Fed guv effect suspends First amendment in the gulf.

Discussion in 'Tin Foil Hat Lounge' started by Tango3, Jul 4, 2010.

  1. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    So what is going on there???

    (NaturalNews) – As CNN is now reporting, the U.S. government has issued a new rule that would make it a felony crime for any journalist, reporter, blogger or photographer to approach any oil cleanup operation, equipment or vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone caught is subject to arrest, a $40,000 fine and prosecution for a federal felony crime.
    CNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, “A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, … will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you’re probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they’re working for because they’re afraid of losing their jobs.”
    Watch the video clip yourself at NaturalNews.TV: First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico - NaturalNews.tv
    The rule, of course, is designed to restrict the media’s access to cleanup operations in order to keep images of oil-covered seabirds off the nation’s televisions. With this, the Gulf Coast cleanup operation has now entered a weird Orwellian reality where the news is shaped, censored and controlled by the government in order to prevent the public from learning the truth about what’s really happening in the Gulf.
    The war is on to control your mind

    If all this sounds familiar, it’s because the U.S. government uses this same tactic during every war. The first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. There are lots of war images the government doesn’t want you to see (like military helicopter pilots shooting up Reuters photographers while screaming “Yee-Haw!” over the comm radios), and there are other images they do want you to see (“surgical strike” explosions from “smart” bombs, which makes it seem like the military is doing something useful). So war reporting is carefully monopolized by the government to deliver precisely the images they want you to see while censoring everything else.
    Now the same Big Brother approach is being used in the Gulf of Mexico: Criminalize journalists, censor the story and try to keep the American people ignorant of what’s really happening. It’s just the latest tactic from a government that no longer even recognizes the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights. Because the very first right is Freedom of Speech, which absolutely includes the right to walk onto a public beach and take photographs of something happening out in the open, on public waters. It is one of the most basic rights of our citizens and our press.
    But now the Obama administration has stripped away those rights, transforming journalists into criminals. Now, we might expect something like this from Chavez, or Castro or even the communist leaders of China, but here in the United States, we’ve all been promised we lived in “the land of the free.” Obama apparently does not subscribe to that philosophy anymore (if he ever did).
    So how does criminalizing journalists equate to “land of the free?” It doesn’t, obviously. Forget freedom. (Your government already has.) This is about controlling your mind to make sure you don’t visually see the truth of what the oil industry has done to your oceans, your shorelines and your beaches. This is all about keeping you ignorant with a total media blackout of the real story of what’s happening in the Gulf.
    The real story, you see, is just too ugly. And the government has fracked up the cleanup effort to such a ridiculous extent that instead of the “transparency” they once promised, they’re now resorting to the threat of arrest for all journalists who try to get close enough to cover the story.
    Yes, this is happening right now in America. This isn’t a hoax. I know, it sounds more like something you might hear about in Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela or some other nation run by dictators. But now it’s happening right here in the USA.
    As Anderson Cooper reported on CNN:
    “Now the government is getting in on the act. Despite what Admiral Thad Allen promised about transparency just nearly a month ago.
    Thad Allen: “The media will have uninhibited access anywhere we’re doing operations…”
    Anderson Cooper: The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers, reporters and anyone else from coming with 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on an island surrounded by a boom, you can’t get close enough to take that picture. Shot of oil on beaches with booms? Stay 65 feet away. Pictures of oil-soaked booms uselessly laying in the water because they haven’t been collected like they should? You can’t get close enough to see that. Believe me, that is out there. But you only know that if you get close to it, and now you can’t without permission. Violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges.”
    See the video yourself at: First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico - NaturalNews.tv

    First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico as spill cover-up goes Orwellian // Current
  2. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    The Constitution does not apply to Maritime Jurisdiction on the high seas.

