<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>OfficialSecretsAct</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/news/OfficialSecretsAct</link>
<description>News Community Action</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 - Steal what you want</copyright>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:17:04 +0000</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:17:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<managingEditor>Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos)</managingEditor>
<webMaster>Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos)</webMaster>

<item>
<title>UPDATED: The Dangers of &#x22;Leak&#x22; Hysteria #2: Could Lead to Official Secrets Act</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/6/13/1099626/-The-Dangers-of-Leak-Hysteria-2-Could-Lead-to-Official-Secrets-Act</link>
<description>
&#x3C;p&#x3E;In 2000, Congress created and passed a broad anti-leak measure without holding public hearings. President Clinton &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/wh110400.html&#x22;&#x3E;vetoed&#x3C;/a&#x3E; the bill because, although the bill was well-intentioned, it would&#x3C;/p&#x3E;
&#x3C;blockquote&#x3E;. . . chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a democracy.&#x3C;/blockquote&#x3E;
The difference between 2000, when Clinton vetoed the bill, and now, when the Obama administration has waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers and Congress is again considering creating anti-leak legislation, is the 9/11 attacks. But just because 9/11 happened does not change the relevancy and power of Clinton&#x27;s warning against broad anti-leak measures. We have already given away too much of our freedom because of 9/11. &#x26;nbsp;
&#x3C;p&#x3E;UPDATE:&#x3C;br /&#x3E;
Don&#x27;t miss this &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/opinion/dont-prosecute-leakers-who-defend-our-constitution.html&#x22;&#x3E;excellent op-ed&#x3C;/a&#x3E; in today&#x27;s &#x3C;em&#x3E;New York Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E; by my Yale Law School professor, Bruce Ackerman, which beautifully strikes to the heart of the dangers of criminalizing whistleblowing:&#x3C;br /&#x3E;&#x3C;/p&#x3E;
&#x3C;blockquote&#x3E;Telling Americans about secret presidential actions that threaten our fundamental law should never be considered violations of the Espionage Act. Such leaks don&#x2019;t endanger our national security. They promote it, by preserving our constitutional integrity.&#x3C;/blockquote&#x3E;
</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (Jesselyn Radack)</author>
<category>BobBarr</category>
<category>Congress</category>
<category>Leaks</category>
<category>Nancy Pelosi</category>
<category>NancyPelosi</category>
<category>National Security</category>
<category>NationalSecurity</category>
<category>Obama</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>Recommended</category>
<category>Whistleblower</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_1099626</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x22;Too Classified to Try&#x22; Myth in Failed Drake Prosecution</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/6/11/984192/--Too-Classified-to-Try-Myth-in-Failed-Drake-Prosecution</link>
<description>
&#x3C;p&#x3E;The government&#x27;s transparent attempt to save face in the collapse of its Espionage Act case against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake is misleading. &#x26;nbsp;Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer of the Criminal Division stated in a &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/June/11-crm-760.html&#x22;&#x3E;press release&#x3C;/a&#x3E;:&#x3C;/p&#x3E;
&#x3C;blockquote&#x3E;[I]n cases involving classified information, we must always strike the careful balance between holding accountable those who break our laws, while not disclosing highly-sensitive information that our intelligence agencies conclude would be harmful to our nation&#x2019;s security if used at trial.&#x3C;br /&#x3E;&#x3C;/blockquote&#x3E;
&#x3C;br /&#x3E;
As a general proposition, this is true, but that is not what happened in the Drake case. &#x26;nbsp;The real reason the case imploded is because the &#x3C;em&#x3E;government was attempting to try him on information that it knew before it indicted him was unclassified&#x3C;/em&#x3E;, which should send chills down everyone&#x27;s spine.
