The News & Observer and nine other North Carolina news organizations sued Gov. Mike Easley on Monday over his administration’s deletion of e-mail, which they say violates the state’s Public Records Law.
The news media coalition accuses Easley’s administration of “the systematic deletion, destruction or concealment of e-mail messages sent from or received by the Governor’s Office” in violation of the law, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Wake County Superior Court.
Apparently, Britney Spears is in the middle of another controversy.
Ever since Britney took off in an ambulance surrounded by police cars, motorcycles and a helicopter, Dennis Zine, a popular political figure has pushed for L.A. lawmakers to provide a “Safety Bubble” for celebrities.
This “Safety Bubble” basically states that the Paparazzi must keep a minimum of 20 yards away from celebrities deemed “paparazzi targets”. Some celebrities with this level of star power are Angelina & Brad, Tom & Katie, George Clooney and…Britney Spears.
The demand for private, personal or intimate photos of celebrities is in greater demand than ever before. The reason being, just one of these photos can rake in six figures or more.
There should be limitations placed on “overly-aggressive” paparazzi who endanger the safety of those involved but, one thing to remember is that when someone becomes a “high-profile” celebrity, they should have already realized that much of their private life would no longer be private and that they have to sacrifice much of what us “little people” take for granted.
Blogging is still thought of as writing a personal diary and not something to waste time on by many people. There are still offline journalists and reporters who believe blogging is just a trend that will pass.
Dan Rather might beg to differ and many news organizations have either tried to adopt blogging or at least now know they have to take blogging seriously.
Bloggers were laughed at when they called what we do “journalism” or “news” and mainstream media only recently acknowledged bloggers as commentators at least.
But the Federal Government doesn’t seem to deny that bloggers are journalists or news sources after all;
FOIA reform: Bloggers are journalists, too
By Nate Anderson of ARSTechnica.comIt’s not every day that a senator takes to the floor to defend “Internet blogs and other Web-based forms of media,” but Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has done just that in his recent push to pass a Freedom of Information Act reform bill he has coauthored with two Republicans.
The Senate passed the OPEN Government Act last week (which builds on previous reform attempts), and the House followed suit on Tuesday of this week. The reforms in the bill make it easier for bloggers and other Internet journalists to make FOIA requests without paying fees, and they strengthen deadlines for agencies to respond to requests. Contractors who work for the federal government are now explicitly covered by FOIA rules, and a new FOIA Ombudsman will help resolve disputes outside of court. The legislation awaits President Bush’s pen.
FOIA has always exempted journalists from paying fees to access government records (other citizens and companies are charged for search time and duplication of documents), but the rise of the Internet has made it more difficult for government agencies to decide if someone is a legitimate “journalist” or not.
The same news media that was all over the impeachment of Bill Clinton barely gives any space or time to impeachment against Cheney and possibly Bush. With Bill Clinton, it involved sex so it sold newspapers and brought in viewers and listeners.
But when it comes to much more serious charges leveled at Bush and Cheney, the backers of impeachment proceeedings have a hard time getting any coverage at all.
MEMORANDUM
To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
From: John C. Bonifaz
Date: May 22, 2005
RE: The President’s Impeachable OffensesThe recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The following is about The Downing Street Memo;
The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “[i]t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”
British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.
The following are articles of impeachment that were drawn up while Donald H. Rumsfeld was still in office;
Articles of Impeachment
Of
George W. Bush, President of the United States,
Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States and
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United StatesPart of Article 1:
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney initiated hostilities amounting to a declaration of war against Iraq without the informed consent of Congress.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included on or more of the following:
1. making, or causing to be made, false or misleading statements to the United States Congress;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from the United States Congress;
3. misuse of the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
4. misuse of the military of the United States;
5. making, or causing to be made, false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into supporting hostilities against the sovereign nation of Iraq, and continuing to make such misstatements.In all of this, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President of the United States, respectively, and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of United States.
