>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.
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.