Posted on 02/07/2006 8:45:35 AM PST by Kaslin
/s = sarcasm
Arrest Rockefeller, throw him in jail, case closed.
Make Pinch feel the pinch.
So should we just ignore this? I don't like this
We've ignored just about every single other case of treason in the past 30 years. Why should this be any different?
Did you catch Leaky Leahy lecturing Gonzales on how no one is above the law? Grrrrrr...
In this country these days, there is no treason. It is just freedom of speech or persecution of the people who question the direction of this administration, dontcha know?
"Book'em Danno!"
Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.
Two different cases, leaker is not the same as publisher. But note Gonzales' strong language, "if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution." No equivocation, no political calculus, only that if the evidence is sufficient, prosecution will follow.
18 USC § 798. Disclosure of classified informationThe NYT article is there for all to read. If the publication was of "classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States," Gonzales has asserted that there WILL be a prosecution. Therefore, if there is no prosecution, either Gonzales was not telling the truth, or the evidence does not support a conclusion that the NYT violated the statute.(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information-- ...
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; ...
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section--
The term "classified information" means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; ...
The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients; ...(d) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law--
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
Prosecuting the leaker is a different prospect, as at this point we don't have a clear name of the leaker.
The Spy scenario sure fits Rockefeller's famous memo to a "T".....the memo that was called "treasonous".
I'm reading it right now and just picked up her new one from the library during lunch
That woman hits the nail squarely on the head...
Newsmax has missed the boat this time; political considerations will be EXACTLY what drives any coming prosecution.
The majority of Americans, in spite of a lot of inherent stupidity, realize the damage done by the publication of this vitally secret information, and want the program used in our protection.
Any leaker or publisher of said information is on very thin ice in assuming the public will side with them on this issue.
BRING ON THE INVESTIGATION!!!
Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.
I'll be happy to donate some of my backbone into some cowardly republicans, won't you?
ABSOLUTELY.
The Bush AG and Justice will NEVER really go after the lefty Dems that betray our nation. Never. Yet Jay Rock and Leaky Leahy should both be investigated. The NYTimes and Wash. Post should also be investigated. W stubbornly still believes in cooperation so he thinks that not prosecuting the Clinton criminality from the last 8 yr. term nor the lefty Dem anti-Americanism is just good manners. I love him but this attitude sickens me. There will never be any bureaucratic infrastructure reform if this Prez doesn't do it. The next Dem Prez will never attack it. I would even investigate State and some of the moles who work there. Leaks are not just Leahy's problem ; the Feds themselves undermine our national security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.