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

To: oldtimer2

thank you


2 posted on 06/24/2006 3:55:04 PM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: YaYa123; oldtimer; All
Journalist. Traitor. Which came first?bump
Why must we prosecute Pinch Sulzberger and The New York Times? The answer is really quite simple.

And it is independent of the legalities1. It must be independent of the legalities.

Prosecuting Sulzberger and the Times is both a moral and a survival imperative: If we don't prosecute them, if we declare Sulzberger and the Times untouchable by virtue of their press status, it follows that anyone intent on doing this country harm during wartime can simply call himself 'the press' and be able to commit treason with impunity.

Indeed, it appears some already have.2

PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES

by Mia T, 06.26.06



Among other things, the Act makes it a crime, essentially, to aid the success of America's enemies. It is a law forged in wartime that recognizes wartime imperatives, and it's an exceptionally sensible precaution for a free-speaking country on a long-term defense footing. Last month, after the wiretap story had wilted and died, Attorney General Gonzales suggested on a Sunday talk show that the 1917 Act can, in the interest of national security, be used to prosecute journalists who disclose classified information.

The very next day, the Times story that reported the Gonzales interview claimed journalists are not subject to the Act. Incredibly, the paper seems to believe journalists can ignore the Act, precisely because they are journalists. (On what grounds? Because the Times says so.)

Especially after yesterday's disclosure, it is almost as though the Times is taunting Gonzales -- based, I suppose, on a hunch the Bush administration doesn't have the political will to indict the paper. Like many Americans, I am simply nauseated that the New York Times claims immunity from the law in order to splash morning headlines with a memo to jihadists explaining how to evade detection by America's secret defense programs. It's not my place here to interpret the Espionage Act. I realize, too, that it's not yet been used to prosecute journalists.

But laws are advocated, and interpreted, in light of the exigencies of the day, and especially where national defense is at issue, they must be aggressively enforced and tested at critical times. With the cancer of Islamic jihad metastasizing around the U.S., this is very much such a time, and I believe the Justice Department should aggressively seek to protect America's interests, like any lawyer is bound to do for a client, and pursue an indictment of the New York Times and those responsible for violating the law.

Attorney General Gonzales: Indict the New York Times
The American Thinker ^ | June 24, 2006 | William Lalor
Bill Lalor is an attorney in New York City and publisher of Citizen Journal


69 posted on 06/27/2006 3:15:36 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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