Thursday November 15, 2012, 9:46 am
I have watched the development of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2013 with growing concern. I recognize the need to maintain the security of properly classified information. At the same time, I recognize the need to protect whistle blowers and those who report their discoveries of information that is improperly classified to cover up embarrassing and/or criminal acts. The provisions in this act were so one sided as to effectively muzzle the 4th estate. Sadly, too many Democrats, especially Diane Feinstein (D-CA), supported this measure, without considering the ramifications of putting such capacity to abuse power into the hands of future Republicans. I am proud to report that my Senator has killed the bill.
Now there is where we just might differ. I have to suggest that none, not one the Senators or House members that supported this did so, without knowing exactly what it was, how it could be used, and what extreme powers it gives to the Oval office. These people are not "babe in the woods".
I have to say we need many, many more like Ron Wyden from Oregon. Hint, this is meant to be a government for the people, of the people, not to squash the people.
"I think Congress should be extremely skeptical of any anti-leaks bills that threaten to encroach upon the freedom of the press, or that would reduce access to information that the public has a right to know," Wyden said in a floor statement publicly announcing his hold. "Without transparent and informed public debate on foreign policy and national security topics, American voters would be ill-equipped to elect the policymakers who make important decisions in these areas."
Thursday November 15, 2012, 4:24 pm
Whistle whistle clap hands stamp stamp stamp.
The Rethugs themselves have twice...TWICE in the last year endangered National security with there "leaks".
Has anyone brought them up on charges?
WTF....if they want to make a law like that then they should suffer the consequences of a law like that.
Let's remember this guy for future positions....
Like...would he want to run for President ??
Friday November 16, 2012, 8:31 am
Thanks everyone. Kit I guess I did not express myself with sufficient clarity. When I said that they did not "consider" the potential for abuse, I did not mean that they did not know it. I meant that they did not value prevention of abuse highly enough.