In case you missed it, Conyers held a hearing today on Wikileaks

[EFerrari]

and the panel was great.

Wikileaks,the Espionage Act, and the Constitution
Dec 16, 2010

House Committee Judiciary

Constitutional law and national security scholars testified on the constitutionality of prosecuting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act. Among the topics addressed were the nature of journalism, the extent of constitutional protections of the press in protecting the divulgence of classified information, and the amount of information that is categorized as classified.

3 hours, 15 minutes

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Legaland

There is a list of participants at the link, and the transcript is up now -- so if you are interested in one aspect like the Espionage Act, you can search the transcript and go to that part of the video.

[pleah]

1. K&R

[EFerrari]

2. Kick

[Angry Dragon]

3. Does the government have the power to deterimine who is and

who is not a journalist??

[EFerrari]

4. I don't think so. And certainly not in the middle of a conflict

like this one.

[Angry Dragon]

6. So then Assange has journalistic freedom

if they go after him then they are against freedom of the press

[EFerrari]

8. Precisely. Also, speech itself is protected in our constitution

whether you are a journalist or not.

[sabrina 1]

12. No, and that was discussed and the notion of the government

making that decision was pretty much rejected.

[Xicano]

18. No

Hi Angry Dragon. The way the first amendment is written it makes no distinction between freedom of the press vs freedom of speech or religion. To require a license from the government for one jeopardizes the others.

That's the way I read it anyway.


Peace,
Xicano

[awoke_in_2003]

5. did he send a "strongly worded letter"?-

seems to be all he is capable of.

[EFerrari]

7. True but after having the presstitutes calling Assange a rapist

and a traitor for two weeks, it was good to have that panel laying out the facts for people.

[awoke_in_2003]

9. also very true....

I really want to like Conyers, and hopefully what he says will gain some traction.

on edit: you got a "rec" also.

[EFerrari]

10. Thank you! Conyers talking about the NYTs publishing the illegal wiretapping

leak and how BushCo tried to get Ashcroft to sign off on his sick bed:

"IF NOT FOR THIS LEAK, WE WOULD HAVE NEVER LEARNED WHAT A CIVIL LIBERTARIAN JOHN ASHKROFT IS"

lol

[sabrina 1]

13. That was funny. I did get to watch the entire hearing tonight on TV.

It was excellent. I believe it was Nader who brought up the fact that no one prosecuted Cheney for outing Valerie Plame.

Some of the 'witnesses', Abby Lowell eg, were excellent. But even the Repubs, although one of them looked like he was really trying hard not be like Lieberman/Palin/Huckabee, were reasonable.

I think the craziness of those calling for the assassination, prosecution, investigation of the NYT etc. finally scared the sane members of Congress enough that they realized it was time to try to calm things down.

I hope the WH and Holder were watching. Because the overall opinions seemed to be that they cannot prosecute Assange without prosecuting the entire media. And no one wanted to mess with the 1st Amendment.

It was reassuring to watch and to see that there does seem to be a few sane people left in DC. Probably the outrage from all over the world caused them to try to retrieve some of the lost respect for this country.

Lieberman's declaration that we should 'think about investigating the NYT' has to have scared them and I'm sure there were many calls from members of the press denouncing them.

We'll see, but unless they trump up some charges, like 'rape' again, I don't think there will be an attempt to prosecute him under the Espionage Act anyhow. And any attempt to do so will probably be met with world wide condemnation.

[EFerrari]

22. I believe Holder will try to argue tha Assange is differen than the NYTs

because he helped Manning "steal" the data in some way.

It can't only be an upload to a Wikileaks server, I don't think that would work for Holder. It must be something that Wikileaks theoretically provided Manning with to make the download. Software or something like that.

But that doesn't seem very strong to me. Holder wants to charge Assange with conspiracy to commit journalism.

[sabrina 1]

23. I'm sure they're looking for ways. The questions about

a possible meeting or assistance that might have been given to him, made me wonder if they were already told this was the way they were going. But what would be wrong with a news organization being in contact with a source? It's done all the time.

So, to make that stick, they would have to claim that Wikileaks is not a news organization and prove it. That too was raised and didn't seem to get much support.

Airc, it was called a very 'slippery slope' to try to go down.

[midnight]

11. K& R.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. I'm sorry, but I'm more interested in the First Amendment

[mmonk]

15. Thanks.

Naomi Wolf said this was going to take place and spread the word. But I was busy yesterday and didn't keep up.

[Mnemosyne]

16. Thanks Beth! Nice he can hold one out of the basement for a change.

It so stinks to have dial-up and antenna...

:hi::hug:

[EFerrari]

20. Hey! I didn't know Mr. Dellahunt was leaving.

I'm going to miss him. He's great on social justice stuff. :hi:

[butterfly77]

17. ...

[bobthedrummer]

19. Thanks Beth. K&R n/t

[EFerrari]

21. It's nice to hear the sane POV once in a while, isn't it?

:)

[Uncle Joe]

24. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the encouraging OP and thread, EFerrari.:thumbsup: