New York Times – May 22, 2006:
The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales 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.”
The truth comes out. The reporters thinks they are above the law.
The 1st ammendent does not allow them access to top secret information. The government is trying to identify the source of the leaks “by connecting the dots”. Does anyone remember that phrase? Notice how quickly the Mass Media shifts their perspective to suit their own agenda.
Pre 9/11 – illegal to connect the dots
Post 9/11 (for a couple years) – supposed to connect the dots
Post 9/11(4 years later) – connect the dots but not with Mass Media!!!
No wonder their circulation is in the tank.
Hey, he’s right you know.
Hell, we can make this one of the most secure countries in the world. First, we totally throw away the Constitution as that just gets in the way and let’s face it, it’s a security threat.
Next, we get rid of the Internet totally and confiscate all phones and computers. Forbid people from meeting anywhere or gathering in a group. If any crime is committed it’s an instant death sentence. If the criminal escapes or goes into hiding, then the death sentence goes to all his or her family. Give out cash incentives to turn in people that you know are cheating the system in any way.
Also, close all the borders and allow no plane, ship or person to approach or else they will be fired at and downed/sunk/killed. Every person when they reach the age of 18 are made to join the military for a mandatory 10 year service. All people in prison at the moment will all be put to death…to wipe clean the slate of everyone and make room for the new influx of political prisoners that may try to buck the system with writing or speaking out…that is if they aren’t outright killed.
There, that will be a very fine start on a totally secure system with little threat of terrorism as if anyone were to plot against the President or government, they will be killed along with their families. A total lock-down on the country with a total iron fist. This will guarantee “that our national security is protected” then.
I mean, if you’re throwing away freedoms and passing laws to protect us all, why fart around?
Wow…John C. Dvorak is going to jail!
Good luck in there…I hope you can keep your blog going still with random updates from the joint…
I just resent the idea that there is some magical entity called “the press” which has a greater level of protection under the first amendment than I do.
Having said that, I don’t mind having legitmate laws enforced (assuming this is legitimate), I just get tired of this selective enforcement that goes on every day. If they aren’t going to at least make an attempt to enforce a law 100% of the time, then it probably shouldn’t be a law to begin with.
Silly reporters. They are only supposed to use leaked classified information given to them by the Bush adminstration.
Shouldn’t they be focusing on how the reports get top secret information? If it is easy enough for the media to get it, you have to assume that the “enemy” already has it. That means that the only people who don’t know about it are the people who elect these officials in the first place.
So, just who is the information classified from? The American People, of course.
In 50 years we will all be forced to become fundamentalist Christians with no freedom of speach or press, but by god we will still have our guns!
And the masses standby and watch with voyeurustic delight as Lady Liberty is gang banged by the religious right and fascist conservatives in America.
John Benson says:
“The truth comes out. The reporters thinks they are above the law.
The 1st ammendent does not allow them access to top secret information. The government is trying to identify the source of the leaks “by connecting the dots”. Does anyone remember that phrase? Notice how quickly the Mass Media shifts their perspective to suit their own agenda.
Pre 9/11 – illegal to connect the dots
Post 9/11 (for a couple years) – supposed to connect the dots
Post 9/11(4 years later) – connect the dots but not with Mass Media!!!
No wonder their circulation is in the tank. ”
Benson, so if the government does something illegal, and it relates to “classified” information, then we should ignore it, or be ignorant? And if they classify something so as to not let it get out, then that makes it right?
Would it be safe to say that you fall into the line of thought that says: “If you don’t have anything to hide, then you should hove no problem with the government listening to your calls, reading you email, or monitoring what you read, watch, or say. Do necessarily agree with the press at all times on what they cover? No, but I do recognize the check that the press provides on the government to keep it “honest.” (At least as it relates to behavior in regards to citizens.)
Additionally, would it be safe to say that you have no problem with the “prisoners of war”” being held by our government post nine-eleven?
#1 “The reporters thinks” Try “Reporters think”.
Of course reporters aren’t above the law. Neither is the G.
Members of the “damn liberal media” are so evil until the storm troopers start knocking (or should I say knocking down) your door.
I like it the way it is now. Besides the powers that be aren’t concerned about intel leaks – they’re concerned about being caught with their bribe money in the freezer.
Why should the media be afforded unique protection from the law? I saw arrest the hacks, and let the legal system figure it out…
Okay, here we go again.
Verbatum:
“Amendment I
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. ”
(source: US State Department)
I see that it says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom speech or of the press.”
“Definition: abridge
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Middle French abregier, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH
2 : to shorten in duration or extent
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : CONDENSE
synonym see SHORTEN”
(Source: Merian-Webster Online)
The First Amendment IS THE LAW!!!
What this member of the Bush Crime Syndicate is advocating, is that we burn the constitution, as it no longer matters, as the president is, in effect, King.
Anyone wanna go a couple of rounds in the Cage Match with me on this one? Go right ahead. I’ll warn you now, that you better do your homework, because uncited references will not be tolerated.
I am getting sick of the Bush Crime Syndicate, taking away our rights, burning the constitution, torturing people, and killing our military personell overseas.
These people must be brought up on RICO charges, proscicuted, and imprisoned. Every last one of them.
A better question to ask is: why is a government “of, for and by the people” hiding the details of its activities from the people?
Past interpretation and application of existing law has been that revealing classified information is illegal when the person acquired that information as a result of their government security clearance. Government informants themselves may be committing a crime, but journalists are not, even when they include classified information in a news report. One of the most sacred trusts of the news media has always been to weigh the concerns of national security against the public’s right to be informed of illicit classified government activities. After all, we will bear the consequences of those activities, so don’t we have a right to gauge what that backlash might be?
Gonzales’ proposed application of the law could be much more far reaching than anything we’ve ever seen regarding public disclosure, and even the subsequent discussion, of classified information. His pretense of merely doing it to carry out the will of the Congress that originally passed the law is transparent and disingenuous, for this was not their intent. I believe the Administration merely wants to deter and punish those who expose embarrassing classified actions.
I heard something on the news just this morning that seemed apropos. The National Weather Service has already listed the names to be used for tropical storms and hurricanes for this season, and “Alberto” will be our first named storm. I only hope it doesn’t wreak as much havoc as Alberto Gonzales does.
>we will all be forced …, but by god we will still have our guns!
You don’t see a contradiction here?
the crime isn’t publishing leaked classified information, the crime is when the reporter refuses to name his source in a criminal investagation. Thats aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony(the leak).
Now, having said that, it’s almost always Judges that get all pissy when a reporter refuses to name his /her sources.
#15 Joshua, I think you’re mistaken…
1) “the crime isn’t publishing leaked classified information”
The new interpretation of law that Gonzales is proposing is to make publication of the leaked classified material a crime that he may prosecute. The journalist would indeed be prosecuted for publishing.
2) “the crime is when the reporter refuses to name his source in a criminal investagation”
This isn’t a crime per se, but it can result in a contempt of court charge imposed at the discretion of the judge. However, I didn’t see where Gonzales was even addressing this issue, probably because the law he was referring to didn’t address revealing a source.
Of course, I’m just going by what the article said, plus a Washington Post editorial I read that deals with some possible ramifications. If you’ve got a source that disputes this article, it’ll be a CRIME if you don’t reveal it, and don’t think I won’t prosecute 😉
Given that most of these reporters think they shouldn’t notify the US if they find out about an attack on US soldiers, I don’t see any reason to give them special protections.