Letters to the Editor
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
politicalchase
Published Letters: 5
-
Free flowing subpeonas before Free Flow bill
[Read the article: Is Michael Mukasey prioritizing the harassment and imprisonment of journalists?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mukasey et al. may be highly motivated to compel Risen’s testimony before the Senate acts on a bill (shield law) proposed by Sen. Specter that is scheduled for debate. (See S. 2035: Free Flow of Information Act of 2007).
Section 2 summary states:
Prohibits a federal entity (an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency) from compelling a covered person to testify or produce any document relating to protected information unless a court makes specified determinations by a preponderance of the evidence, including that all reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted, that the testimony or document sought is essential, and that nondisclosure would be contrary to the public interest, taking into account both the public interest in compelling disclosure and the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.
Defines "covered person" as a person engaged in journalism, including their supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. Excludes from the definition foreign powers and their agents and certain terrorist organizations and individuals.
Defines "protected information" as information or records a covered person obtained as part of engaging in journalism on a promise of confidentiality.
Requires the content of compelled testimony or documents to be limited and narrowly tailored.
There is a potential caveat in Section 5 (summary), but depending upon interpretation, it may be mitigated.
Exempts any protected information that a federal court has found by a preponderance of the evidence would assist in preventing an act of terrorism, or other significant and articulable harm to national security that would outweigh the public interest in news gathering and maintaining a free flow of information to citizens.
Central to the administration’s concern may be the sense of the Senate on this bill being the same as the House version, which passed with a veto-proof majority of 398 to 21 (see H.R. 2102).
-
Lawmakers motivation
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good god. 450+ comments. I’m late to the party and have not read all of the comments. My apologies if this has already been well-covered.
Glenn quoted Atrios:
[Lawmakers] believe the wrong thing is in fact the right thing is the answer…
Too many Democrats simply don't have the values we imagine they do…
And added:
There's a temptation, particularly on days like today, to talk about what motivates "Democrats" -- as though they're a monolith acting collectively with the same drives. They're not. Some do what they do because their only concern is a craven desire to be re-elected. Others believe in one thing but are afraid to vote that way (because they'll be called Soft on Terror, Liberal, etc.), while others still are influenced by Beltway money and other cultural pressures. Some are motivated by a combination of those motives.
Indeed, reality exists in those remarks, and I thought the closely paralleled a point Barack Obama made in his last book.
Obama writes:
There is the absolute belief in the authority of the majority will, or at least those who claim power in the name of those in the majority—a disdain for those institutional checks (the courts, the Constitution, the press, the Geneva Conventions, the rules of the Senate, or the traditions governing redistricting) that might slow our inexorable march toward the New Jerusalem.
Of course, there are those within the Democratic Party who tend toward similar zealotry. But those who do have never come close to possessing the power of a Rove or a DeLay, the power to take over a party, fill it with loyalists, and enshrine some of their radical ideas into law. The prevalence of regional, ethnic and economic differences within the party, the electoral map and the structure of the Senate, the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections—all these things tend to prevent those Democrats in office from straying too far from the center...
Instead, we Democrats are just, well, confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of the energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated city. Others pursue a more “centrist” approach, figuring that as long as they split the difference with the conservative leadership, they must be acting reasonably—and failing to notice that with each passing year they are giving up more and more ground. [1]
(Emphasis added.)
[1] Obama, B., (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream (p. 38). New York: Crown Publishers.