Prior Restraint: Bush vs. the ACLU

BlogRoll

I run a blog. I receive information from a source that indicates the Bush Administration is planning to drop nuclear bombs on 3 Middle Eastern nations and the Palestinian territory in 3 weeks. Should I blog about it? Does the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights protect my ability to blog about it? Or, as the Bush Administration is currently trying to do, should it be able to issue 'prior restraint' public orders and subpoenas to confiscate from all bloggers and newspapers any, and all information regarding their plan, and prosecute any who publish such information?

What if the situation is simply a declaration in a secret memo that all Democrats are enemies of the state and impeding the future security of the nation. The White House classifies this memo top secret, but it is leaked to the NY Times. Should the White House have the ability to issue a subpoena to the public for all information that may be classified secret and prosecute anyone who publishes that information, including the contents of this memo about Democrats?

This is the topic of a thought provoking editorial at The NY Times regarding a real life scenario now taking place between the White House and the ACLU. This kind of action has been deemed 'prior restraint' by legal beagles, and the courts have consistently held that prior restraint is unconstitutional. Which begs the question: 'Why does the Bush Administration pursue this course of action against the ACLU' ?

Whether you love or hate the ACLU, prior restraint is one of the greatest threats to your and my rights to critique our government's actions, because if prior restraint is permitted under law, nothing our government does will be available for public review. An informed electorate is not possible in a legal environment of prior restraint which dictates that any information which could be used negatively about the government is deemed security information and not subject to publication regardless of the source.

Ladies and Gentleman, with this action by the White House against the ACLU, the White House is attacking our Constitution's Bill of Rights, challenging long standing court precedent, and waging war against the American public's right to know what the government is up to. Will the public fight for their right to know about their government's actions, or will they leave it up to the ACLU to lose this battle with the White House in a more conservative Supreme Court, despite their best efforts?

Posted by David R. Remer on December 15, 2006 8:10 AM | Permalink
© December 15, 2006 8:10 AM, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy

2 Comments

d.a.n said at :
2:04 PM, 12 15 2006 | Permalink

Free speech should never be taken for granted.
Governments are notorious for trying to limit it.
Leaks are fair game.
The Press should try to use good judgment, but free speech is still a right.

However, if the Press is acting consistently in a way to endanger Americans and aid the enemy, then that would be traitorous. But, that would probably require a pattern of behavior. If the federal government really had a good case, most Americans would probably agree. But, more likely, when looking for patterns of behavior, it would be wiser for the people to look at the federal government. People are wise to question its motivations. Especially based on the last few years (and list of things below).

I think the ACLU goes too far sometimes, and should choose their battles more wisely, but free speech is a right that should not be taken for granted.

More importantly, if those in the government are leaking secret information, then they should look to hold someone in government accountable, eh?

Why is that always over-looked ?

No wonder government officials run around saying they are "responsible and accountable" ?

Because it means nothing.

People should be concerned about the growing signs of oppression by their own government.
Sound ridiculous?
Then carefully consider the following:

(1) government invading foreign nations based on flawed (and/or trumped-up) intelligence. Tennet resigned, but no one else is held directly responsible for that major flaw. The hypocrisy of the Congress and lack of being held unaccountable.

(2) Abuse of eminent domain laws; and upheld by the Supreme Court, no less! it is a perfect legal plunder, and perversion of the laws to do the very things they are supposed prevent

(3) Execution and incarceration of innocent people; spying on citizens; releasing repeat offenders to repeat crimes of rape, child molestation, murder, etc.); violation or insufficient protection of basic rights (e.g. discrimination, and crimes based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, sexual preference, etc.); the beating of Spc. Sean Baker;

(4) Government is FOR-SALE; 83% of all money from federal political campaign contributions ($200 or more in 2002) come from a mere 0.15% of the 200 million eligible U.S. voters. How is that fair to the remaining 99.85% of the remaining 200 million eligible U.S. voters? Government is increasingly irresponsible, incompetent, wasteful, and arrogant government that lacks transparency and accountability, can not solve these many problems (above), will not tackle any tough problems for fear of risking re-election, and will not do anything quickly and efficiently, except vote themselves raises and more perks.

(5) Our election system is increasingly dysfunctional due to election fraud, Gerrymandering that defrauds voters via manipulation of geographical boundaries, unfair and illegal barriers preventing third party candidates from getting on election ballots, limited voting choices and candidates; thus, the middle-to-lower-class-income groups are being robbed of an equal voice in government.

(6) Our government and corporations are selling out their fellow Americans by pitting us against each other, and pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other. Cheap labor and votes are more important to bought-and-paid-for politicians. That is why government refuses to enforce existing laws. They vote for half a fence, but fail to vote for funding for it. They are not serious about stopping illegal immigration. Our government wants desparately to use massive immigration for economic reasons. Is that moral?

(7) fiscal and moral bankruptcy

(8) excessive money-printing (for nefarious reasons; examine the motives for the ever-present inflation, instead of targeting ZERO inflation)

(9) plundering of Social Security surpluses

(10) the refusal of Congress (too preoccupied with self-gain, votin' themselves raises [8 times between 1997 and 2006], securing their golden parachutes and their own cu$hy, coveted incumbencies), to address the nations most pressing problems, that continue to grow and grow in number and severity.