Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Secret
Power Line ^ | 5 Mar 2006 | unattributed

Posted on 03/05/2006 10:10:34 PM PST by Greg o the Navy

One of the deepest secrets in the exposure of the National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaeda-related conversations by the New York Times is that the publication of the story is itself a crime. Publication of the story violates, for example, one highly specific provision (18 U.S.C. section 798) of the Espionage Act that prohibits the disclosure of communications intelligence. Violation of the statute is a felony punishable by imprisonment up to ten years.

(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: gwot; msm; newyorktimes; nsa; surveillance; terrorism; wiretap; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: dubyaismypresident

Pinging!


41 posted on 03/06/2006 2:13:10 AM PST by Las Vegas Dave ("Liberals out of power are comical-Liberals in power are dangerous!"-Rush Limbaugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Is the newspaper guilty of a crime in publishing that secret leak? No.

Au contraire, mon amie.

The correct answer is yes.

Sit back and watch.

42 posted on 03/06/2006 2:13:18 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
I long ago gave up any optimism that The Left will be called to account for their crimes against our nation.

For a good example of the attitude of the Bush Justice Dept, I have only two words: Sandy Berger. Of course, I could add four more: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton...

43 posted on 03/06/2006 2:25:01 AM PST by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo





                          

44 posted on 03/06/2006 4:05:57 AM PST by devolve ( (refresh-updated-graphix - Photobucket Imagecave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Law is not opinion. Law is by very specific act. Please reread the part of my post regarding the Constitutional guarantee of a free press overweighting a statute prohibiting the release of certain information.

We may not like it, but it is the way the Constitutional protections operate.
45 posted on 03/06/2006 5:35:01 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Law is not opinion. Law is by very specific act. Please reread the part of my post regarding the Constitutional guarantee of a free press overweighting a statute prohibiting the release of certain information.

We may not like it, but it is the way the Constitutional protections operate.


46 posted on 03/06/2006 5:36:00 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Law is not opinion. Law is by very specific act. Please reread the part of my post regarding the Constitutional guarantee of a free press overweighting a statute prohibiting the release of certain information.

We may not like it, but it is the way the Constitutional protections operate.

Would you really have wanted the reporters who broke the Monica story jailed because they reported on the testimony given before a Grand Jury?


47 posted on 03/06/2006 5:38:01 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Greg o the Navy

Keep dreaming, nothing is going to happen to the NYT. A trial will further expose our methods as the NYT Lawyers will in all probability enter more information they have on hand into the testimony. Call it Press Blackmail. Then add the ACLU into the foray with their 1st Amendment BS.


48 posted on 03/06/2006 5:43:57 AM PST by Bringbackthedraft (If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. But then again, it repeats regardless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Monica wasn't a matter of national security,nor were we at war. How you can compare information about Clinton screwing an intern in the WH to leaking classified information during wartime is a little ridiculous.


49 posted on 03/06/2006 6:04:36 AM PST by calex59 (seeing the light shouldn't make you go blind and, BTW, Stå sammen med danskerne !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Our constitution allows for a free press meaning they write about whatever they want but it comes with responsibilities and consequences for failing to act responsible.
June 8, 1789. House of Representatives, Blackstone,
"Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity."

Most common held view based on the Constitutional annotations from Judiciary Opinions is the Blackstone view which was the prevailing view at the time and is the one that was voted for and ratified in the Amendment of the Constitution.
50 posted on 03/06/2006 6:54:15 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet; BIGLOOK

"(18 U.S.C. section 798) of the Espionage Act that prohibits the disclosure of communications intelligence. Violation of the statute is a felony punishable by imprisonment up to ten years."

We need to forget the treason charges and go to breaking the above law charges. Justice needs to bust some of these people, their editors and the publishers. Then, have some serious and very private discussions with their board members and let them know that they will go to jail if this happens again. Repeat the process with the Compost and the illegal disclosure events will become history.


51 posted on 03/06/2006 7:05:50 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Visit Free Republic to enjoy shameless Schadenfreude as the lies of liberals are exposed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Greg o the Navy

Oh I am with you there...

Can we use the "T" word yet?


52 posted on 03/06/2006 7:17:06 AM PST by alarm rider (Irritating leftists as often as is humanly possible....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Freedom of the press does not cover overt acts of treason, sorry. Deliberately exposing a secret defense intelligence program during a war cannot be construed in any way as the mere publishing of one's own point of view. It is a deliberate act designed to aid our enemies. This falls into the fire-in-a-crowded-theater category - it's not free speech to do so.
53 posted on 03/06/2006 7:28:11 AM PST by thoughtomator (I understand Democrats' impatience; If Kerry were President, Iran would have nuked Israel by now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

agreed. when was the last person tried for sedition?