WHEREFORE, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
This is a more recent and detailed explanation of charges against Bush;
George W. Bush has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Bush’s threat of force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force. Bush has secretly supported preliminary acts of war within Iran with neither approval from nor funding by Congress.
Bush has initiated the development of new nuclear weapons, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the law of the land.
George W. Bush also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war.
George W. Bush also misappropriated funds with which to conduct the preliminary stages of this war, prior to receiving any funding or any form of authorization from Congress.
George W. Bush, in violation of the United Nations Charter, which is the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, launched an aggressive war neither in self-defense nor under authorization of the UN Security Council.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has allowed the U.S. military to violate treaties to which the United States is party and has failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for these abuse.
These violations include the targeting of civilians, journalists, and medical personnel, and the illegal use of a variety of weapons, including:
-Land mines, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;
-Cluster bombs, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;
-Depleted uranium munitions, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol 1, Articles 35.2, 35.3, 48 and 55.1;
-Napalm or Mark 77 Firebomb, used in Iraq in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
-White phosphorous, which Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable confirmed on November 15, 2005 was deployed “as an incendiary weapon” in urban areas of Fallujah, Iraq, where there were high concentrations of civilians, during Operation Phantom Fury (November 2004-January 2005), making the said deployment of white phosphorous a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
-BLU-82B/C-130 “daisy cutter” bombs, used in Afghanistan in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Articles 35, 48, 51 and 55.has directed or authorized the National Security Agency and various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the statutes Congress has prescribed as the exclusive means for such surveillance, and to use such information for purposes unknown but unrelated to any lawful function of his office; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of electronic surveillance from Congress, the press, and the public.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers.
George W. Bush has formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a “signing statement” to legislation, asserting his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby arrogating to himself powers reserved solely to Congress. George W. Bush has, in several instances, gone on to act on his self-declared right to violate these laws. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.
George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by allowing his administration to condone torture, failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
has allowed his administration to fire United States Attorneys in retaliation for the proper performance of their jobs when that performance conflicted with the partisan interests of the President, and has failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this abuse.
has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces of information, funding misleading journalism, producing misleading video reports falsely presented as independent journalism, using the U.S. military to target journalists in Iraq, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.
George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by allowing his administration to reveal the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she worked for, and by failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this security breach.
The following are charges against Dick Cheney;
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:
Richard B. Cheney has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Richard B. Cheney’s threat of force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter the law of the land.
These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national security of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.
Richard B. Cheney has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying a war with false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed choice and thereby undermined democracy.
Richard B. Cheney also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war. Cheney pressured intelligence services to produce false and misleading reports, and Cheney used those reports to mislead the Congress and the people of the United States.
Richard B. Cheney and his subordinates have advocated for a legal theory of the “unitary executive” aimed at placing the President above the rule of law.
has violated the rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process, without charges, and with limited, if any, access to counsel or courts.
Richard B. Cheney has condoned torture, failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refused to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Richard B. Cheney has offended our system of government by attempting to expand executive power at the expense of the other two branches of government.
has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces of information, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.
Richard B. Cheney has abused his power by conspiring to reveal the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she worked for.
has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people.
Richard B. Cheney has allowed a small group of corporate executives to plan national policies in secret, and enacted policies that benefited a corporation from which the Vice President financially profited.
(1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the nation’s energy policy.
(2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
(3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms.
On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the Vice President did willfully disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. In September 2002, and prior thereto, the Vice President did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the aforementioned group. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.
It doesn’t matter if you agree with these charges or not.
It doesn’t matter whether you think they can prove all or part of these charges.
They are serious charges. The charges are much more serious than those filed against Bill Clinton. If you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and do not support the impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, then you are being hypocritical.
Approving of impeachment proceedings does not mean they will be impeached. They could also be exhonerated and found to be not guilty of the charges at all. This would just mean there would be an investigation and a hearing on the charges.
There are a lot of average citizens arrested on less evidence than there is here and they have to stand trial. They are assumed innocent until proven guilty just as Bush and Cheney should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Assumed innocent does not mean that it does not get tried however. There is enough evidence that there should be investigations and a trial or hearing. Impeachment is the process by which we do this with presidents and Vice Presidents.