</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (Jesselyn Radack)</author>
<category>JusticeDepartment</category>
<category>LannyBreuer</category>
<category>MatthewAid</category>
<category>NSA</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>ThomasDrake</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_984192</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:57:01 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Daniel Ellsberg still scares the hell out of me.</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/24/913249/-Daniel-Ellsberg-still-scares-the-hell-out-of-me</link>
<description>&#x3C;p&#x3E;I remember the weekend the Pentagon Papers were first published. &#x26;nbsp;I know it was a weekend, because Dad took us to visit Grandpa, and he only had custody of us on the weekends. &#x26;nbsp;I was too young to understand the &#x26;nbsp;full import of the story at the time. &#x26;nbsp;But there was no doubt this was big news. &#x26;nbsp;&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;p&#x3E;It wasn&#x27;t just the fact this story was plastered across the front page of the New York Times. &#x26;nbsp;&#x3C;em&#x3E;Something&#x3C;/em&#x3E; is plastered across the front page of the New York Times every day. &#x26;nbsp;However, this was the first time I saw something on the front page of the New York Times that made adults go nuts. &#x26;nbsp;&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;p&#x3E;Dad was furious. &#x26;nbsp;He&#x27;d read a bit of the story, then he&#x27;d start shaking the paper and yelling about how outrageous and irresponsible it was. &#x26;nbsp;Grandpa just kept pointing at the paper and saying, &#x22;Keep reading. &#x26;nbsp;It gets worse.&#x22;&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (8ackgr0und N015e)</author>
<category>DanielEllsberg</category>
<category>EspionageAct</category>
<category>First Amendment</category>
<category>MythingThePoint</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>Recommended</category>
<category>theempirestrikesback</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_913249</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>British court confirms that Bush is a warmonger</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/9/332828/-British-court-confirms-that-Bush-is-a-warmonger</link>
<description>&#x3C;p&#x3E;&#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://imageshack.us&#x22;&#x3E;&#x3C;img width=&#x22;25%&#x22; alt=&#x22;Image Hosted by ImageShack.us&#x22; align=&#x22;right&#x22; src=&#x22;http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7339/000ccf70c8941382ab730c0sj6.jpg&#x22; border /&#x3E;&#x3C;/a&#x3E;You could read the news from Britain that way. In 2004 David Keogh, a British civil servant, leaked a top secret memo to an aide for a Labour MP. The memo recorded the substance of talks in April 2004 between Tony Blair and George Bush at meetings which Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice also attended. Keogh says that he leaked the memo because it shows Bush to be a &#x22;madman&#x22;, and he hoped it would get into the hands of John Kerry.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;p&#x3E;In 2005, The Daily Mirror published details of the memo. It records Bush telling Blair that he wanted to bomb the headquarters of Al-Jazeera in Qatar, an ally of the U.S. The memo also depicts Blair urging Bush not to do so because it would cause an international backlash.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (smintheus)</author>
<category>al-Jazeera</category>
<category>AlJazeera</category>
<category>Colin Powell</category>
<category>ColinPowell</category>
<category>CondoleezzaRice</category>
<category>DavidKeogh</category>
<category>George W. Bush</category>
<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
<category>Iraq</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>Qatar</category>
<category>TonyBlair</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_332828</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 18:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>A new Bush &#x26; Blair memo is a &#x22;stinking fish&#x22;</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/4/330978/-A-new-Bush-Blair-memo-is-a-stinking-fish</link>
<description>&#x3C;p&#x3E;I just want to put this &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1744611.ece&#x22;&#x3E;Times [London] story&#x3C;/a&#x3E; on the radar:&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;blockquote&#x3E;
&#x3C;p&#x3E;A leaked government document at the heart of an Official Secrets Act trial contained a &#x22;stinking fish&#x22; that had the potential to cause political embarrassment to President Bush, a defence barrister told the Old Bailey yesterday.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;p&#x3E;...&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;p&#x3E;The document was a recorded minute, in the form of a letter, of a two-hour meeting about Iraq between Tony Blair and Mr Bush, at the White House, on April 16, 2004.
&#x3C;/p&#x3E;
&#x3C;/blockquote&#x3E;
&#x3C;p&#x3E;A little more, but not much...&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (genespleen)</author>
<category>2004</category>
<category>George W. Bush</category>
<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
<category>Memo</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>TonyBlair</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_330978</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 12:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Assault on the First Amendment</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/23/326662/-Assault-on-the-First-Amendment</link>
