Is the New York Times About to be Indicted?

Armavirumque ^ | May 25, 2006 | James Piereson

[RWR8189]

Not a website I'm familiar with, but it was linked on RealClearPolitics, and they're a pretty good site.

[A CA Guy]

Reporters have the right to say whatever for the most part.

The issue here is whether the press can use free speech to spread illegal leaks and assist in what could be considered espionage against the United States?

Common sense would seem to say no.

Let's say the press in WW2 heard a disgruntled lefty leak, and decided to tell Japan through the newspapers that we found one of those typewriters and that we could now read all their correspondence.
Is the press free to sabotage the defense of our country and remove an advantage we would have had longer over an enemy they don't know about? Common sense says no.

[pcottraux]

I hope so.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"suggested that the espionage laws in question had been written to apply to government officials who leaked classified information and not to journalists and newspapers that might have published it."

That reminds me of what the former Gov of Louisiana (Presently Incarcerated) said about bribery.

"It was illegal for them to bribe me. It wasn't illegal for me to accept the money though."- Edwin Edwards

Hey Pinchy.... don't drop the soap!!!!

[Allegra]

"It was illegal for them to bribe me. It wasn't illegal for me to accept the money though."- Edwin Edwards

LOL - I gues he figured it was worth a shot.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

One might argue, as many have, that there is a national interest in promoting debate about defense and security policy and that such debate would be impeded by the prosecution of journalists.

OTOH one might argue, as I do, that journalists are not priests nor any sort of officials at all. Journalists are merely people like you and me, with no credentials which the government is obligated to respect. People who exercise rights that you and I have but ordinarily do not exercise. Say rather, which we ordinarily exercise only humbly via FR, rather than arrogantly.

Journalists call themselves "the press" as if non-fiction or even fictional books were less protected than the particular genre of topical nonfiction known as journalism. And as if the First Amendment covered broadcast journalists whose business could not exist without government censorship of radio transmission which competed with the licensed broadcasters. It is arrogant to argue from a claim of your own virtue, and journalists arrogantly claim the virtue of objectivity.

Journalists claim the status of a priesthood of power - the power of public relations. They maintain that power by maintaining their circulation and their ratings, and they maintain their circulation and ratings by "If it bleeds it leads" negativity and by second-guessing criticism of those who provide the goods and services upon which we depend.

• If we depend on the military, then the military must be losing in Iraq (even if its oppostition there holds no territory and is capable only of harassing the Iraqi public and our troops.

• If we trust the food in the supermarket, then Alar used to optimize the appearance of apples must be harmful to public health.

• If we depend on our pickup trucks, they must be firebombs just waiting to go off.

• If we depend on gasoline, the oil companies must be greedy.

• If we depend on white men, they must be racist sexist biggot homophobes.

• If we depend on the police, they must be either unable to apprehend evildoers or brutal thugs - if not both.

• If we depend on Christian principles (which alone explain why slavery was abolished worldwide to the extent that it has been), Christians must be self righteous and domineering.

• If we depend on FR and bloggers to give us informed opinion, bloggers and FR posters must be tendentious partisans who unfairly target virtuous journalists and liberal politicians.

• And if we depend on an intelligent and public-spirited electorate, the electorate must be a bunch of mind-numbed robots who will fall for anything.

In short, journalism preens itself as the definition of the public interest by promoting the idea that anyone who is not a journalist or a credulous believer of the perspective of journalism is evil. Journalism is in fact nothing but the prototypical special interest. An interest which promotes liberalism tyranny as it promotes itself.

[CalvaryJohn]

Alberto and the adminisration won't touch the press, no matter how egregious the transgression. They're too skeered of what people might say and write about them. The New Tone, you know.

[BallyBill]

I didn't know you could indict a newspaper. I'd rather some of their employees be indicted.

[Earthdweller]

Woohoo..would that ever make my day.

The slimes are a disgrace.

[Hardastarboard]

Sometimes I think Joe McCarthy was right. He was just right too soon.

[LaLaLand Conservative]

I am certainly not a fan of the New York Times, and I don't think newspapers should be publishing classified information that might effect national security. That having been said however, it is ironic Gonzales seems to be considering prosecution in this case to "protect our security" while the administration has declined to enforce the law against the hiring of illegal aliens and ignored the security risks inherent in our porous borders and ports every since 9/11. An administration that selectively enforces the law only when it is convenient and that only worries about some security risks while ignoring other obvious ones loses credibility even with its base.

[Jimmy Valentine]

"Is The New York Times about to be indicted?"

Mouth is watering like a Pavlovian dog.

[norge]

You could be right. However, I would bet, if they do bring charges (and I hope they do), they will have them buttoned down tight. And if they do, won't that be a day!

[Miss Marple]

Yeah, we've heard that criticism before. I personally think that things are about to change.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

A possible death sentence for the NY Times? What a pleasant thought to start the day.

[bert]

In my view, the important paragraph deals with the communications intellegance law. This is the first I had heard of this law obviously passed to protect Enigma type secrets.

That is precisely what the Times did. They divulged an enigma type secret communications program.

It would seem the Times defense is to declare innocence of the espionage act and cover up the comint law from public knowledge.

The Times is the enemy. Pinch is the emeny and must be prosecuted.

[browardchad]

He reports that the FBI has not yet interviewed anyone from The New York Times in connection with the leaks that led to its story on the NSA's communications intercepts.

It doesn't necessarily follow that they won't be investigated. After her attorney's initial bluster, we haven't heard much from Mary McCarthy lately.

As far as the (false) sanctity of the press, I'd say Fitzgerald has lowered the bar in throwing Judy Miller in jail for a few months. Perhaps reporters won't be prosecuted, but their lives may be, shall we say, severely inconvenienced.

[mewzilla]

Pinch is going to be pinched?

Goody.

[stopem]

Exactly!!