    Whoever jumped the gun on this has no conception of law.
  3. gravelgurdy

    gravelgurdy Monkey+++

    Don't get me wrong on this. I do not think this law should stand. It obviously is unconstitutional.
    But, it looks to me as the poster above Jumped the gun, or didn't bother to read the first post all the way through, because THE BEACHES ARE NOT THE PROPER JURISDICTION FOR MARITIME LAW !
    Now I said I didn't like this unconstitutional law, but 65 feet. If I wanted to get some pictures of the oily birds or what ever, I would walk up and look at what I wanted the picture of, turn around and step off 25 or 30 good stride paces and take the picture using the telephoto feature of my camera.
    I would also have a friend close by to video my arrest if it happened for use in court.
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    The constitution applies to the u.s. federal government. Rights are not granted by the gov or b.p.
  5. ISplatU

    ISplatU Monkey+

    If this is true, it is one big disgrace after another

    How long must we endure before the right of every american is given up. How long will we watch. We must yell at the top of our lungs FREEDOM, and yell it again untill our last breath.
  6. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    Doesn't the constitution apply to US citizens in US territory, which includes the 12 nautical miles of water off the coast?
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Yes, the Constitution applies to the recognized limit. What I don't know (and Seacowboys might know) is how far out. Under at least some circumstances, the US lays claim to 200 miles. With the blowout at about 50 miles, and the media trying to discuss the ins and outs of Jones, it appears that the well is under US jurisdiction under maritime law. Gotta admit, that is mostly guesswork on my part.
  8. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!

    Just goes to show you how bad things really are.

    In the gulf - that is.
  9. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    I can read 500 words per minute, and sometimes I do miss a few things...but I am not mentally handicapped either ;) Thank you for your wisdom concerning the beaches and your personal beliefs. Please allow me to direct you to the law, be it colorable or not, and how it actually applies to the real world:

    This "US Constitution" you people keep bringing up is null and void (according to current code enacted) and is empowered by Congress. Senate Report 93-549 of 1973 might help clear this up for you, if you have the time to read through it. Under current "law", Maritime jurisdiction has been extended onto land and all waterways....

    Admiralty law or maritime law is the distinct body of law (both substantive and procedural) governing navigation and shipping. Topics associated with this field in legal reference works may include: shipping; navigation; waters; commerce; seamen; towage; wharves, piers, and docks; insurance; maritime liens; canals; and recreation. Piracy (ship hijacking) is also an aspect of admiralty.

    The courts and Congress seek to create a uniform body of admiralty law both nationally and internationally in order to facilitate commerce. The federal courts derive their exclusive jurisdiction over this field from the Judiciary Act of 1789 and from Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress regulates admiralty partially through the Commerce Clause. American admiralty law formerly applied only to American tidal waters. It now extends to any waters navigable within the United States for interstate or foreign commerce. In such waters admiralty jurisdiction includes maritime matters not involving interstate commerce, including recreational boating.

    Admiralty law in the United States developed from the British admiralty courts present in most of the American colonies. These courts functioned separately from courts of law and equity. With the Judiciary Act, though, Congress placed admiralty under the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Although admiralty shares much in common with the civil law, it is separate from it. Common law does not act as binding precedent on admiralty courts, but it and other law may be used when no law on point is available.

    Parties subject to admiralty may not contract out of admiralty jurisdiction, and states may not infringe on admiralty jurisdiction either judicially or legislatively. Since admiralty courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction (which does not extend to nonmaritime matters), 28 USC § 1333(1), the "Savings to Suitors Clause," does provide for concurrent state jurisdiction so that non-admiralty remedies will not be foreclosed. Moreover, state courts may have jurisdiction where the matter is primarily local.

    Under admiralty, the ship's flag determines the source of law. For example, a ship flying the American flag in the Persian Gulf would be subject to American admiralty law; and a ship flying a Norwegian flag in American waters will be subject to Norwegian admiralty law. This also applies to criminal law governing the ship's crew. But the ship must be flying the flag legitimately; that is, there must be more than insubstantial contact between the ship and its flag, in order for the law of the flag to apply. American courts may refuse jurisdiction where it would involve applying the law of another country, although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law.

    Just as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure placed law and equity under the same jurisdiction in 1938, the 1966 rules subsumed admiralty. Nonetheless, the Supplemental Admiralty Rules take precedence over the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the event of conflict between the two.

