Slashdot Log In
Gonzales Says Publishing Leaks Is A Crime
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon May 22, 2006 07:36 AM
from the battle-of-the-legal-wars dept.
from the battle-of-the-legal-wars dept.
loqi writes "The NY Times is reporting on a statement from US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declaring that journalists may be prosecuted by the federal government for publishing classified information. On the 1st amendment ramifications: "'But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity,' he said. 'And so those two principles have to be accommodated.'" So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Congress shall make no law... (Score:4, Interesting)
Slimey bastards! I wonder what the fallen in the September 11th terrorist outrages would make of this. The US government has repeatedly used their memory to justify secrecy right across government. It is now trying to use their memory to to silence people who whistle-blow on their deepest darkest secrets. Well fuck them!
Quite frankly, I couldn't give the faintest whiff of shit what the Attorney General has to say about the issue. The Constitution trumps everything, the Attorney General include, and it states in no uncertain terms which the rights of citizens of the United States retain for themselves:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see any exception for the state to keep secrets from the electorate. Bring the prosecutions and watch them fall one by one.
Simon
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyways, this creates a very unstable situation, since the Administration can leak [newsmax.com] (I mean, "selectively declassify") information any old time they feel like it in order to make political points.
What's weird is that all the best information we have about what's being done in our name with our tax money is due to leaks. It doesn't feel like democracy to me.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the US people stupid or what? Always seeing things as if it's "Pro-Wrestling".
Currently things are getting to be US Gov vs the US citizens. Forget the Republican vs Democrat crap.
You guys are getting screwed by the theatre and you're complaining about the characters in the play.
Doh.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't mean to brag about my country (although I enjoy it, it's such a rare occorance ;), but freedom is something we do really well. Infact of the four parts of the swedish constitution, the Freedom of the Press Act is the oldest one, dating back to 1766 (the three other parts are The Act of Succession, The Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression and The Instrument of Government). That act also includes whats known as "Offentlighetsprincipen", roughly translated as "The Publicity Principle", stating that all government documents (with certain exceptions, such as documents that would endanger national security and documents relating to matters under investigation, although no document may be withheld more than X number of years (I believe X=70, but I'm not sure)) should be readily available to the entire public. Basically, it's the same as The Freedom of Information Act. But Offentlighetsprincipen was included into the constitution in 1766! 1766! The US got it's in 1966, 200 years later.
I realise that I sound like a ridiculous patriot here, and I don't mean to offend anybody. It's just that while My Country might be lacking in many areas where other nations excel, there is one thing nobody can beat us in: Freedom, Civil Liberties, and a the most solid defence against a corrupt government in history.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
We have a radically different view here in Sweden on welfare, and we pay for it. I'm fine with paying higher taxes, as long as the government will take care of me,and my fellow citizens, when we need it. It's called a social contract. That makes us no less free (it's not communism), and alot more safe. I can understand the economic argument for lowering taxes, but what I don't get is how having a strong welfare state makes the government bad.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Terrorism is an inconsiquential threat.
2) Every law passed since 9/11 is part of a grab for power.
3) Profit.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
People seem to act as if terrorists didn't exist before 9/11.
Lets face it, having freedom in society inherently increases the risk of living in that society. The freedom one enjoys also makes things easier for those who wish to cause them harm.
It all comes to how one rates their freedom with safety. Some agree with the president (and the previous one) and his administration, that safety is more important than freedom. Others, myself included, argue that freedom is more important than safety.
Whats more amazing though is that while there is talk of trying to stop terrorists, the actions are completely bogus. Since the Oklahoma City bombing, its has become no harder to rent a U-Haul. In many states all you need to purchase dynamite is permission from the fire dept. You can buy fertilizer by the ton even if you don't own a farm. The average Walmart sells everything needed to build a bomb.
Lets also remember that our military and government officials know that there is no way at all to stop a determined attack. This is the country that invented and perfected guerilla warefare. The Amry Special Forces goes to other countries to teach the locals how to conduct guerilla warfare. We know better than anybody else that you can't really stop it.