<description>&#x3C;p&#x3E;I&#x26;rsquo;m not sure why but I get the distinct feeling that I&#x26;rsquo;ve heard about this &#x3C;em&#x3E;plot&#x3C;/em&#x3E; before; a couple of years ago, I think. Either that or I&#x26;rsquo;m just so used to the evildoers in the White House attempting to usurp more power while abrogating the constitutional rights of everyday Americans, that it all seems like one ongoing scheme to bring this country down. I really don&#x26;rsquo;t know which it is but I suspect the latter. I&#x26;rsquo;ll admit, my mind&#x26;rsquo;s been in a whir the past few years, all jumbled up trying to figure out complex legal stuff from a layman&#x26;rsquo;s point of view. Just the myriad of illegalities committed by the Bush administration and what effects they&#x26;rsquo;ll have on America is enough to keep my mind in a perpetual state of boggled&#x27;ness.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;p&#x3E;Anyway, if there&#x26;rsquo;s one good thing I&#x26;rsquo;ve seen come from the Bush era it is that people like me, everyday people like me -- couple of years of college but slept through civics class back in high school &#x26;#8211; now pay more attention to the election process overall, and have begun to take an interest in government sausage making.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;p&#x3E;But I digress.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (markthshark)</author>
<category>AIPAC</category>
<category>AlbertoGonzales</category>
<category>EspionageAct</category>
<category>First Amendment</category>
<category>LawrenceFranklin</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>PaulMcNulty</category>
<category>Rescued</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_326662</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Espionage Act of 1917 being used to Crush the First Ammendment</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/23/326519/-Espionage-Act-of-1917-being-used-to-Crush-the-First-Ammendment</link>
<description>&#x3C;p&#x3E;When I first started reading about the &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC_espionage_scandal&#x22;&#x3E;Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal&#x3C;/a&#x3E; , I was intrigued and wondered, with the politicising of the DOJ, which has been evident to many of us in the blogosphere long before the current controversy, how this came to be. &#x26;nbsp;It seemed to me that the Bushistas would have kept this from coming to light or at least given it their best shot. &#x26;nbsp;But now &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://harpers.org/subjects/ScottHorton&#x22;&#x3E;Scott Horton&#x3C;/a&#x3E; from &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment&#x22;&#x3E;No Comment&#x3C;/a&#x3E; explains it perfectly. &#x26;nbsp;Not only did Abu Gonzales not care if Lawrence Franklin&#x27;s deeds were revealed, he and Paul Mcnulty couldn&#x27;t wait to get this into a courtroom. &#x26;nbsp;Follow me beyond the flip for why this matters.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

&#x3C;p&#x3E;More after these messages...&#x3C;/p&#x3E;

</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (OCD)</author>
<category>AIPAC</category>
<category>AlbertoGonzales</category>
<category>EspionageAct</category>
<category>First Amendment</category>
<category>LawrenceFranklin</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>PaulMcNulty</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_326519</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>GOP Senators Support Implementation of Official Secrets Act</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/8/234248/-GOP-Senators-Support-Implementation-of-Official-Secrets-Act</link>
<description>Last week, the &#x3C;b&#x3E;National Security Whistleblowers Coalition&#x3C;/b&#x3E; issued a &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/Bond-Alert.htm&#x22;&#x3E;press release&#x3C;/a&#x3E; in response to &#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3774.html&#x22;&#x3E;S. 3774&#x3C;/a&#x3E;, legislation introduced by Senator Christopher Bond R-MO, which would eliminate the government&#x27;s burden to prove damage in prosecuting whistleblowers. &#x3C;/p&#x3E;&#x3C;p&#x3E;
&#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/of_leaks_and_whistleblowers.html&#x22;&#x3E;Secrecy News&#x3C;/a&#x3E; claims that the new legislation is identical to the anti-leak legislation that was vetoed by President Clinton in 2000.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;&#x3C;p&#x3E;
The United States has never had a statute generally criminalizing leaks or the publication of sensitive information. Despite consideration at a number of moments in our history, concern for the First Amendment and the principle that the press acts as an important check on government abuse has thwarted all previous efforts to pass such legislation.</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (thert)</author>
<category>ClassifiedInformation</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>Whistleblower</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_234248</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:34:02 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hunting Whistleblowers in the Name of National Security</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/4/233288/-Hunting-Whistleblowers-in-the-Name-of-National-Security</link>
<description>Senators Rick Santorum, R-PA, and Conrad Burns, R-MT, support implementation of Official Secret&#x27;s Act, &#x26;nbsp;S.3774, introduced yesterday by Senator Christopher Bond, R-MO, to criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Bond&#x27;s bill seeks to enable the Executive Branch in prosecuting individuals engaged in disclosure of government secrets. According to the release issued by Senator Bond&#x27;s office, the legislation seeks to unify current law and ease the government&#x27;s burden in prosecuting and punishing leakers by eliminating the need to prove that damage to the national security has or will result from a disclosure. According to the new release by Secrecy News reports, the new Bond bill is identical to the controversial anti-leak legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Shelby in the FY 2001 Intelligence Authorization Act that was vetoed by President Clinton in November 2000. The bill was called the &#x22;Official Secrets Act,&#x22; after the U.K.&#x27;s repressive criminal secrecy statutes. </description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (statesecrets)</author>
<category>ChristopherBond</category>
<category>Congress</category>
<category>ConradBurns</category>
<category>freedomofPress</category>
<category>Leaks</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>RickSantorum</category>
