Tougher Laws for US to Guard Military Secrets

Wikileaks leader Julian Assange has released more than 400,000 pages of US documents about Iraq. Daniel Ellsberg commented saying that the Wikileaks release will more than likely encourage the US to pass new legislation to better protect US secrets. The article then went on saying that if Assange had leaked documents about British military operations, then he and his sources could be jailed under Britain's Official Secrets Act. President Obama is using the Espionage Act "as if it were a kind of Official Secrets Act." So, some leakers have been charged for leaking certain documents. The article then went on to say that Bradley Manning had been charged under the Espionage Act for leaking thousands of pages of secret Afghan war documents.
Most of the time the media receives First Amendment protections that leakers do not, which would make it possible for the leakers to be charged, but not the media source, which would still uphold the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. Although the Pentagon Papers case would argue that WikiLeaks is protected under the First Amendment. Also, a problem might arise if legislation was proposed that would make publishing secret documents that have been leaked by others punishable because Congress would oppose the movement. Also the article talked about how if restictions were placed on leakers that they must have some sort of defense avalible because if they leak documents that are seen as "dangerous" or "misconceived", they will not think twice about it, for the fear of prosecution. The importance of this article is to show how some things are protected under the First Amendment, and others are not, and how the freedoms granted can be interpreted in different ways. Also how the government can limit the freedoms granted in the First amendment.
I think that if the documents that Wikileaks drops threaten national security, then charges should be filed. But if the documents that are leaked expose lies that the government has told, or releases important information to the public then the leakers should not be charged because they are not threatening national security, and the public has a right to know some things.

Will WikiLeaks nudge US toward tougher laws to guard secrets?

'Don't ask' case gains traction from '03 ruling

Homosexuality, one of the most controversial topics presented in the United States perhaps. In 2003 there was a Supreme Court case to help the Military’s policy “don’t ask, don’t tell” succeed. However, last month U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips in California proposed "don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional. This decision was after a trial that attacked the policy because it bans openly gay service members based on a high court ruling that struck down a Texas law. The case was known as Lawrence v. Texas. Dan Wood, a Log Cabin Republican challenging the law said, "We filed the case in the first place because we thought Lawrence changed the legal landscape.” In the Lawrence decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 2003 that privacy rights allow people to privately engage in gay sex.

The in a 1986, 1993, and 1995 case are more clear than the Laurence Decision. "Lawrence established that Americans have a constitutional right to engage in private, consensual homosexual conduct ‘Don't ask, don't tell' infringes on that right, punishing individuals who engage in that constitutionally protected activity." Mr. Woods said during his closing argument. Gay rights have increased since this policy was put in place. “President Obama has repeatedly expressed opposition to "don't ask, don't tell," which has put his administration in the awkward position of defending a law it opposes.”(Article). In 2008, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts ruled the Lawrence decision applies only to sexual activity between consenting adults and is therefore too narrow in scope to overturn the policy.

Government has important cases such as these daily. This policy specifically is controversial and causes debate between two groups of people. The Supreme Court has upheld cases for the “don’t ask, don’t tell law”. This makes someone wonder, is homosexuality a right? Is it okay to be homosexual yet private about it in the Military? These questions are often brought up. The government has a hard time deciding what a “right” is when it is not spelled out for them in the constitution. This case shows how officials can lean one way and others another. It makes for a hard decision. This case will continue until settled with an understanding from both sides.

Some of the comments made in this article struck me as useless. Does it really matter if you are in the military or not? Homosexuality is simple homosexuality. Why does this policy only cover people in the Military? It should be the same for every job and every situation if they are going to have this policy. It seems pointless to obtain it to one group. This is a rising issue, with more and more court cases. We need to settle this issue so as a country we can focus on more important things. It should not be effecting the people in our military and our country so much and so constantly.

View Article Here.

State Tea-Party Groups Splinter as Vote Nears

Evergreen Colorado, Tea party has the chance to make a huge push and win at the polls but instead of coming together they start fighting among themselves by accusing each other by saying lack of courage and betrayal. After all this a poll said Colorado had a 33% member participation but once the arguing started it dropped to 23%. The main issue for the fighting is the Tea party split apart on the issue of who they want for Governor. They originally sided with Republican Dan Maes, a self-employed businessman who has no political history. They felt that Dan Maes is the man who would fight the hardest but after questions were brought up about his experience some members changed sides and are supporting Tom Tancredo who is running on a third party ticket. People feel betrayed because of the flop and this will most likely be there undoing.

This relates to politics greatly. In Politics you have two or more sides wanting to win a position in the government. These groups split up the people and make them chose a side. This shows how politics can make people flop and switch sides. If the questions about Dan Maes never appeared the Tea Party would still be behind him in full strength but instead you have politics, people trying to switch people over to one's side so in result the Tea Party has been split.

The Tea party will make itself lose this election for Governor. You cannot expect to win if your forces are split apart when one's enemy is at full strength. If they want to win they must come together. After the political participation in the tea party dropped from 33% to 23% I feel like they should just start getting ready for the next election and work on coming together. Only by fighting as one force will show them victory in the polls.

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy
Republican Congressman Pete Sessions criticized the Democratic stimulus bill and called it a waste of trillions of dollars. He claimed it was more about stimulating the government and political allies rather than the economy or jobs. However that did not stop him from seeking the stimulus money. He wrote to Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, seeking 81 million dollars for a rail project in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas. When asked about the letter he claims that he would not let his objection to the bill prevent him from asking for stimulus money for the suburb in Texas. He was not alone, many Republicans and conservative Democrats who have spoken out against the stimulus money have also sent letters asking for a handout.

The GOP has had several leaders of the anti-stimulus movement ask for stimulus money. They include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, Pete Sessions, Lamar Alexander, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers. They all have sent letters to Washington asking for stimulus money sent to fund projects. Even John McCain has sent letters asking for money for an energy department funds. He also sent three more letters promoting stimulus applications. These letters have met controversy among tea party activists who are saying that the officials should not accept money that they do not agree with.

The conservative democrats also have hypocrites in their midst. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, James E. Clyburn, and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid have wrote letters requesting funds for a variety of projects. This “change of heart” in bout parties is called “Lettermaking” has allowed people to gain funds they don’t approve of.

The issue here is why they are saying that they do not approve of the spending then turn around and claim that they need a slice of the pie. They should assess whether they need the money themselves then stake their claim. If the official elected by your state is not in touch with the needs of your state then why is said official in office? If the official is speaking without thinking then he or she needs to stop. The way this is going we're going to end up with a congress that expresses its own views instead of the views of the people that it is supposed to represent. Is that not what the House and Senate are supposed to do, express the views of the people, not their party or their personal beliefs?