Israel has some of the best security forces on the planet. They have road blocks and check points all over the place. Even they can not stop attacks within their borders.
So, the only option left is to suck it up, learn to defend your self, accept that we live in a dangerous world, and THINK. The world is a lot less dangerous than it used to be. We aren't under the constant threat of global annihilation like we used to be. Crime is down, living standards are up. Lets all work to keep things improving and to help other to improve their lives as well.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really believe that? The way I see it, the freer a people the easier it is for them to defend themselves. The freedom one enjoys in a free society is a protection against the evils of dictatorship. Giving up your freedom might protect you against external threats, but makes internal threats much more grave. History shows that people have more to fear from their own governments than from others.
The point is that freedom and safety are not opposed at all! Concentrating power only makes it easier to abuse, and therefore makes everyone less safe.
Parent
Re:What is "inconsequential"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to England (IRA bombings) or Israel, which seem to function just fine.
In fact, England seemed to chug right along during WW2, when they were getting bombed to pieces. The difference is, the government back then told people to keep going despite the bombings, instead of trying to frighten the populace in order to grab (more) control.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:4, Insightful)
And so did Reagan and Carter. Whats your point?
Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been making things worse. Both by provoking situations that cause terrorism and by trying to push it under the carpet.
It doesn't help much when you try to push the blame on one group when BOTH of them are responsible.
Thats like getting busted for weed and giving the excuse that everyone else was smoking crack.
Clinton didn't do anything when Janet Reno decided to send tanks into a religous compound (I'm assuming thats what you meant in your reference to Clinton's actions). That doesn't have any bearing on the current administration squashing our rights.
Or are you trying to say that its ok if this president tries to squash our freedom because the last one was doing it too?
Why make the argument parisan, when both parties are guilty?
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only inconsiquential if nobody you cared about died, or your political ideology allows you to overlook their deaths in an effort to bash the current administration.
There are plenty of things to be critical of with the Bush administration without trivilizing the loss of life in the US and overseas due to terrorism.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is an inconsequential threat when you actually bother to run the numbers. And find that you are a FAR more likely killed by an inattentive or incompetent driver while you're crossing the street, (or any number of other mundane things that we have no "war on $x" to justify abusing our rights.) than you are to be killed by "the terrorists".
cya,
john
Parent
Re:Terrorism is an inconsequential threat (Score:5, Insightful)
But terrorism only works when you let yourself be afraid. We don't have to be afraid. The government and the media are both very interested in having us be afraid. The government wants it because that fear can be translated into reasons for expansions of power, which eventually reward the corporations who pay the lobbyists that compensate the politicians. The media wants it because that fear translates into more advertising dollars during the airtime that panders to fear.
But you don't have to accept either group's assertion that you should be afraid. You should think carefully and act rationally and live your life deliberately aligned with your principles. Being afraid of the vague threat of terrorism doesn't do that. It directly and completely prevents that.
people react with emotion. The[y] feel fear. They also feel an incredibly strong, compelling emotion for justice and to make things right. I do not mock this, I salute it.
You're conflating a bunch of things together as if they were the same thing. They're not. Having a healthy understanding of risk means avoiding dangerous situations based on a reasonable fear of harm. Being paralyzed by fear to the point that you're willing to sacrifice your freedoms to feel a little security is pure insanity. Wanting to find and punish those who have harmed us is a healthy desire for justice. Wanting to keep anyone who might harm us locked away without any charge or even a promise of a trial runs afoul of so many principles Americans should hold dear (prior restraint, innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc.) that the fear has again caused people to set aside their core principles.
Pure insanity. There is no reason to be so afraid. There is good reason to want to correct what has gone wrong. There is good reason to want to make sure that the police can do their jobs. There is no reason to believe that the police couldn't do their job with the laws before 9/11.
You are a slave to the fear you have been told to feel and I pity you. As long as you are afraid, you will never be free.
Regards,
Ross
Parent
Furthermore (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me: I'm a Moonbat I'm a Moonbat I'm a Moonbat.
