Quote:WASHINGTON Reporters who write about government surveillance could be prosecuted under proposed legislation that would solidify the administration's eavesdropping authority, according to some legal analysts who are concerned about dramatic changes in U.S. law.

But an aide to the bill's chief author, Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said that is not the intention of the legislation.

"It in no way applies to reporters — in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the legislation, which could be introduced as soon as next week.

The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.

Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.

"The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact," said Martin, a civil liberties advocate.

DeWine is co-sponsoring the bill with Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The White House and Republican Senate leaders have indicated general support, but the bill could face changes as it works its way through Congress.

Existing U.S. law makes it a crime to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person, generally putting the burden on government officials to protect the information.

But a special provision exists to provide added protections for highly classified electronic — or "signals" — intelligence. That would include U.S. intelligence codes or systems used to break them.

David Tomlin, the AP's assistant general counsel, said government officials with security clearances would be potential targets under DeWine's bill.

"But so would anyone else who received an illegal disclosure under the proposed act, knew what it was and deliberately disclosed it to others. That's what some reporters do, often to great public benefit," he said.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the language would allow anyone — "if you read a story in the paper and pass it along to your brother-in-law" — to be prosecuted.

"As a practical matter, would they use this to try to punish any newspaper or any broadcast? It essentially makes coverage of any of these surveillance programs illegal," she said. "I'm sorry, that's just not constitutional."

Doc,Mar 17 2006, 09:30 AM Wrote:More can be found here.

Well then. Looks like it will become a crime to say that the president's actions are criminal. Wee.

You know all that talk about keeping guns around, to shed a little blood and water the seeds of liberty? Well, It's getting about time to use them.

I do not look kindly upon facism. It is one thing I simply do not like.
[right][snapback]104834[/snapback][/right]

Doc,Mar 17 2006, 01:13 PM Wrote:So... It's retroactive.

Which would mean... Anybody that has previously questioned this whole mess could be rounded up and be made an example of?
[right][snapback]104864[/snapback][/right]

GenericKen,Mar 17 2006, 10:09 PM Wrote:If critics want people to care, why do they keep using mushy, ill-defined words like "fascism" to describe the dillema?

This turn of events is better characterized as "police state" than fascist; the end of the toltalitarianism is ostensively to protect the people, not the state.
[right][snapback]104866[/snapback][/right]

Quote:Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

roguebanshee,Mar 17 2006, 04:09 PM Wrote:Ill-defined?

From dictionary.reference.com:

Seems, to me at least, to be a fairly accurate description of where the US is currently headed. Or rather, what some politicians with varying degrees of influence are trying to make happen.
[right][snapback]104877[/snapback][/right]

roguebanshee,Mar 17 2006, 10:09 PM Wrote:Ill-defined?

From dictionary.reference.com:

Seems, to me at least, to be a fairly accurate description of where the US is currently headed. Or rather, what some politicians with varying degrees of influence are trying to make happen.
[right][snapback]104877[/snapback][/right]

Occhidiangela,Mar 18 2006, 01:01 AM Wrote:So, what do you intend to do about it?[right][snapback]104879[/snapback][/right]

[wcip]Angel,Mar 18 2006, Wrote:No citizens like having their politics questioned by outsiders who aren't part of their society and culture.
[right][snapback]104892[/snapback][/right]

roguebanshee,Mar 18 2006, 01:54 AM Wrote:Americans aren't known for their acceptance of outside advice on their internal affairs.
[right][snapback]104890[/snapback][/right]

Rinnhart,Mar 18 2006, 05:40 AM Wrote:As a voter who's told at least two aussie and three japanese friends where they could stick their... energetic opinions on American politics, I'd like to field a little defense on this point.

[right][snapback]104895[/snapback][/right]

Occhidiangela,Mar 18 2006, 08:10 AM Wrote:A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.
[right][snapback]104897[/snapback][/right]