5 ms·

What do you mean by him not leaking information. Article 1 section 6 of the constitution gives Congressmen immunity for anything they say in the House. Gravel v

What do you mean by him not leaking information. Article 1 section 6 of the constitution gives Congressmen immunity for anything they say in the House. Gravel v. United States (The Pentagon Papers) established that this immunity applies to leaking classified information. Admittedly, using this immunity would require him to officially leak it under his own name, which likely comes at a significant political cost (could it get him kicked of the Intelligence Committee?), but legally he is protected. EDIT: I am aware that him leaking would come at a significant cost and probably get him kicked off the committee. My point is that he does have the power to leak, and may decide that the change he can effect by leaking outways the change he can effect by staying on the committee.

ceejayoz 13y ago
The Constitution also protects US citizens from execution without trial. And yet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- rayiner 13y ago
  The constitution grants US citizens "due process." That does not necessarily mean a trial. If that's what it meant, that's what it would say. The urge to treat the requirement as a bright line requirement for a trial, regardless of context, goes against the plain text of the constitution. "Due" is inherently a context-sensitive word. The question is: what process is "due" (literally, warranted or owed) to someone who wages war against the US from lawless regions of Yemen, evading capture for years? Its not an indefensible position to say "wild west" rules apply in that situation.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    As much as I appreciate your opinion, I think we all can agree that turning this into an Anwar Al-Awlaki debate is not going to be beneficial for this topic at all. I agree with you... but line of argument is going to open a can of worms I'd rather not see opened in this debate. This topic should be focused on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The problem is that this sort of reasoning poisons every topic. The reason for bringing up Al Awlaki is basically to say: "if the US government is murdering Americans in cold blood, what wont't they do?" And at that point debate is pointless. Okay, the rule of law is dead, let's move to Canada before we get drone striked for speaking ill of Obama.
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        Indeed, but you aren't going to convince ceejayoz on this matter. It isn't ceejayoz who you want to win over in this fight either, if he's already lost faith in the rule of law, then it is pointless to try and convince him to do something productive with the rule of law. Do you want to get work done? Do you want to see legal change in America? Well, the way to step forward has already presented itself. Lets work forward, instead of focusing on tangential issues. I've pointed out the Senators who to support, and I've introduced the basic lay of the political field. Focusing on literally dead-horse issues like Anwar Al-Awlaki will hamper progress. There is a single, clear, resounding message that can be brought to light here. Champion Wyden and Udall and amplify their message. PS: Wyden and Udall have been critical of the Drones program as well.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        "Focusing on literally dead-horse issues like Anwar Al-Awlaki will hamper progress." The "literally" there - and the stressing of it - is rhetoric not argument. If Obama started assassinating anyone who disagreed, they'd be literally dead too, but addressing it would be a priority...
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    And what of the Constitution's rights to a trial and to confront your accuser?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      First, the Confrontation Clause isn't a shield meant to provide blanket protection from the use of force prior to a full trial. If it was, the police wouldn't be able to use force --- ever --- to deal with violent crimes in progress. Second, Al-Awlaki (I assume this is who we're talking about) wasn't executed; he was assassinated. His killing was extrajudicial, a military action and not a law enforcement action. If that's disquieting to you, join the club, and consider whether the problem once again stems to the fact that the USG formally declared war on an organization rather than a state for the first time in its history. Also worth knowing: Al-Awlaki's killing wasn't unprecedented. US citizens, believed (probably correctly) to be aiding and fighting alongside the Axis powers, were targeted and killed during World War II by US troops.
rtpg 13y ago
maybe he thinks he could be more useful trying to fix the problem at its root rather than just treat one of the symptoms?
dragontamer 13y ago
And if Wyden an Udall fall out of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who will keep tabs on the Intelligence Community after that? 13 of the 15 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were cool with everything revealed, and are currently defending it. Only Wyden and Udall have been critical to these programs. Politically speaking, everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee are consistent with what they believe in.
rdl 13y ago
What would it take to get Senator Paul on a committee like this?
drcube 13y ago
The clause in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause "...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Leaking classified information is a felony, and may also be construed as treason. Sounds to me like he has no immunity at all. I'm not a lawyer or Supreme Court justice, however.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I'm not sure why whoever did it decided "They shall" should become "...shall"... but there's two complete and mostly separate ideas here, separated by a semicolon. 1) They shall in [most Cases] be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; This obviously doesn't apply here because of the bit you highlighted, and because they probably don't care that much about not being arrested only while Congress is in session... 2) [F]or any Speech or Debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other Place. Which is the bit that seems to quite clearly forbid punishing them for what they say on the floor. While semicolons are sometimes used to separate items of a list, in this case the grammer wouldn't work at all if you try to do that - "They shall in all Cases, [...] for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place". The repetition of "They shall" in particular seems glaring. I'm wishing I remembered my linguistics well enough to pin it down in more precise terms, but hopefully it's clear... My understanding is that this was explicitly used by a Senator in releasing the Pentagon Papers, so it's not merely theoretical grammar nazism, either.