You're a dumbfuck, you're a dumbfuck, you're a dumbfuck. I really believe that.
If you really believe that, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Go vacation on Iraq or Iran. Where would you like your head shipped?
Vacationing in Iran as an American right now is very safe. Far safer than many non-muslim third world destinations. And vacationing in Iraq was just fine too, before we started a war of choice there on fabricated evidence, toppled the only stable secular government in the region and stuck around with no exit plan. Naturally, this gave rise to a guerrilla insurgency, which is now quite dangerous. But it's not "terrorism" so much as a "resistance" and it has nothing to do with any of the massive domestic policy changes that have stripped our rights in the name of stopping "terrorism" which is, as the GP noted, an inconsequential threat. How many people have died on US soil since 9/11 in terrorist attacks? How many in places where we weren't fighting a war? How many died yesterday in car accidents?
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me another instance where you consider it justifiable to let 2400 of our soldiers die to keep 6 people from dying over the course of 5 years.
Show me another case where you think it's reasonable to collect and data mine the calling patterns of every American citizen (minus Qwest subscribers) to prevent 6 deaths.
Despite the triteness of the old Jefferson quote about trading liberty for security, it plays so well here it's hard to avoid. Because no matter what he said, every society makes that tradeoff. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, and FDR had some serious executive power plays as well. But those were instances with huge consequences for our country. 6 deaths isn't that kind of consequence.
Nobody said there was "no threat." We just said it was inconsequential. 6 deaths over 5 years in a country of 260M is inconsequential.
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that if we had these programs in place before 9/11, the 9/11 dead wouldn't be dead right now, I expect they'd be all for them.
Interesting assertion you make here without any evidence. In what way does leaking confidential information have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Were the attacks planned using information leaked to the press? What the fuck are you talking about?
Worse, given the fact that the white house had actually been briefed concerning a likely terrorist attack, complete with 9/11 as the date, and took no action, what makes you think any of the programs the government has enacted since would have made a difference? If they couldn't be bothered to beef up airport security or keep closer tabs on flights diverging from their IFR flight plans in the face of a report suggesting terrorists might use planes, then what were they going to do with the PATRIOT act provision for searching library records, or with illegal NSA wiretaps?
The government keeps things secret for the protection of Americans, and the people who leak those secrets therefore place all Americans into harm's way.
Right. Because we've never found out 30 years later that "classified" government programs and information were used improperly. Because J. Edgar Hoover's cardfiles on thousands of civilians chosen for political reasons were "for the protection of Americans." Same with Nixon's blacklist. This is bullshit. If men were angels, there'd be no need for government, and if men were ruled by angels, there'd be no need for controls on government. They aren't.
Keep in mind that requiring people not to leak secrets does in no way infringe on the First Amendment. No one is having their freedom of speech taken away.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were an expert in constitutional law. Oh, wait, you aren't. I wonder what mental gymnastics you went through to come to this conclusion. Because the idea that a journalist cannot write about the government's activities simply because they haven't been officially acknowledged is rather incompatible with the idea of a free press. Note that there is a huge difference between not being able to print any leaked information and being responsible for information you publish that might actually hurt people. Journalists already take seriously the publication of troop movements, sensitive covert op data, secret identities, etc. That's not what we're talking about.
However, just like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, there can be consequences to what you say.
Yes, and there are consequences. But that's different. A journalist cannot write and say that a secret team will be operating on a certain street in Baghdad tomorrow. That endangers people, similarly to yelling fire in a theater. This is already covered by known and accepted law and case law. Printing information about a secret, illegal government program to spy on American citizens is not such a situation. Gonzales is now saying that anything the government wants secret is exempt from the first amendment. This is a long, long way away from the existing case law on the subject.
Just like you're not allowed to explain how to make bombs online, you're not allowed to leak secrets that can place America at risk.
