And so the darkness spreads
January 21, 2004 3:15 PM Subscribe
Freedom of press in Canada? Not for much longer it seems. What affect will this have on journalism in the land of the beaver?
I havent read the actual law they cite, but logically, shouldnt they be charging the leakers, as opposed to the journalist?
posted by titboy at 4:19 PM on January 21, 2004
posted by titboy at 4:19 PM on January 21, 2004
Guess Bush's speech spread across the border, not letting The Patriot Act expire.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:23 PM on January 21, 2004
posted by thomcatspike at 4:23 PM on January 21, 2004
on second thought, they ll prolly investigate the leakers too, but i doubt we ll hear much, if anything about it.
homunculus: guess where I'm not going to spend any canadian tourist dollars.
posted by titboy at 4:32 PM on January 21, 2004
homunculus: guess where I'm not going to spend any canadian tourist dollars.
posted by titboy at 4:32 PM on January 21, 2004
Meanwhile, here in the US, its technically legally dubious to even subpoena a journalist who publishes, thus the Valerie Plame issue. Robert Novak knows exactly who leaked it, yet the DOJ has to run around and try to figure it out without his help.
posted by delmoi at 6:02 PM on January 21, 2004
posted by delmoi at 6:02 PM on January 21, 2004
This isn't nearly as horrible as what happened to Arar, but it's still pretty creepy: Trip Home From Europe Becomes Kafkaesque Ordeal
posted by homunculus at 7:28 PM on January 21, 2004
posted by homunculus at 7:28 PM on January 21, 2004
I saw this article earlier today. Seems to me it's remarkably uninformative. What information was leaked, exactly?
posted by orange swan at 7:59 PM on January 21, 2004
posted by orange swan at 7:59 PM on January 21, 2004
thus the Valerie Plame issue.
Speaking of which: Ex-C.I.A. Aides Ask Inquiry by Congress Over Leak of Name
posted by homunculus at 8:40 PM on January 21, 2004
Speaking of which: Ex-C.I.A. Aides Ask Inquiry by Congress Over Leak of Name
posted by homunculus at 8:40 PM on January 21, 2004
Arar to file lawsuit against U.S.
The suit is being brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which was originaly signed into law by George Washington. Under Ashcroft, the DOJ has been arguing to narrow its scope. I'll bet he really hates it now.
posted by homunculus at 10:47 PM on January 21, 2004
The suit is being brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which was originaly signed into law by George Washington. Under Ashcroft, the DOJ has been arguing to narrow its scope. I'll bet he really hates it now.
posted by homunculus at 10:47 PM on January 21, 2004
PM settles for a lot less than `respect'
homunculus: The article suggests that the Canadian PM had to settle for an 'understanding'. Can we assume that this is a 'Memorandum of Understanding', which are not uncommon and generally set down operational proceedings between relevant bodies. It may be that this is a suitable instrument to address the situation Arar found himself in, and to prevent its repetition.
posted by biffa at 5:08 AM on January 22, 2004
homunculus: The article suggests that the Canadian PM had to settle for an 'understanding'. Can we assume that this is a 'Memorandum of Understanding', which are not uncommon and generally set down operational proceedings between relevant bodies. It may be that this is a suitable instrument to address the situation Arar found himself in, and to prevent its repetition.
posted by biffa at 5:08 AM on January 22, 2004
The RCMP are known to go overboard once in a while. My impression is that they're usually bitch-slapped for it, forcing them to tone it down for a while...
posted by five fresh fish at 8:49 AM on January 22, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 8:49 AM on January 22, 2004
And, indeed, the PM is coming out saying that while he believes the source of the leak needs to be traced and sealed, the journalist should be in the free and clear.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:44 PM on January 22, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 2:44 PM on January 22, 2004
Not that anyone's going to see this (a day later), but what exactly is wrong with investigating the person who may know who was responsible for having a Canadian citizen sent off to Syria and tortured?
No one is saying the journalist is going to jail, just that she received documents, the GIVER of which was committing a federal offense.
posted by tiamat at 7:34 PM on January 22, 2004
No one is saying the journalist is going to jail, just that she received documents, the GIVER of which was committing a federal offense.
posted by tiamat at 7:34 PM on January 22, 2004
delmoi, there's a pretty good reason why journalists are often quasi-protected from the kinds of subpoenas you allude to...making it easy for government to intimidate journalists into giving up their sources, notes, etc. ultimately does not serve the public interest in a free press.
posted by Vidiot at 8:54 PM on January 22, 2004
posted by Vidiot at 8:54 PM on January 22, 2004
« Older Steamboat Museum | The only problem was that there was two women for... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Fortunately so far judges have been pretty good about stopping their little insurgencies into our lives, but that doesn't stop them from trying it seems.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:15 PM on January 21, 2004