PDA

View Full Version : Steady erosion of press freedom


catfish
10-26-2006, 06:53 AM
I hope this is the right place to post this. Thought y'all might find this interesting. Its a tidbit from the Slashdot newsletter I receive.

npwa writes to tell us Reporters Without Borders has released their annual [1]worldwide press freedom index. While developing nations like Haiti and Mauritania continue to gain ground developed nations like France, Japan, and the US continue their downward spiral. From the article: "The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism.' The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism."

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639 *


http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19381
"Each year new countries in less-developed parts of the world move up the Index to positions above some European countries or the United States. This is good news and shows once again that, even though very poor, countries can be very observant of freedom of expression. Meanwhile the steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France and Japan is extremely alarming,” Reporters Without Borders said.

Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.

Tightwad
10-26-2006, 08:04 AM
"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism.' The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism." *

Herein lay the problem.....
The Bush agenda will not allow any comment that is not inline
with the rightwing thocratic agenda. In time it will even extend
to the net and boards such as these. *::)

As an example....
The board I left to come here forbids any mention of the Bush
adminstration either by name or other referance.

THIS board closed down it's religious & political boards recently.

jim
10-27-2006, 02:47 AM
How many journalists have been jailed or prosecuted in the US?
jim

Tightwad
10-27-2006, 04:26 AM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6376423

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/sherman

And the real chiller.......
http://www.slate.com/id/2138277/

Jim, you really should google some of these questions
before you respond..........

jim
10-27-2006, 04:57 AM
It would appear that Wolf is more a participant than observer/reporter. He's fair game if he gets involved.

As for the judges runing, this is nothing new.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for receiving classified information, even though the law in question—Title 18 of the U.S. criminal code, Chapter 37 ("Espionage and Censorship), Section 793 ("Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information")—clearly allows such prosecutions. It states that persons who improperly transmit or receive classified information have committed a crime if they have "intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." (This is a fairly easy hurdle for a prosecutor to clear. Notice: Defendants don't need to have "intent" to do harm, but rather "intent or reason to believe"—and they don't need to have "reason to believe" that the information would hurt the United States but rather that it could be used "to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.")

All you have to do to avoid prosecution is to report the passing of the info, and iff it's material make arrangements to turn it over to the authorities. Verbal: Get debriefed.

I've worked in the defense industry, and the military, and the judge handled it the right way from what I can see. I'd have spies and traitors shot after they were found guilty in a fair trial.

jim

Tightwad
10-27-2006, 08:21 AM
. I'd have spies and traitors shot after they were found guilty in a fair trial.

On this point we can agree 100%. Promptly carring out a sentence
will avoid the 'good buddy" pardon that so many high level criminals
get.

Ken Lay is a prime example. I still think he's lounging comfortably
somewhere 'cause he knew way to much dirt about stuff to let
him spend a single day in jail. Yet he got more or less "pardoned"
AFTER he was "dead"!! What's up with that????