Well, this last sentence really proves you're a dumbass. First, it is completely legal to explain how to make bombs online. Or in print; there's a page at the back of Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears that apologizes for including enough information for a knowledgable, well-funded person to make an atomic bomb, but notes that all the information was found and can be found in a public library. A friend of mine got busted in middle school selling floppy discs of "Jolly Roger's Cookbook" with hundreds of explosive recipes...the school called the ATF, but they just laughed at them and told them their hands were tied by the first amendment. So that half of the sentence is simply false. The other h
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
See the following link about undercover officers, as it was all i could find:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aMy58CMCA8AJ:
Parent
Re:Clarify something for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let's think about this for a moment - a group of farmers, lawyers, and businessmen sign their names to an open declaration of treason against the Crown, which controls the largest empire and the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and whose punishment for treason is generally death, and it's *NOT* a suicide pact?! I just love that one. Had the revolution turned out the way that any logically thinking person would have expected (it certainly hadn't completely succeeded just yet - see: War of 1812), every man whose name appeared on that Constitution would have been executed to serve as an example of what happens to traitors. These men put liberty far above their personal safety in the face of nearly certain death - but hey, it's not a suicide pact or anything." - NJ_Gent (2004)
Parent
Give me liberty or give me death. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cowards who value their lives more than their freedoms are the fundamental building blocks -- the foundation -- upon which every house of tyrants is built. If you are seriously arguing that the rights of the people to be secure in the persons or to have the actions of their government made accountable and open to them are less important than their so-called safety, then you are a morally treasonous coward. You are the brick and mortar of a police state, and I grieve that my country has made so many of you.
Or, as Patrick Henry -- one the men instrumental in both the revolution and in pushing for the adoption of the Bill of Rights specifically to limit the power of the federal goverment -- said, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just exactly how am I supposed to figure out if I like a particular "secret, activity, or program" if I'm not allowed to even know such secret, activity, or program exists?
Or, are you saying that if I don't like it when such secrets are kept in the first place, I should vote into power a set of representatives which support "no secrets" priorities?
Perhaps, if it's important enough to myself and a large enough number of my fellow supporters, I should propose a Constitutional Amendment? Maybe something that would prohibit Congress from making a law that prevents the Press from publishing as it sees fit?
Is that what you're proposing? Because I seem to remember something like that hapening in the past somewhere...
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Them : Remember September 11th. Loads of people died.. DIED!
You : Remember September 11th. The people who DIED would be ashamed of this.
Whenever somebody pulls that "people died on 9/11, new world, blah blah" card, I like to make the point that it's a slap in the face to anybody in uniform to use the deaths of a few thousand to justify taking away the rights that many millions have sworn to protect and gave their lives for over the past 230 years.
Parent
Re:Military is supposed to "Defend the Constitutio (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
Magna Carta.
And why did King John sign the Magna Carta, again? Oh that's right, because if he didn't, all the nobles of England were threatening a civil war. So what was your point again?
Parent
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're only partially correct. We have freedom "from" religion in the sense that no one can force us to participate in a given religion (except for Tom Cruise, he can force you into Scientology). But you do not have freedom "from" religion in the sense that you don't have to hear other people talking about their religion. Otherwise, you'd be stepping on their freedom of speech.
Parent
Chilling effects! (Score:5, Informative)
Now I've gotten my joke in, for those too lazy to install the firefox bugmenot extension [roachfiend.com] here's the article text:
Gonzales Says Prosecutions of Journalists Are Possible
The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales [nytimes.com] said yesterday.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."
"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
Asked whether he was open to the possibility that The New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Mr. Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."
"I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."
Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and "communications intelligence activities."
Those laws are the basis of a pending case against two lobbyists, but they have never been used to prosecute journalists.
Some legal scholars say that even if the plain language of the laws could be read to reach journalists, the laws were never intended to apply to the press. In any event, these scholars say, prosecuting reporters under the laws might violate the First Amendment.
Mr. Gonzales said that the administration promoted and respected the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment.
"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."
Mr. Gonzales sidestepped a question concerning whether the administration had been reviewing reporters' telephone records in an effort to identify their confidential sources.
"To the extent that we engage in electronic surveillance or surveillance of content, as the president says, we don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," he said. "And obviously if, in fact, there is a basis under the Constitution to go to a federal judge and satisfy the constitutional standards of probable cause and we get a court order, that will be pursued."
