If Bush passed this law would people freak out?

Question

The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law passed shortly after entering World War I, on June 15, 1917, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. It was punishable by a maximum $USD 10,000 fine (almost $170,000 in today's dollars) and 20 years in prison. The legislation was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any widespread dissent in time of war, thinking that it constituted a real threat to an American victory.

Answer 1

Lets think about what interferes with operations...
Crippling Brewster Jennings operations by releasing the covert agents names who operate the CIA front arms supplier to the middle east -
which was built by the CIA over years of careful covert activity?

would THAT construe "interference"?

Answer 2

The only thing that really matters in regards to your question is that any law that is written so as to prevent a person from expressing their feelings or their opinion, regardless of the topic, is blatantly unconstitutional. Even though Mr. Bush has used some pretty weasel-like maneuvers and arguments to justify things his administration supports or has done that clearly appear contrary to the constitution, I think even he knows a law such as the one you mention would never fly.

Answer 3

Why would anyone have to pass a law that's already a law? Read your own question and answer!
Did you mean politicians should start enforcing the laws they passed just to get elected? It's called "feel good legislation".
Is that what people are hearing? Don't forget "save the chrildren".

Answer 4

That law relates to spies. Spying on the government and relaying information to the enemy. It doesn't mean giving your opinion about the war.

Answer 5

Yes. The ACLU would be screaming to high heaven about freedom of speech and anything else they could dream up. Some members of Congress would be yelling, "we need to talk to them." The druggies would be saying, "make love not war." Etc...etc...etc.

Answer 6

ummmm, as you, yourself, have pointed out, "The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law passed shortly after entering World War I, on June 15, 1917," shrub doesn't need to. shrub has much more hideous plans for us. it ain't over til it's over. and i don't hear no fat lady singing.

Answer 7

No mater what Bush does, people would freak out. I believe that law would be ruled unconstitutional today.

Answer 8

bonx, I would like to point out, if you don't mind, please, that the issue here in not that the President is trying to keep the nation safe, but one of his disobeying the law and not being prosecuted by Congress for his actions. Once again, we were the original negotiators for this Iraq War (1990-91) and if you had the materials that we had to work with, books, journals, country and government reports, you would find that Saddam was not a dictator or bloody murderer. That some of the things done in his administration was not as evil as we have claimed or made him out to be. For an example of this, you could compare Israel's governance. Whatever God said was right was right and people had to obey. Different cultures behave by different standards, so our standard of the law does not and can not apply to the nation of Iraq. Each nation in this world is governed by it's own laws and standards, what we may consider unfair may not be unfair by another country's laws.

In determining right from wrong, we look at a nation's history and cultural codes. We, negotiators, the good ones at least, work from there.

In 1990, we as well as the CIA said that Saddam was not a threat to oil nor to the region. People in the Reagan-Bush administration, however, allowed the purchase of biological and chemical weapons to be purchased. We, they, closed their eyes to Iraq's acquiring nuclear weapons or allow the development of such. This everyone in intelligence circles knew, but what we did not know was exactly what Saddam had acquired. What was done in the Reagan era was a direct violation of the law. I guess the people allied to the Bush family operated using the same agenda and principles. This I can say from actual working experience.

What a lot of people, including many US intelligence agents did not know was how much and exactly what did he acquire.

But, now, we, many of us, and I am speaking for myself and others, know that Saddam did not acquire all of those deadly biological and chemical weapons that we have accused him to have done and he was not the bloody murder that our nation (intelligence service) made him out to be. His name and general reputation was maligned. Yes, he was responsible for somethings, but what we were accusing him of ... millions of murders of his own people ... were not true. Any action that his government takes, especially to defend itself, during time of national crisis like the Iran-Iraq War often is lawful. And it was our nation, in addition, that had, I best believe and do know from my own experience and negotiation efforts, that paid people to spy and paid people to subvert Saddam's government by any and all means ... revolution, murders, and riots. Our government's doing so was, again, illegal.

We are the bad guys here and not the good ones. Why am I testifying here and not in Congress? Because Congress has refused my testimony in favor of Bush White House lies, so the only thing left to do is to come out in the open, somewhat, and inform the American people so as to debunk Bush White House lies.

If a person was upright, honest, and truthful ... and if a person did his or her own independent research, he or she would see the merit in what I had to say and would now want to see to the prosecution of the collective Bush administration or in the very bare minimum, see that our government runs more honestly and with more respect for people and human life.

As I see it, all or most of the current candidates running for the Presidency will not bring about honest and upright correction to our government. This is sad and this is what our nation needs now at this time!

So, the reason for this war and the reason for all of the Bush White House dirty dealings is not the threat of Saddam to this world, but a cover up of Bush and Reagan administration illegal dealings. US soldiers are dying on account of the cover up!

This war is being fought not to protect freedoms, but fought as a cover up of Reagan-Bush administration illegal dealings! It is unfortunate that US soldiers have to die as a result of an intentional government illegal and criminal decision. Illegal means a violation of the law. Criminal means that hundreds of thousands of people died, due to the fraudulent activities of our Bush administration.

If the Bush administration did not create these wars around the world and they did not lie, that a real threat exist, then I too would favor this law, but this is not the case.

So, to answer the question. If a law was passed, which restricted our freedoms, unnecessarily and unlawfully, I too would be against the passage of this law.

I would be in favor, if our government was upright and a true threat existed.

When our government instigates crimes around the globe and tries to use the law to insulate itself from criminal prosecution by throwing blame on others and by limiting our freedom of speech, it, our government is acting dishonorably and illegally by our very Constitution.

Max
peacenegotiator

"If you don't like what I said, allow the President to challenge me in a court of law or at a joint session of Congress. I am able to withstand any legitimate challenge by the President and by people high up in his administration." What I had to say in this thread should satisfy the question posed by Enigma and at the same time satisfy your concerns. I believe in an open society and in democracy. The freedom to speak and the ability to have access to information so a good decision can be made by the people!

By the way Enigma's question is not a simple yes or no type question. If you look at it closely, it is an essay type question!
.

Answer 9

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, and we let them get away with raping our constitutional freedoms with that one, now didn't we?

Answer 10

I would rather they pass this than any law allowing wire tapping or eavesdropping by the NSA. It's not that the majority of us are interested in interfering with our government, but instead, that we, the innocent people, have our freedoms taken away without even committing any crime.