<category>Whistleblower</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_233288</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title> Breaking: Confirmed. There are two al-Jazeera memos - two Bush bomb bombshells</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/29/168276/--Breaking-Confirmed-There-are-two-al-Jazeera-memos-two-Bush-bomb-bombshells</link>
<description>UK bloggers beating Fleet Street once again.... incredible work - and solid blogtage by the lads from Blair Watch. &#x3C;/p&#x3E;
&#x3C;p&#x3E;&#x3C;a target=&#x22;_blank&#x22; href=&#x22;http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/612&#x22;&#x3E;From Blair Watch&#x3C;/a&#x3E;&#x3C;/p&#x3E;
&#x3C;blockquote&#x3E;
  &#x3C;p&#x3E; We have had our suspicions (argued below) that the Times memo and the Mirror memo citing Bush&#x26;rsquo;s plans to bomb al-Jazeera are entirely different documents confirmed by Peter Kilfoyle MP, who has seen both documents.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;
  &#x3C;p&#x3E; He was naturally reticent, but when we aked Peter if the source for the Mirror article was related to the &#x26;lsquo;prosecution&#x26;rsquo; of and Keogh and O&#x26;rsquo;Connor over last years leak to the Times he said:&#x3C;/p&#x3E;
  &#x3C;p&#x3E; &#x3C;strong&#x3E;Wholly different sources.&#x3C;/strong&#x3E;&#x3C;br&#x3E;
    &#x3C;br&#x3E;
    The Times used &#x26;lsquo;official&#x26;rsquo; leaks; the current document remains top secret - they are livid it is out.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;
&#x3C;/blockquote&#x3E;</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (caribmon)</author>
<category>Al Jazeera</category>
<category>AlJazeera</category>
<category>Bombing</category>
<category>DavidKeogh</category>
<category>George W. Bush</category>
<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
<category>Iraq</category>
<category>LeoOConnor</category>
<category>MiddleEast</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>policies</category>
<category>Qatar</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_168276</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>MP:  &#x26;quot;I will print the truth about Bush&#x26;quot;</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/25/167722/-MP-quot-I-will-print-the-truth-about-Bush-quot</link>
<description>Boris Johnson, a British MP who also happens to be the editor of &#x3C;i&#x3E;The Spectator&#x3C;/i&#x3E;, has said that if someone will pass him the leaked, secret paper that documents Bush&#x27;s comments regarding Al-Jazeera, he&#x27;s willing to go to jail and will publish them. &#x26;nbsp;&#x3C;/p&#x3E;&#x3C;p&#x3E;
&#x3C;blockquote&#x3E;The Attorney General&#x27;s ban is ridiculous, untenable, and redolent of guilt. I do not like people to break the Official Secrets Act ... we now have allegations of such severity, against the US President and his motives, that we need to clear them up. &#x3C;/p&#x3E;&#x3C;p&#x3E;
If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. .. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for.&#x3C;/blockquote&#x3E;&#x3C;/p&#x3E;&#x3C;p&#x3E;
Amen, brother!</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (Barbara Morrill)</author>
<category>Al Jazeera</category>
<category>AlJazeera</category>
<category>BorisJohnson</category>
<category>Free Press</category>
<category>FreePress</category>
<category>George W. Bush</category>
<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
<category>Media</category>
<category>MP</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_167722</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Legal defense fund needed</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/24/167589/-Legal-defense-fund-needed</link>
<description>The Guardian (11/24/05, Guardian Unlimited online version) ran a piece describing how Lord Goldsmith, UK Attorney General has &#x22;put down a marker&#x22; (kind of like drawing a line in the sand, I guess) over disclosure of the memo concerning Bush&#x27;s desire to bomb Al-Jazeera. &#x26;nbsp;It seems charges have been brought against two former officials, David Keogh and Leo O&#x27;Connor who leaked the memo disclosing Bush&#x27;s wish to bomb the Arab radio station and that Tony Blair apparently talked him out of it:</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (thorny1)</author>
<category>Al Jazeera</category>
<category>AlJazeera</category>
<category>Bombing</category>
<category>britishleak</category>
<category>DavidKeogh</category>
<category>George W. Bush</category>
<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
<category>LeoOConnor</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>TonyBlair</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_167589</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:38:47 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Would Daily Kos Post Confidential Brtish Govt. Documents</title>
<link>https://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/24/167484/-Would-Daily-Kos-Post-Confidential-Brtish-Govt-Documents</link>
<description>In Today&#x27;s Guardian (link below), the British Government has invoked the Official Secrets Act to ban the publishing of leaked transcripts of Blair convincing Bush to not bomb the headquarters of the broadcaster, Al Jazeera.&#x3C;/p&#x3E;&#x3C;p&#x3E;
If the people who leaked the documents to The Guardian would have leaked them to Daily Kos and other blogs in the US and other countries; would they have been posted on their sites? If yes; why not leak to the blogs which would certainly make mute the Official Secrets Act in England!!&#x3C;/p&#x3E;&#x3C;p&#x3E;
link to Guardian story:&#x3C;a href=&#x22;http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1649351,00.html&#x22;&#x3E;http://politics.guardian.co.uk/...&#x3C;/a&#x3E;</description>
<author>rss@dailykos.com (An American Living in London)</author>
<category>George W. Bush</category>
<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
<category>OfficialSecretsAct</category>
<category>TonyBlair</category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">_167484</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:43:55 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>