Re:Chilling effects! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it not okay to prosecute Journalists but okay to prosecute lobbyists?
No, I'm not for prosecuting journalists, but the 1st amendment gives us all freedom of speech and freedom of the press - narrowing down who gets freedom of the press - in this case journalists - only serves to defeat the amendment. I'm tired of seeing the press get a free ticket because they are "real professionals" and people like bloggers get written off, as if the founding fathers intended the right to apply to only those who attended journalism school.
And what are lobbyists doing with state secrets anyhow? Shouldn't the people who gave them this info, who swore an oath to the government, and signed confidentiality agreements be the ones prosecuted?
Parent
Re:Chilling effects! (Score:5, Funny)
Because the First Amendment guarantees rights to humans only?
Parent
Gonzo needs to go back to law school. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, according to the U.S. Attorney General, the first amendment is a great right, but it can't be allowed when it gets in the way of law enforcement. I wonder if he feels the same things about other Constitutional amendments which restrict law enforcement, like the fourth and fifth amendments. I'm sure that the people who wrote those Constitutional Amendments didn't really mean for them to limit the power of government (BTW, that's sarcasm...)
Of course, we really have to consider that the federal government should only be going after criminal activity when such criminal activity is actually present. Something cannot be a crime when the law which makes it a crime is not constitutional.
There is a reason why we have made freedom of the press a nearly absolute right. Throughout history we have seen that hiding the activities of government creates corruption, and even when the media is biased, we need them to be able to get the issues out to the public so that they can be discussed.
It is also interesting to see the philosophy involved in Gonzo's "Pass the Buck" stragegy. He wants to claim that it isn't the Bush administration that is going after the reporters, it's actually Congress that passed the laws which REQUIRE the Bush administration to go after the press.
I guess that what really bothers me is that good Republicans who should really know better, individuals who have long complained about the growing powers of the federal government, should be more concerned about this. They need to come to their senses and realize that Bush is not helping the ideologies that make the Republican Party, and they need to abandon him.
Nixon was run out of office not by Democrats, and not even by the Washington Post reporters. He was run out of office by fellow Republicans who came to him and told him that he had become an embarrassment, and it was time for him to resign. Modern day Republican leaders have to do the same thing and rid us of our modern day Nixon.
Re:Gonzo needs to go back to law school. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those are just the ones I can think of before I've had my full cup of coffee.
So, the idea that freedom of speech is some absolute right just isn't true, and has never really been. The question isn't "can the government restrict freedom of speech in certain cases?" but "is this one of those cases?"
Parent
Re:Gonzo needs to go back to law school. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Supreme Court is clear on this. Hopefully we all understand the reasons why.
A Boils down to "you can't knowingly tell falsehoods for the purpouse of causing harm to others". Hopefully we all understand why here, too.
This it not entirely correct. You can say something that creates a "hostile work environment" for others, what you can't do is maintain a hostile work environment by allowing others (or, I suppose, doing so yourself) to say things which create a hostile work environment. It's not the speech itself which is prohibited, but rather the circumstances of the speech.
You can, but:
In short, you need to be civil when you do so.
Not politically correct, just civil.
Parent
First Amendment Vs "Some Statutes" (Score:5, Insightful)
What I can't quote are "some statutes" that Mr. Gonzales is referring to. And, frankly, I don't give a damn what they say. There's nothing that could convince me to give up or sacrifice any part of the First Amendment.
I believe my government has a duty to protect the information that is important or sensitive. If the government fails to do adequately protect this information then it should not be illegal for an instution of the press to point it out. If by doing so they print the classified information then so be it. The people have a right to know the shortcomings of their government whether they be scandal or lack of security.
I fear that if they make this illegal, it will also be illegal to point out inadequacies of the government &, before we know it, the press will be unable to criticize the government. Releasing information of sensitivity is a form of criticism and should be treated as such.
You missed a part of the first amendment. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Persecution (Score:4, Funny)
"...journalists may be persecuted by the federal government for publishing classified information".