If you believe Bush and Cheney are innocent of these charges then you should have no problem with there being a full investigation and hearing to clear them once and for all.
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal “War of Aggression” against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using “signing statements” to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a “Unitary Executive Theory” giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
The RIAA doesn’t get the whole Internet thing yet. The Movie Industry doesn’t get the whole Internet Thing yet. So I guess the CEO of AP, Associated Press shouldn’t feel bad that he doesn’t understand it either.
AP CEO Declares War On Internet
Submitted by David A. Utter to WebProNews on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 06:26“If you want our content, we expect to be paid for it … this nonsense that you can just take the first paragraph or use the picture small doesn’t really fly with us. People die trying to take those pictures,” Curley said in the report.
Soldiers die in wars and the AP makes money on the pictures they take and the money they make from that as well. When they cover a murder, they sell that news to organizations and don’t compensate the family of the person that died.
Fair use remains the topic that never seems to come up in the discussion of using content others have created. Doctrines of fair use allow for “any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work,” according to Stanford University’s Copyright & Fair Use Center.
Just as I am doing in this blog post. It’s legal and it’s fair use.
This leaves the issue open for people like Curley and a deep-pocketed organization to force a definition of fair use by litigating against anyone who tries to reuse their content.
Exactly. The CEO of AP says “people die to take those pictures”. That is not what this is about. It’s about a greedy corporation trying to litigate against smaller entities to force them from doing what is legal.
It’s no different than when the RIAA tries to say they are suing people to protect the artists. It’s to help big record companies continue to profit on the backs of the artists so they can continue to be the only ones allowed to screw the artists over.
Maybe the AP should just merge with the RIAA.
Continuing to open the door for news media corporations to “own” the news is not in the public’s best interest. The republican administration favors anything that benefits large corporations and the FCC is complying with their wishes. This is an agency that is supposed to look out for the public’s best interest, not as a puppet for companies to control.
From CNN.com
FCC adopts media ownership rules
Proposal passed by party-line vote allows networks to reach 45% of national audience.The Federal Communications Commission narrowly approved new media ownership rules Monday, allowing television broadcasters to expand their reach, despite fears the move may reduce the variety of viewpoints available to consumers.
The Republican-led government agency voted 3-2 to allow the broadcast networks to own television stations that reach a combined 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.
Next will come 50%, 55%, 60%, etc. Give an inch they will take a country.
Citing a need to update the decades-old rules to reflect new sources of entertainment, information and news, the FCC also voted to lift a ban that prevents a company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station — except in the smallest markets.
But the two Democrats on the FCC opposed easing the regulations, arguing that the changes would concentrate ownership in the hands of a few, reduce the diversity of viewpoints and stifle reporting of local news.
“Today the Federal Communications Commission empowers America’s new media elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy depend,” said Commissioner Michael Copps.
The fewer number of sources we have for news, the more chance for news to be manipulated as Bush did when he paid reporters to talk good about his failed education plan.
The FCC is supposed to represent citizens and safeguard rules that stop anyone from being the only source of news that the public receives. Too bad that the FCC does not feel it represents the public interest as they are supposed to.
Instead the FCC is just a puppet that will do whatever the large corporations want them to do. The FCC is a sham and a shame.
From the NYTimes
By STEPHEN LABATONThe head of the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday announced the details of his plan to relax the longstanding rule that had prevented a company from owning both a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same city.
One of the very rules that is meant to protect the public and assure that US citizens receive news from manby different sources. This rule prevented one corporation from becoming your only news source.
Why is that important? Because it eliminates objectivity. If that corporation owns all the news sources and a story comes along that they do not want you to hear, then they can choose not to report it.
Say they back a specific presidetial candidate and something comes up about their candidate that will hurt their chances of being elected. The corporation can just not report it.
Without any competing newspapers, tv stations, and radio stations who might have reported the story even when one of them did not, the public has a chance to hear all the news, not just what one company wants you to hear.
