Criminalizing speech to protect secrets

[Bitwit1234]

Here's part of an article from www.firstamendmentcenter.org



When members of the House of Representatives take up crucial intelligence bills, the vast majority elect not to read the classified portions, which is to say the really important parts, and they don't sign up for classified briefings on the bills provisions.

Which means they essentially are voting blind, even on those bills they approve over whelmingly.

Why, Not because they're too busy or they don't care, it's because they are afraid.

In an article on its survey of House members published this past weekend.
The Boston Globe reported that our elected resprenatives face "an untenable choice' on intelligence bills. "Either consent to a review process so secretive that they could never mention any thing about it in House debates, under the threat of prosecution, or vote on classified provisions they knew nothing about. Most chose to know nothing.

As a result, members are reluctant to discuss such matters with one another, their staffs, or outside experts. That frequently translate, into no real or relevant public debate on issues increasing crucial since the war on terrorism began.


*******************

Just a point in this article. So the House can't read the bill unless they are sworn to secretly or they have to read a summary of the unclassified parts. SO HOW IN THE HELL DO THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON. The article goes on to say it is deliberate so that most of them don't really know and the administration gets it's way.

[JDPriestly]

1. The honest thing to do is to simply refuse to vote.

[gateley]

2. Wow. This is something else I'd like to ask our candidates about. nt

[DCKit]

3. Bookmarked before red'd... nt

[Uncle Joe]

4. Sounds like the Sergeant Schultz defense, of Hogans Hero's fame. n/t