"The Court insisted that the damage must be done before the state can act."
That was in relation to a historical document. If you read the record of the Pentagon Papers case, you see that the government had to prove that the publication of this historical document would result in immediate and irrevocable damage to the US. A majority on that Supreme Court didn't agree with the government's argument that it would result in immediate damage. But this case is entirely different - this case is about an ongoing program. I think the government would be justified in prosecuting in this case - all the way up to the Supreme Court - because the situations are so different.
After the last election, there was a push to deny Specter the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. This was ultimately unsuccessful but only by a breath.
If the Reps retain control of the Senate, this effort should be renewed and any promises given by this fool should be rejected.
Unfortunately, we knew before he was completely unreliable and a loose cannon on the Deck, so we only have ourselves to blame.. but the groundwork should be laid to remove him.
Motto, "One way or another - Specter goes to the back bench" He much much more richly deserves this than Trent Lott, who perhaps should get this seat.
I agree with your argument, but in this case it is moot. The publication has happened and we are no longer looking at a question of prior restraint. All of the relevant court rullings are 100% clear, including New York Times Co. v. United States. Regardless of any first amendment issues about prior restraint, there is absolutely no established Constitutional restriction on prosecution of a news organization after the fact. Justices Stewart and White made that explicit in there concurring opinion in that case and there is abundant case law supporting that position and zero case law contradicting it. Pinch Sulzberger and his editorial staff need to be frog marched to jail, at the very least.