    For more info, please see FDR's Trading With the Enemy Act as amended.

    More info for those who know nothing about Admiralty and jurisdiction:

    Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag!

    Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

    Tie the two together (if your brain can handle it)

    And still more info for you, from a post of mine from over 5 years ago:

    WHY??? HOW??? WHO??? WHAT???

    Seriously. I have studied this since 1995. I have read thoroughly enough, thank you.
  10. USMCwife

    USMCwife Monkey++

    I thought this coincided a little, found it on Drudge. No water involved here.
    Field Notes - Photographer detained by police, BP employee near refinery

    Photographer detained by police, BP employee near refinery
    A photographer taking pictures of a BP refinery in Texas was detained by a BP security official, local police and a man who said he was from the Department of Homeland Security, according to ProPublica, a non-profit news organization in the U.S.
    The photographer, Lance Rosenfield, said he was confronted by the officials shortly after arriving in Texas City, Texas, to work on a story that is part of an ongoing collaboration between PBS and ProPublica.
    Rosenfield was released after officials looked through the pictures he had taken and took down his date of birth, Social Security number and other personal information, the photographer said. The information was turned over to the BP security guard who said this was standard procedure, ProPublica quoted Rosenfield as saying.
    Rosenfield, a Texas-based freelance photographer, said he was followed by a BP employee after taking a picture on a public road near the refinery, and then cornered by two police cars at a gas station. The officials told Rosenfield they had the right to look at the pictures taken near the refinery and if he did not comply he would be "taken in," the photographer said according to ProPublica.
    BP gave ProPublica the following statement after the incident:
    "BP Security followed the industry practice that is required by federal law. The photographer was released with his photographs after those photos were viewed by a representative of the Joint Terrorism Task Force who determined that the photographer's actions did not pose a threat to public safety."
    In response to BP, ProPublica's editor-in-chief Paul Steiger said:
    "We certainly appreciate the need to secure the nation's refineries. But we're deeply troubled by BP's conduct here, especially when they knew we were working on deadline on critical stories about this very facility. And we see no reason why, if law enforcement needed to review the unpublished photographs, that should have included sharing them with a representative of a private company."
    When msnbc.com contacted BP, spokeswoman Sheila Williams said there was nothing the firm wanted to add to its earlier comment.
    ProPublica filed two recent reports about BP. One deals with the similartities between the 2005 explosion at the Texas City refinery and the blast at Deepwater Horizon, and another is about thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals that were release by the refinery earlier this year.
  11. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    I've heard that "fringed flag thing" since the 80's,; you may have researched the legal nuances; but its too far out even for my tinfoil laden bunny brain...Never once has any of that ever come up in discussion in any court-martial case I have ever been associated with.

    Sorry:A conspiracy a bit too far: I have believed and will continue to believe it is a well-crafted myth; along with the one about the capital letters on your birth certificate obligating/enslaving a citizen as an asset to be traded of a "USA inc."

    following your link:http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm I find<big>: "When you enter a courtroom displaying a gold or yellow fringed flag, you have just entered into a foreign country, and you better have your passport with you, because you may not be coming back to the land of the free for a long time. The judge sitting under a gold or yellow fringe flag becomes the "captain" or "master" of that ship or enclave and he has absolute power to make the rules as he goes. The gold or yellow fringe flag is your warning that you are leaving your Constitutionally secured RIGHTS on the floor outside the door to that courtroom.

    Then I have to question:" Why violation of "constitutional rights "are ever grounds to dismiss a case as often happens ( i. e. "illegal( unconstitutional) search)?"
    With all the millions of lawyers and court cases out there you'd think it would come up somewhere outside of: " the deep dark recesses behind the counter; next to the dirty magazines and whiskey; in the dingey 2 A.m. convenience store that is the internet".

    I think the "first amendment reference in the thread was more a reference (for us simple beans)to suppression of freedom of speech/of the press as opposed to a legal determination declaring it null and void.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary