing number of Americans are waking up to the fact that they are not getting the truth from the corporate-controlled media. But as the alternative media has grown, it was only going to be a matter of time before the establishment started cracking down on it. At the moment it is just the FEC and the FCC, but surely this is just the beginning. Our “Big Brother” government ultimately wants to control every area of our lives – and this especially applies to our ability to communicate freely with one another. The Federal Election Commission is an example of a federal rule making body that has gotten wildly out of control. Since just about anything that anyone says or does could potentially “influence an election”, it is not difficult for them to come up with excuses to regulate things that they do not like. And on Wednesday, the FEC held a hearing on whether or not they should regulate political speech on blogs, websites and YouTube videos… If you do not think that this could ever happen, you should consider what almost happened at the FEC last October… The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report. As our nation continues to drift toward totalitarianism, it is only a matter of time before political speech on the Internet is regulated. It is already happening in other countries all around the globe, and control freak politicians such as Ravel will just keep pushing until they get what they want. In October, then FEC Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel promised that she would renew a push to regulate online political speech following a deadlocked commission vote that would have subjected political videos and blog posts to the reporting and disclosure requirements placed on political advertisers who broadcast on television. On Wednesday, she will begin to make good on that promise. “Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” Ravel said in an October statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.” “In the past, the Commission has specifically exempted certain types of Internet communications from campaign finance regulations,” she lamented. “In doing so, the Commission turned a blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena.” The way that they are spinning it this time around is that they desperately need to do something “about money in politics”… And it isn’t just a few control freak Democrats that want these changes. Noting the 32,000 public comments that came into the FEC in advance of the hearing, Democratic Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, “75 percent thought that we need to do more about money in politics, particularly in the area of disclosure. And I think that’s something that we can’t ignore.” The Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen were all expected to testify in favor of more government regulation on the Internet at the hearing. Fortunately, other organizations are doing what they can to warn the general population. For example, the following comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation… Increased regulation of online speech is not only likely to chill participation in the public debate, but it may also threaten individual speakers’ privacy and right to post anonymously. In so doing, it may undermine two goals of campaign finance reform: protecting freedom of political speech and expanding political participation. As we stated in our joint comments to the FEC back in 2005 [pdf], “the Internet provides a counter-balance to the undue dominance that ‘big money’ has increasingly wielded over the political process in the past half-century.” We believe that heightened regulation of online political speech will hamper the Internet’s ability to level the playing field. Meanwhile, Barack Obama and the FCC are using net neutrality as an excuse to impose lots of new regulations on Internet activity. Ajit Pai is an FCC commissioner who is opposed to this plan. He recently sent out a tweet holding what he calls “President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet“… Ajit Pai’s description of “President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet” sounds Orwellian. He tweeted a picture of himself holding the 332-page plan just below a picture of a smiling Barack Obama with a comment, “I wish the public could see what’s inside.” The implication depicted Obama as George Orwell’s “Big Brother.” Pai also released a statement: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works,” he said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.” Here is the photo that he posted with his tweet… After what we went through with Obamacare, one can only imagine what is inside that monstrosity of a document. Regulation of the Internet is here, and it is only going to get worse. But at least we are not like Saudi Arabia just yet. Recently, a Saudi blogger was sentenced to 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam“. So we should be thankful for the freedoms that we still have. But without a doubt, governments all over the world are slowly but surely cracking down on Internet freedom. If we do not stand up for our rights now, one day we may wake up and find that our freedom to communicate with one another over the Internet is totally gone.
