Quake3World

Wow.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8417075/

The defense had requested the option of house arrest, but the prosecutor wouldn't give in because he didn't think it would be a big enough deterrent to get her to give up her source.

Nightmare

democracy--

[An administration the can keep its activities even quieter now that the media is afraid to report any of them]++

u morons...she belongs in jail...

they aren't afraid...this doesn't hurt anything...thats bush propoganda...

The US of gay...

If the media doesn't have to name their sources they could pretty much say whatever the hell they want to. The press needs to be credible or it would just be another national enquire. If the source doesn't want to be identified they should keep their mouths shut. I see it all the time though "speaking on the condition anonimity" Reporters already think they are above the law, they need to make an example out of her.

kinda funny how there is virtually no mention of Karl Rove in the recent media attention

The US law system is so fucked, seriously.

SplEEb wrote:If the media doesn't have to name their sources they could pretty much say whatever the hell they want to. The press needs to be credible or it would just be another national enquire. If the source doesn't want to be identified they should keep their mouths shut. I see it all the time though "speaking on the condition anonimity" Reporters already think they are above the law, they need to make an example out of her.

That post is schizophrenic, contradictory and just plain ignorant.

I agree that - in this case - the silly faggots should be naming all their sources, in the bests interests of this country and its citizens. I mean, treason was committed, and all the journalists are effectively doing by withholding the information is protecting the criminals who committed the acts.

But in the normal course of events, journalists should not have to reveal their sources.

Think about it. Why would any government employee - who has just witnessed fraud, treason, or any other crime - blow the whistle on their superiors' actions, if the journalist could just be forced to reveal his identity, so his employers could rataliate against him for it?

Nearly every criminal prosecution of corrupt government officials has started with an anonymous tip to an investigative journalist.

come on, really. She's just a small part of the fucking piece of shit monster fear machine we call the press...
do you guys really care or just seeking some daily drama to gasp at?

Read my post.

Saying it's nothing is just like saying Roe Vs Wade was just a single court case with no relevance to today.

I don't read any of your posts.

ever.

Then that was a pretty clairvoyant response you just made, numbnuts.

R00k wrote:

SplEEb wrote:If the media doesn't have to name their sources they could pretty much say whatever the hell they want to. The press needs to be credible or it would just be another national enquire. If the source doesn't want to be identified they should keep their mouths shut. I see it all the time though "speaking on the condition anonimity" Reporters already think they are above the law, they need to make an example out of her.

That post is schizophrenic, contradictory and just plain ignorant.

I agree that - in this case - the silly faggots should be naming all their sources, in the bests interests of this country and its citizens. I mean, treason was committed, and all the journalists are effectively doing by withholding the information is protecting the criminals who committed the acts.

But in the normal course of events, journalists should not have to reveal their sources.

Think about it. Why would any government employee - who has just witnessed fraud, treason, or any other crime - blow the whistle on their superiors' actions, if the journalist could just be forced to reveal his identity, so his employers could rataliate against him for it?

Nearly every criminal prosecution of corrupt government officials has started with an anonymous tip to an investigative journalist.

You obviously understood what I was saying and agreed so you must be ignorant, no? Dont bother retorting cause I won't be here to read it.

^^

SplEEb wrote:You obviously understood what I was saying and agreed so you must be ignorant, no? Dont bother retorting cause I won't be here to read it.

LOL. No, I didn't agree with you, you idiot.

Underpants? wrote:I don't read any of your posts.

Underpants? wrote:ever.

Of course not. If you don't understand politics, why would you read political opinions and debates? I won't hold that against you.

Either you don't know that US court cases set precedents that are followed in later decisions; or you believe that Watergate wasn't really a worthwhile endeavor, and that Deep Throat should have been exposed to his peers and bosses back during the scandal.

I guess they should lock Woodward and Bernstein up too then.

the source of the leak in watergate wasn't using a reporter to break the law...its different moron...

Hey fuck that, if a journalist get's a source willing to give out info like that and law enforcement can't then obviously law enforcement is the issue, not the journalist that's more capable than the law extracting information. It's not her fault those that should be getting this information from the source can't do it because of incompetence.

tnf wrote:Then that was a pretty clairvoyant response you just made, numbnuts.

professor poof :lol:

Don't waste your time...I don't read any of your posts..ever. :lol: