US a police state?

[Fish]

Last week a federal judge ruled private citizens could be prosecuted if the government decides they have received or disclosed information harmful to national security. The ruling comes in the case against two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. They've been charged with passing on classified information to the Israeli government.

The Bush administration is in intent upon shutting down all methods of the American people learning about what the government is doing. And the two principal ways we've learned about what they're doing are whistleblowers, who are under vigorous attack, and the media. The reason we know about warrantless eavesdropping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe or the use of torture is because the media has found out about it and reported it. And this administration is intent upon criminalizing investigative journalism, by creating a way to put journalists in prison, for the first time in a long, long time in our country, who report on what the government is doing in secret.

And this AIPAC case is the first time ever that the government has tried to use a law that was passed in 1917 called the Espionage Act to imprison, not government employees who pass on classified information, but private citizens who do nothing more than receive classified information. You had mentioned that the employee -- the individuals had passed on the information to the Israeli government. There is a suggestion they did that, but that is not part of the criminal case. The only thing they are accused of doing is receiving classified information.

And the reason it's so dangerous to make that a crime or to try to make that a crime is because that is something that journalists do every single day, by definition. They receive classified information that they know is classified. And if you can be imprisoned for that act, it essentially means the government can imprison journalists at will. It is an extremely dangerous decision, and the whole case, the purpose of the case, is to enable and empower the Bush administration to put journalists in prison.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/18/1352244 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/18/1352244)

[jason10mm]

Well, there is a big difference between being prosecuted and being convicted. But I have to say that journalists that get ahold of classified info and then publish it to the detriment of our forces overseas SHOULD be punished. Hell, if I was the president, I'd be lynching congressmen who blab about secret stuff as well.

As for getting convicted, if anyone remembered their duty for jury nullification, this crap wouldn't be a problem.

[waste gate]

Last week a federal judge ruled private citizens could be prosecuted if the government decides they have received or disclosed information harmful to national security.

The seperation of powers which our constitution expressly requires negates your argument that the Bush administration is at the heart of the issue. I suspect the judged looked at the law which is created by congress (more seperation of powers), and based the ruling on what USC states.

Just too many branches of US Gov't involved for it to be Bush's fault.

[Yahoshua]

Also, something to remember about the American Judicial system:

"The American Judicial system is not interested in Truth or Justice, but is about who can afford the best actor for their case."

This is the current hall-mark that all law-students are taught in law-school.

So the Judge is really the one who has free reign to do as he pleases, but this is supposed to be balanced by the jury.

However, when looking at people in general "common sense" is no longer common, neither are morals, discipline, or good judgement.

Keeping the above in mind. Have you ever talked to someone and think in the back of your mind "This persons' vote counts just as much as mine." Ever get the feeling your stomach is sinking toward your feet when you realize what that means? I do.

[Fish]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/BREAKING__Bush_White_House_subpoenaed_0829.html

Two attorneys representing claimants in a lawsuit over wiretapping by the National Security Agency claim that they have sent subpoenas to the White House today, RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/) has learned.
Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, who say they represent hundreds of plaintiffs in lawsuits against Verizon, AT&T, and the US Government, will announnce today that they are serving both the Bush administration and Verizon with subpoenas.
The announcement is due to arrive at 4:30 PM, outside of Verizon headquarters in New York, RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/) has confirmed.
Mayer tells RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/) that the subpoenaes, directed to President George Bush, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department of Justice, and the Chief Legal Counsel for Verizon, have already been sent, and should reach their targets tomorrow.
The subpoenas come on the heels of two federal court decisions that were seen as blows to the Bush Administration warrantless spying program.
Earlier this month, federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the entire program unconstitutional and illegal; another federal judge in San Francisco rejected the Bush Administration's attempt to dismiss these lawsuits by claiming they breach national security.

[Takeda Shingen]

I will not engage in a discussion of the American Judiciary, but Raw Story is not a good source, and it's use undermines your point.

[Fish]

I will not engage in a discussion of the American Judiciary, but Raw Story is not a good source, and it's use undermines your point.
It was more a question from a outsider, not making a point.

What about this? Be aware its one hour watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2924735285786926278