  3. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-14/us-and-israeli-military-tactics-used-against-american-citizens-%E2%80%A6-gazans-tweet-tips-h U.S. and Israeli Military Tactics Used Against American Citizens … Gazans Tweet Tips to Help AMERICANS On How to Handle Tear Gas Submitted by George Washington on 08/14/2014 15:10 -0400 inShare6 As you may have heard, police and Swat teams in Ferguson, Missouri have fired tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters, and outlawed peaceful assembly. Police are also using stun grenades and ear-damaging military sound cannons against peaceful protesters. Reporters are among those shot at with rubber bullets and tear gas, assaulted and arrested. Glenn Greenwald notes: Reporters have been told to turn off their cameras. And a no-fly zone was established above Ferguson in order to keep news helicopters away. Last night, two reporters, The Washington Post‘s Wesley Lowery and The Huffington Post‘s Ryan Reilly, were arrested and assaulted while working from a McDonald’s in Ferguson. The arrests were arbitrary and abusive, and received substantial attention — only because of their prominent platforms, not, as they both quickly pointed out upon being released, because there was anything unusual about this police behavior. Reilly, on Facebook, recounted how he was arrested by “a Saint Louis County police officer in full riot gear, who refused to identify himself despite my repeated requests, purposefully banged my head against the window on the way out and sarcastically apologized.” He wrote: ”I’m fine. But if this is the way these officers treat a white reporter working on a laptop who moved a little too slowly for their liking, I can’t imagine how horribly they treat others.” A state senator was teargassed along with protesters. Congressman Amash tweets: And: Images & reports out of #Ferguson are frightening. Is this a war zone or a US city? Gov’t escalates tensions w/military equipment & tactics. If you want to visually see how extreme the reaction of police is in Ferguson, compare what’s going on in Ferguson to what’s happening in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan (or scroll through this page of pictures.) Someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment[ed] that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone” … What’s really going on? And how did we get here? We explained in 2011: Journalists from across the spectrum have documented the militarization of police forces in the United States, including, CNN, Huffington Post, the Cato Institute, Forbes, the New York Times, Daily Kos, Esquire, The Atlantic, Salon and many others. Many police departments laugh at and harass Americans who exercise their right to free speech. Here’s one example of police laughing at a civil rights lawyer after she was shot in the head with a rubber bullet: Indeed – especially since police brutality against protesters has been so blatant in recent months, while no top bank executives have been prosecuted – many Americans believe that the police are protecting the bankers whose fraud brought down the economy instead of the American people …. Some are comparing police brutality towards the Occupy protesters to that used by Israeli forces against Palestinian protesters. Indeed, numerous heads of U.S. police departments have traveled to Israel for “anti-terrorism training”, and received training from Israeli anti-terrorism experts visiting the U.S. See this, this, this, this, this. Indeed, the Ferguson police chief received training in crowd control in Israel in 2011. And Gaza residents are literally tweeting info on how to handle tear gas to help Ferguson citizens. Even the mainstream media is picking up on the militarized police. USA Today headlines, “Pentagon fueled Ferguson confrontation“. And Newsweek runs with, “How America’s Police Became an Army.” But they’re still blaming 9/11 as the reason for the militarization of the police. As we explained in 2011, that’s not accurate: Indeed: Most assume that the militarization of police started after 9/11. Certainly, **** Cheney initiated Continuity of Government Plans on September 11th that ended America’s constitutional form of government (at least for some undetermined period of time.) On that same day, a national state of emergency was declared … and that state of emergency has continuously been in effect up to today. But the militarization of police actually started long before 9/11 … in the 1980s. Radley Balko testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime in 2007: (And see this.) Militarization [of police forces is] a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years. *** Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country. We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens. Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century. SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously. But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them. Huffington Post notes: And Jamie Douglas notes: Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper published an essay arguing that the current epidemic of police brutality is a reflection of the militarization (his word, not mine) of our urban police forces, the result of years of the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror. Stamper was chief of police during the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999, and is not a voice that can be easily dismissed. Ever since Ronald Reagan in 1981 helped draw up the Military Cooperation With Law Enforcement Act, quickly passed by a very cooperative congress, effectively circumventing the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by codifying military cooperation with law enforcement, the military has been encouraged to give any and all law enforcement agencies unfettered access to all military resources, training