Suspicious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Suspicious (Score:4, Insightful)
I find this especially bad from an administration who first came to power talking about "bringing accountability back to the White House".
Parent
For those of you that don't read Digg... (Score:5, Informative)
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.
I'm noticing a trend (Score:4, Insightful)
The US federal government is becoming too powerful, and it needs to stop.
I'm not sure who added the final blurb, "So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?", but that entirely reminded me recently of another "trump" made recently. "The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws."
I'm dead serious here. If the federal government keeps on their power trip fascism journey, well, they will be in for a rude awakening. This kind of government is one that will either start a civil war or a revolt by the people. I'm dead serious.
Once people's standard of living here goes down a few notches, which is already happening with the skyrocketing cost of housing. But as soon as people get to a point where they cannot afford the basics anymore, or when something like Social Security goes bust, we will loose faith in the government, and that will be it.
So, you feds, watch your step.
Re:Uh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait--it's only okay for them to publish classified information if it embarrasses the (admittedly bloodly stupid) government, or needs to be released. Good thing we have honest, upstanding, selfless journalists to handle those decisions, then.
Good thinking, Slashdot.
Have we considered, perhaps, taking a more nuanced position?
What if the white house does the leaking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it illegal then? Even if its just to get back at political rivals? Even if the white house says "go ahead and leak to the press"? That's not illegal, but non-white house leaks are? Can you spell "corruption"?
I knew you could...
Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand what the otherside is doing "but what if the gov't names granny apple as a terrorist when she really is a sweet old lady who gives people apples...who can help her if we cant talk about it." Well this is where the gov't is wrong and the journalist should be allowed.
We get in trouble when we speak of absolutes, and there are people on one side of the fence who say 100% 1st amendment right trumps. and people on the other side of the fence who say 100% National Security trumps. They are both wrong - it needs to be a depends. The journalist needs to use common sense, and the courts can prevail. If the journalist was doing something in the best act for our nation then kudos for him/her...if the jurnalist was only thinking about the Pulitzer Prize - well depending on the damage he/she may have caused they may be rightfully getting it post humously.
Old Polish joke springs to mind. (Score:5, Funny)
So much for the Pentagon Papers precedent. (Score:5, Informative)
The Introduction to the Court Opinion on the New York Times Co. v. United States Case [state.gov] (the Pentagon Papers case) opens with:
There are some other choice tidbits in there... such as (emphasis added):
Hmm....
--JoeRe:Not surprising from W's rubber stamp (Score:5, Insightful)
The right comparison is the other genocidal dickhead. The Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvilli one. Just ask any Russian speaker for a comparison of Bushisms with koba's pearls of wisdom. There is a clear one-to-one match there as well as a one-to-one match with Koba's vindictiveness, paranoia and simulated stupidity.
This is also the scarier comparison. 'cause for all of his efforts Hitler never reached a fraction of Stalin's body count.
Parent
Re:no press super-citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they are. They are specifically cited as a special protected group in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution [cornell.edu]. Congress is specifically prevented from making any law abridging the freedom of the press.
Parent
Re:Where do you go when freedom loses (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is quickly falling into a totalitarian state because of ONE REASON: The populace allows it. The PEOPLE are letting the government get away with this! YOU are letting the government get away with this!
Gonzales supports torturing prisoners to get information. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and others selected Bush as their champion to invade Iraq and sieze control of the middle-east almost two years before he was nominated for the presidency [pnac.org]. Oh, and let's not forget the US government deporting Canadian citizens to other countries where they'll be tortured, as happened with Maher Arar.
Then consider how the government treats its own people: Spying on them illegally, trashing the first ammendment, and imprisoning them.
Why are you letting these people walk through the streets freely? Why are you letting them run your lives? Why are YOU PERSONALLY not standing up against them, and fighting for everything that they're destroying, after two and a quarter centuries?
Quit complaining. Fight for your lauded rights. Fight with words and law and accountability, or later on you'll be fighting with knives and guns and molotov cocktails.
Parent