For 32 years, supporters of the restriction have maintained that it prevents the growth of ever- larger media conglomerates and helps to keep diverse voices on the airwaves.
These critics denounced Mr. Martin’s proposal for containing what they said were loopholes that could lead to widespread consolidation.
While they did leave in some rules that are supposed to leave diversity in the news, this is the first crack in the wall.
In a memo to employees on Tuesday, the head of Tribune suggested that he was dissatisfied, regarding Mr. Martin’s plan as not going far enough. He also said he would seek to have it expanded.
Therein lies the problem. Give an inch and they want a mile. The FCC has shown it is going to open the door for them to do so. In the past, even without this change, the FCC has been allowing corporations to break the rules anyway by giving them an exemption and using grandfather clauses.
This rule change is just the beginning and should not be allowed at all. It will be exploited and expanded and that will harm smaller newspapers and independent tv stations in favor of allowing mega corporations to BUY the news.
You know that blogging has been determined as being legitimate news media in several court decisions, but are we as bloggers considered the legitimate press?
According to wikipedia.com;
The news media refers to the section of the mass media that focuses on presenting current news to the public. These include print media (newspapers, magazines); broadcast media (radio stations, television stations, television networks), and increasingly Internet-based media (World Wide Web pages, weblogs).
Thats all good, but does that mean that event coordinators will give you a press pass because you run a news and media blog?
Well according to a report on the way the law views media and how it affects the Freedom of Information Act says that online media and freelance journalists do qualify and they attribute it to the definition of news media but the CIA.
GovernmentExecutive.com is reporting that the CIA has adopted a new definition of “news media” that could significantly reduce the fees and costs for citizen journalists who request documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
The new rule, which became effective on July 18, 2007, adopts the definition of “news media” contained in a 1987 Office of Management and Budget FOIA guidebook that includes “alternative media” that are disseminated electronically “through telecommunications.” The CIA’s final rule states:
***”Representative of the News Media refers to any person actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large, and publishers of periodicals (but only in those instances when they can qualify as disseminators of “news”) who make their products available for purchase or subscription by the general public. These examples are not intended to be all-inclusive. Moreover, as traditional methods of news delivery evolve (e.g., electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media would be included in this category. In the case of “freelance” journalists, they may be regarded as working for a news organization if they can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that organization, even though not actually employed by it. A publication contract would be the clearest proof, but agencies may also look to the past publication record of a requestor in making this determination: * * *
What this new definition means is that citizen journalists would likely be on the same footing as members of traditional news media who, along with educational, noncommercial, and scientific groups, have a special status under FOIA because they do not have to pay fees for the agency to search and review requested documents and are only charged for duplication costs after the first 100 pages. See 32 CFR sec. 1900.13. Morever, if a citizen journalist can show that the disclosure of the documents is in the public interest, he or she can have the duplication costs waived as well.
So a note to those who coordinate events and have been refusing press credentials to bloggers who distribute the news on the web; You’ll soon have to give out a few more press passes.
(Source) “I understand a lot of people find it uncomfortable to be faced with someone nude,” she said, but added, “We’re careful not to legislate morality.”
How about legislating social order? Is that allowed?
(Source) While the return of Bill Clinton will remind some voters of scandals like his 1998 impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky affair, those voters are unlikely to be Hillary Clinton backers, analysts said.
“He may raise all those old ugly questions, but only among those people who don’t like her anyway. He is such a big plus with the Democratic base, there is no real downside,” said pollster John Zogby.
Zogby is a man who knows his business. The problem with his statement is that he could very well be correct, and that’s what is wrong with the American political system. Here’s a man who was impeached and debarred for his White House shenanigans and for perjuring himself and he’s still popular among the Party of the Trial Lawyers. If even those who are entrusted to maintain the legal order don’t respect that legal order then how can we expect men like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush to respect the order as well?
America better brace itself. We’re headed for a hard plummeting toward the fate of Rome.