ceejayoz 13y ago

The Constitution also protects US citizens from execution without trial. And yet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

rayiner 13y ago
The constitution grants US citizens "due process." That does not necessarily mean a trial. If that's what it meant, that's what it would say. The urge to treat the requirement as a bright line requirement for a trial, regardless of context, goes against the plain text of the constitution. "Due" is inherently a context-sensitive word. The question is: what process is "due" (literally, warranted or owed) to someone who wages war against the US from lawless regions of Yemen, evading capture for years? Its not an indefensible position to say "wild west" rules apply in that situation.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  As much as I appreciate your opinion, I think we all can agree that turning this into an Anwar Al-Awlaki debate is not going to be beneficial for this topic at all. I agree with you... but line of argument is going to open a can of worms I'd rather not see opened in this debate. This topic should be focused on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The problem is that this sort of reasoning poisons every topic. The reason for bringing up Al Awlaki is basically to say: "if the US government is murdering Americans in cold blood, what wont't they do?" And at that point debate is pointless. Okay, the rule of law is dead, let's move to Canada before we get drone striked for speaking ill of Obama.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      Indeed, but you aren't going to convince ceejayoz on this matter. It isn't ceejayoz who you want to win over in this fight either, if he's already lost faith in the rule of law, then it is pointless to try and convince him to do something productive with the rule of law. Do you want to get work done? Do you want to see legal change in America? Well, the way to step forward has already presented itself. Lets work forward, instead of focusing on tangential issues. I've pointed out the Senators who to support, and I've introduced the basic lay of the political field. Focusing on literally dead-horse issues like Anwar Al-Awlaki will hamper progress. There is a single, clear, resounding message that can be brought to light here. Champion Wyden and Udall and amplify their message. PS: Wyden and Udall have been critical of the Drones program as well.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "Focusing on literally dead-horse issues like Anwar Al-Awlaki will hamper progress." The "literally" there - and the stressing of it - is rhetoric not argument. If Obama started assassinating anyone who disagreed, they'd be literally dead too, but addressing it would be a priority...
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  And what of the Constitution's rights to a trial and to confront your accuser?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    First, the Confrontation Clause isn't a shield meant to provide blanket protection from the use of force prior to a full trial. If it was, the police wouldn't be able to use force --- ever --- to deal with violent crimes in progress. Second, Al-Awlaki (I assume this is who we're talking about) wasn't executed; he was assassinated. His killing was extrajudicial, a military action and not a law enforcement action. If that's disquieting to you, join the club, and consider whether the problem once again stems to the fact that the USG formally declared war on an organization rather than a state for the first time in its history. Also worth knowing: Al-Awlaki's killing wasn't unprecedented. US citizens, believed (probably correctly) to be aiding and fighting alongside the Axis powers, were targeted and killed during World War II by US troops.

rtpg 13y ago

maybe he thinks he could be more useful trying to fix the problem at its root rather than just treat one of the symptoms?

dragontamer 13y ago

And if Wyden an Udall fall out of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who will keep tabs on the Intelligence Community after that? 13 of the 15 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were cool with everything revealed, and are currently defending it. Only Wyden and Udall have been critical to these programs. Politically speaking, everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee are consistent with what they believe in.

rdl 13y ago

What would it take to get Senator Paul on a committee like this?

drcube 13y ago

The clause in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause "...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Leaking classified information is a felony, and may also be construed as treason. Sounds to me like he has no immunity at all. I'm not a lawyer or Supreme Court justice, however.

dllthomas 13y ago
I'm not sure why whoever did it decided "They shall" should become "...shall"... but there's two complete and mostly separate ideas here, separated by a semicolon. 1) They shall in [most Cases] be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; This obviously doesn't apply here because of the bit you highlighted, and because they probably don't care that much about not being arrested only while Congress is in session... 2) [F]or any Speech or Debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other Place. Which is the bit that seems to quite clearly forbid punishing them for what they say on the floor. While semicolons are sometimes used to separate items of a list, in this case the grammer wouldn't work at all if you try to do that - "They shall in all Cases, [...] for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place". The repetition of "They shall" in particular seems glaring. I'm wishing I remembered my linguistics well enough to pin it down in more precise terms, but hopefully it's clear... My understanding is that this was explicitly used by a Senator in releasing the Pentagon Papers, so it's not merely theoretical grammar nazism, either.