54 posted on 03/06/2006 9:05:39 AM PST by Rakkasan1 (Muslims pray to Allah, Allah prays to Chuck Norris.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

I would hope that sentence would include a Death Needle for the worst of them. Can you imagine sending a clearer message to the Journos and RATS?


55 posted on 03/06/2006 9:59:31 AM PST by Greg o the Navy (Al Qaeda's willing American allies: DemonRats & Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Just curious ... can the President push the limits of the law by invoking some sort of emergency declaration to shut down the Slimes and other outlets that carried the story, along with prosecuting the full slate of responsible individuals?

No doubt the RINOs would whine but would quickly fall into line when presented with a muscular and principled policy. The RATS and their friends would shut the ***k up as soon as they realized they put themselves in jeopardy by defending criminal and treasonous behavior.

I'm thinking in terms of a "do it now and apologize later" scenario. Haven't other wartime Presidents successfully used a similarly tough approach?

FWIW I think the great majority of Americans would admire such a course and would support it unconditionally. Those who wouldn't support it would effectively exclude themselves from the political process. Sounds like a formula for overwhelming conservative electoral victory to me.


56 posted on 03/06/2006 10:19:31 AM PST by Greg o the Navy (Al Qaeda's willing American allies: DemonRats & Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: calex59

>Monica wasn't a matter of national security,nor were we at war. How you can compare information about Clinton screwing an intern in the WH to leaking classified information during wartime is a little ridiculous.

I am not comparing anything. I am illustrating a point of law. Please do not confuse logic, right/wrong with legal.

RE Monica: Revealing Grand Jury testimony is illegal, but reporters were not prosecuted because the Constitutional guarantee of a free press has more weight than a statute prohibiting revealing Grand Jury information.

It's a question of law, not logic.


57 posted on 03/06/2006 11:07:24 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Greg o the Navy
>Just curious ... can the President push the limits of the law by invoking some sort of emergency declaration to shut down the Slimes and other outlets that carried the story, along with prosecuting the full slate of responsible individuals?

He could try, but the courts would overrule immediately. "Prior Restraint" that is the prevention of publication, has been struck down and struck down hard a number of times by the SCOTUS, and usually by large majorities. Nixon tried it with the "Pentagon Papers" and failed miserably.

If he declared Martial Law, he probably could, but again, we don't want to go there.

As far as prosecuting reporters and editors for what has been published, probably a total no-go either, on Constitutional grounds.

The problem is that in the past, papers had enough sense and loyalty to not print something they knew. My radio station in Florida, WLCY, knew about Bay of Pigs invasion days before it happened, but we were asked to sit on it and we did.

Today, the editor of the NYT is a man who openly rooted for a PAVN victory in RVN, and the resultant killing of American soldiers.
58 posted on 03/06/2006 11:17:02 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
One, is not illegal to testify against a president when he has committed a crime. That is what the Impeachment was about, testifying about Monica was not Illegal, was not treason and you were comparing it, to say you weren't is the worse kind of hypocrisy, and BTW, you did not say anything about the press printing it, you were talking about someone testifying in front of the grand jury. Even so, if the paper revealed grand jury info then they are liable under the law.

The fact that we don't prosecute doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

Two, revealing Classified Information by printing it in a paper is as illegal as the person who released the info, PROVIDED the information hadn't become common knowledge before it was printed. In other words the papers who picked it up and reprinted the times story are not guilty, but the Times sure as hell is . Read the law, law and logic work just fine. It was, and is, illegal to commit treason, first amendment rights do not excuse the fact that they committed treason. What you are saying in effect, is that if someone in the goverment told me about a national secret, during war, I could blab it all over town, endangering lives,(Provided it was not released elsewhere first) and not be liable because my first amendment rights protect me simply because I was not the one who obtained the info originally. It doesn't work that way, and news agencies are not exempt from the law regardless of how you want to twist it.

59 posted on 03/06/2006 11:28:15 AM PST by calex59 (seeing the light shouldn't make you go blind and, BTW, Stå sammen med danskerne !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: calex59
#1 In the first case, the issue was not testifying against the President. It was the media's revealing what was said before a Grand Jury. Normally, revealing such information is illegal, but the media can, under the privileges of "higher law," ie: the Constitution, publish facts. It's call a "Free Press."

#2 Revealing classified information in a recognized publication is NOT illegal. You may not like it, but it is so. Please see comment above for clarification.

Please, as a very conservative retired reporter and lawyer, it's an issue I have dealt with a hundred times.

Was the NYT very wrong in publishing what they did? Yes.

Should Punch be punched? Yes.

Was it illegal under our system of constitutional law? No.

Please do not confuse what is right with hat is legal. They often have to relation to each other.

Kennedy's back seat bingo with teenagers in the Presidential limousine was very wrong, but not illegal.
60 posted on 03/06/2006 11:44:26 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson