Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The press, for better or for worse, cannot be prosecuted for what they print, regardless of what it is. That's the 1st Amendment.
This is similar to -- yet much more serious than -- the Valerie Plame situation and Robert Novak. No one has -- nor should have -- called for Novak to be prosecuted on treason charges.
However, who ever leaked this information to the NYT should be out of a job at the very least, if not prosecuted for on any charges that may apply.
I find it interesting how "the leak" was
the story in the media for the case of Wilson and his wife, but there's been hardly a peep over it in for this much more serious and damaging one.
Perhaps the NYT saw that Bush was making progress in the war on terror and decided John Kerry needed a little help. Afterall, what's bod for America is good for the Democrats.
Give the LEFT a RIGHT HOOK with CouNTeRPuNcH
Get the Rally Sign and Bumper Sticker Here
www.counterpunch.usWell lets not get ahead of ourselves. The press, for better or for worse, cannot be prosecuted for what they print, regardless of what it is. That's the 1st Amendment. That doesn't apply when it comes to giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" during wartime. Like tipping off the enemy to giant sting operations. There is no right of freedom of the press to endanger the United States and its inhabitants.
None dare call it treaon, but that is what it is.
"Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The press, for better or for worse, cannot be prosecuted for what they print, regardless of what it is. That's the 1st Amendment." I cringe when I hear these words. Freedom of speech should and does have limitations. You cannot, for example, yell FIRE in a movie theatre if there is none. If a nation is at war and a major newspaper publishes 'news' that gives critical information to the enemy, I can't for the life of me see why there can be no legal recriminations.