and hardware included. The military equipment was designed to be used by American fighting forces in combat with “the enemy,” but since a law was passed in 1994, the Pentagon has been able to donate all surplus war materiel to America’s police departments. The National Journal has compiled a number of statistics showing that in the first three years after the 1994 law came into effect, the “Department of Offense” stocked police departments with 3800 M-16 assault rifles, 2185 M-14’s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers, as well as untold number of bayonets, tanks, helicopters, and even some airplanes. Regardless who will be in power in the future, the militarization of the police will continue. After all, who wants to appear as being soft on crime? These days, a chief of police’s office is like a doctor’s office, but instead of getting swamped with drug salesmen, they have very congenial visits with the merchants of popular oppression, the salesmen of weapons, various chemical agents, Tasers, body armor, and all kinds of tracking software, surveillance gear, and anything else the department may need for crowd control and to infiltrate dissidents, which are no more than US citizens wanting to restore the republic to its rightful place. The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this. *** It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses … and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices, labeling anyone who speaks out as a potential bad guy. Remember: Journalists are considered terrorists in modern America. Peaceful protest is considered terrorism. As one example, the FBI treated the peaceful protesters at the Occupy protests as terrorists. More here and here Americans have lost virtually all of our Constitutional rights The U.S. government considers the entire world – including American soil – to be a battlefield As Greenwald writes: Ultimately, police militarization is part of a broader and truly dangerous trend: the importation of War on Terror tactics from foreign war zones onto American soil. American surveillance drones went from Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia into American cities, and it’s impossible to imagine that they won’t be followed by weaponized ones. The inhumane and oppressive conditions that prevailed at Guantanamo are matched, or exceeded, by the super-max hellholes and “Communications Management Units” now in the American prison system. And the “collect-it-all” mentality that drives NSA domestic surveillance was pioneered by Gen. Keith Alexander in Baghdad and by other generals in Afghanistan, aimed at enemy war populations. *** As part of America’s posture of Endless War, Americans have been trained to believe that everything is justified on the “battlefield” (now defined to mean “the whole world”): imprisonment without charges, kidnapping, torture, even assassination of U.S. citizens without trials. It is not hard to predict the results of importing this battlefield mentality onto American soil, aimed at American citizens: “From Warfighter to Crimefighter.” The results have been clear for those who have looked – or those who have been subject to this – for years. The events in Ferguson are, finally, forcing all Americans to watch the outcome of this process.
  4. http://nationalreport.net/doj-fbi-raid-news-media-offices-after-releasing-an-alarming-story-on-president-obama/ DOJ & FBI Raid News Media Offices After Releasing an Alarming Story on President Obama! FBI Agents Load Seized Documents From the National Report's Offices By National Report Staff \ Within hours of publishing a scathing story on President Obama the DOJ raided the offices of the National Report claiming the raid was lawful under the USA Patriot Act but refusing to say why the government was taking the action. At about 12:50 this afternoon the National Report released a damning story on the Obama birth certificate scandal providing new evidence which clearly shows the document to be fraudulent. According to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his Cold Case Posse has the evidence to prove the presidents birth certificate was computer generated using Adobe Illustrator. Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo, revealed for the first time that his findings have been confirmed in a 40 page report by Reed Hayes, a Certified Documents Examiner (CDE) from Hawaii. The birth certificate posted to the White House website clearly shows it was forged using cut & paste methods in several layers. At about 2:08 pm employees at the National Report were shocked when dozens of black clad machine gun toting DOJ agents wearing black masks entered the National Report office forcing everyone to the ground while demanding they put their hands on top their heads. After securing all employees FBI agents entered and began questioning employees and seizing files and other documents. "We did exactly as they told us," said National Report's publisher Allen Montgomery, who added "No one knew what was happening." Its being reported that the offices of Montgomery and Editor-in-Chief Nigel Covington, were ransacked and boxes of files were seized and carted off by FBI agents. Covington said, "This is a gross violation of our Constitutional rights as American citizens and as journalists. All our files relating to President Obama were seized with others including all employee personnel files." Montgomery said federal agents did not have a warrant and offered no explanation for the action. He added about an hour before the raid, the National Report had released a story about the mounting evidence which confirms Obama's birth records are in fact forged. Montgomery said most employees were so shaken up by the raid he let them go home early. More on this breaking story as it becomes available
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.