Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
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:
[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.
Illinois Judge Calls Police Killing of Rekia Boyd "Beyond Reckless" But Acquits Cop on Technicality
Rekia Boyd was 22 years old when she was killed in 2012 by an off-duty Chicago police detective. Dante Servin fired several shots over his shoulder into a group of people Boyd was standing with near his home, striking her in the back of her head. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter, marking the first time in 15 years a Chicago police officer was charged for a fatal shooting. But last month, in a dramatic dismissal, Judge Dennis Porter acquitted Servin on a legal fine point. While speaking from the bench, Porter suggested prosecutors should have actually charged Servin with murder. "The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if there be any, is first-degree murder," he said. We speak to Rekia Boyd’s brother, Martinez Sutton. ============ partial transcript (full transcript found here) AMY GOODMAN: We want to also talk about Rekia Boyd today, 22 years old when she was shot and killed in 2012 by an off-duty Chicago police detective. Dante Servin fired several shots over his shoulder into a group of people Rekia was standing with near his home, striking her in the back of her head. Servin claims he thought a man with the group had a gun, but no gun was ever found. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter, marking the first time in 15 years a Chicago police officer was charged for a fatal shooting. But last month, in a dramatic dismissal, Judge Dennis Porter acquitted Servin on a legal fine point. JUDGE DENNIS PORTER: Simply put, the evidence presented in this case does not support the charges on which the defendant was indicted and tried. The motion for a directed finding is granted. There is a finding of not guilty on all counts, and the defendant is discharged. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Speaking from the bench, Porter suggested prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder. After Servin was acquitted for killing Rekia Boyd, her mother, Angela Helton, responded to claims Servin had feared for his life and did not intentionally kill her daughter. ANGELA HELTON: This man is known around the area that he lives. The day before my daughter got shot and killed, he asked some of the residents, "What do I have to do here to get some peace? Shoot a blankety-blank-blank?" So—and that’s what he did the next day. DANTE SERVIN: I also explained to the family that if this was what they needed for closure, for me to be charged, I hope they got what they were looking for. And I hope—my family is praying for them, and we will continue to pray for them, for their loss. My heart goes out to the family. I need—I need you to know that my family and I have also suffered greatly during the past three years, and we will continue to suffer. This is something that I will live with for the rest of my life. My job is to save lives and to protect people.
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.
I was reading through the Dept. of the Army publication that was brought to my attention dated for Aril 2014. After having read through the information, and watching the tactics being deployed on television with the media storm in Missouri, I noticed something unsettling. On pg. 123 in the glossary, the abbreviation of MO = Missouri if referenced. The only state mentioned. DC=mentioned by not a defined "State". I found it to be very ironic and non coincidental that all of these recent events happened in Ferguson Missouri. How is that a civil defense document targets the SHOW ME STATE of Missouri, several months before the alleged killing of Mr. Brown. Is there an ulterior motive to deploy police forces and divide the nation for the government to conceal the real stories or perhaps I am just a loony tune. I highly doubt the latter. Seems as this could be a possible false flag. Thanks- B
could not post the link. Its a PDF. Can be found online though.
The glossary lists acronyms with Army or joint definitions.
SECTION I – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Army doctrine publication
Army doctrine reference publication
Army techniques publication
Code of Federal Regulation
course of action
continental United States
Department of the Army
District of Columbia
Defense support of Civil Authorities
Departement of Defense
Department of Defense
Department of Defense directive
Department of Defense instruction
forced cell move team
Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence
human immunodeficiency virus
intelligence preparation of the battlefield
law enforcement agency
mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available,
time available, and civil considerations
military information support operations
Maneuver support Center of Excellence
military working dog
multi-Service tactics, techniques, and procedures
National Guard regulation
outside the continental United States
officer in charge
police intelligence operations
Testing the Rocker Badge!
Live Exchange Rate