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

Skip to comments.

US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales
Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 5/21/2006 | Unattributed

Posted on 05/21/2006 10:41:16 AM PDT by 1066AD

Back to Story - Help US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales 18 minutes ago

The federal government appears to have the authority to prosecute journalists or newspapers for publishing classified information, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Sunday.

The Justice Department is investigating who disclosed the government's secret domestic surveillance program to The New York Times, which broke the story in December.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said told ABC's "This Week," when asked if the government could prosecute journalists for publishing classified information.

The domestic spying program allows the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, while pursuing al Qaeda suspects.

Critics say the program raises constitutional concerns and violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a 1978 law requiring court warrants for all intelligence-related eavesdropping inside the United States.

Gonzales did not rule out prosecuting the Times or its reporters for publishing the leak.

"We are engaged now in an investigation about what would be the appropriate course of action in that particular case, so I'm not going to talk about it specifically," Gonzales said.

"But as we do in every case, it's a case-by-case evaluation about what the evidence shows us, our interpretation of the law. We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity," he said.

Gonzales also was asked about a report last week that the government was reviewing the phone records of U.S. journalists without their knowledge.

Two ABC News reporters said on a network Web site that a top federal law enforcement official told ABC the government was tracking phone numbers that the journalists were dialing in a bid to identify confidential sources.

"I think there's misunderstanding about these activities. ... We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said.

"I will say that I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect, the right of the press. But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abcnews; cia; doj; espionageact; fisa; gonzales; jamesrisen; leaks; msm; nsa; nyt; spying; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
Roll on the test case, MSM will go ape.
1 posted on 05/21/2006 10:41:17 AM PDT by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1066AD

bump


2 posted on 05/21/2006 10:43:29 AM PDT by lowbridge (I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming, like his passengers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD



How about for treason?

Distoring the facts for their own agenda to enable the US's enemies...how about we go after CNN and their ilk for that?


3 posted on 05/21/2006 10:44:34 AM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD

DO IT


4 posted on 05/21/2006 10:44:48 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (Boycott Communist Citgo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
"I will say that I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect, the right of the press. But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said.

Wow. Channeling John McCain?

5 posted on 05/21/2006 10:44:59 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

Talk about a single powerful step, which would bring every single frustrated member of the "base" flying back to Bush's side.

This is potentially more significant than the border issue.

Bush and Gonzales really should.


6 posted on 05/21/2006 10:47:39 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (Boycott Communist Citgo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD

The test case should have been the Pentagon Papers. The government went after Ellsburg instead. They lost.


7 posted on 05/21/2006 10:51:37 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
I think there's misunderstanding about these activities. ... We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said.

Which means they already have the warrants.
The bar has been set so low in the nutjob Plame CIA make work paper pusher "case", that the media may have some real legal exposure.
The Pr*cks at the NYT wanted to get the prosecutors involved to smear Libby-now they got them.
Falls into the category of "be careful what you wish for".
8 posted on 05/21/2006 10:52:29 AM PDT by mikeybaby (long time lurker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD

Let's Roll! Put a couple of these anti-American pixies in prison and their treasonous comrades will scatter like rabbits.


9 posted on 05/21/2006 10:52:47 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (* Steroids are just a way to "level the playing field.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

"Distoring the facts for their own agenda to enable the US's enemies...how about we go after CNN and their ilk for that?"

These people are genuinely evil, but what would we charge them with--legally charge them with?

For violating the First Amendment? How does a private citizen or entity violate the First Amendment?


10 posted on 05/21/2006 10:55:28 AM PDT by righttackle44 (The most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine with his rifle and the American people behind him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD

A Bush Veto is more likely (/sarcasm). More pandering.


11 posted on 05/21/2006 10:56:38 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Not a part of virtual reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

Pandering to whom?

I'm not looking to argue, I'm truly interested in how you see it.


12 posted on 05/21/2006 11:01:12 AM PDT by Fudd Fan (DemocRATs- the CULTURE OF TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said told ABC's "This Week," when asked if the government could prosecute journalists for publishing classified information.

Oh yeah. Talking to Georgie Stephynopoolus is real impressive.

Why does he bother to say this rather than do it?

13 posted on 05/21/2006 11:08:18 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fudd Fan

Domestically this administration in long on talk and missing in action.


14 posted on 05/21/2006 11:14:43 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Not a part of virtual reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
We should prosecute the publishers of these leaks---newspapers, news services or tv stations and networks. It is one way to protect our security and prevent additional leaks.
15 posted on 05/21/2006 11:15:04 AM PDT by verbal voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
We should prosecute the publishers of these leaks---newspapers, news services or tv stations and networks. It is one way to protect our security and prevent additional leaks.
16 posted on 05/21/2006 11:15:05 AM PDT by verbal voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said told ABC's "This Week," when asked if the government could prosecute journalists for publishing classified information.

Wrong answer. The right answer is:

"It is illegal, if not treasonous, to publish officially classified documents -- especially during wartime. We will vigorously prosecute any unauthorized individuals or organizations that disseminate, or aid in the dissemination of, lawfully classified government information."

17 posted on 05/21/2006 11:16:51 AM PDT by Maceman (Fake but accurate, and now double-sourced)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

Treason would be impossible to prove in practice. Espionage
is another matter, though...


18 posted on 05/21/2006 11:19:44 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
>Talk about a single powerful step, which would bring every single frustrated member of the "base" flying back to Bush's side

"...The truly amazing fact, however, is that also intelligent people and bandits often fail to recognize the power to damage inherent in stupidity. It is extremely difficult to explain why this should happen and one can only remark that when confronted with stupid individuals often intelligent men as well as bandits make the mistake of indulging in feelings of self-complacency and contemptuousness instead of immediately secreting adequate quantities of adrenaline and building up defenses.

"One is tempted to believe that a stupid man will only do harm to himself but this is confusing stupidity with helplessness. On occasion one is tempted to associate oneself with a stupid individual in order to use him for one's own schemes. Such a manoeuvre cannot but have disastrous effects because a) it is based on a complete misunderstanding of the essential nature of stupidity and b) it gives the stupid person added scope for the exercise of his gifts. One may hope to outmanoeuvre the stupid and, up to a point, one may actually do so. But because of the erratic behaviour of the stupid, one cannot foresee all the stupid's actions and reactions and before long one will be pulverized by the unpredictable moves of the stupid partner.

"This is clearly summarized in the Fourth Basic Law which states that:

"Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake."

[THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY, by Carlo M. Cipolla]

19 posted on 05/21/2006 11:26:46 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD

The Justice Department should start prosecuting the leakers or the Bush Whitehouse should shut the heck up and accept the leaks as legitimate and legal.


20 posted on 05/21/2006 11:27:50 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Build the fence. Sí, Se Puede!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 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