PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON-why we MUST prosecute The NY Times (HEAR Pete King et al)

PETE KING, Hannity & Colmes, Fox News Sunday, Gabriel Schoenfeld | 6.26.06 | Mia T

[Sic Luceat Lux]

I say we should prosecute the bastard along with all of the liberal malcontents at Defense, the CIA and State Department.

Exactly!
Bttt!

[xzins]

We must go after the leakers.

Without them, the papers have no info to print.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

Make it 40 years /$1,000,000 - this is almost as bad as Bill and Hillary's Chinagate.

[nopardons]

Great post...thanks for the ping.

[Navy Patriot]

plug the leakers

You may need my services.

Have Gun, Will Travel

Wire Patriot, San Francisco

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[Mia T]

Have gun, will travel reads the card of a man
A knight without armor in a savage land.

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Mia T]

thank you :)

[nopardons]

Welcome. :-)

[FlyVet]

Make it 40 years /$1,000,000 - this is almost as bad as Bill and Hillary's Chinagate.

He is probably guilty of accessory to murder. I find it hard to believe no one has died due these disclosures.

[TigersEye]

Complaining about it won't stop this behavior. Prosecute with extreme prejudice!

[Jameison]

"However, the 1st amendment seems pretty air tight to me"

When did the first amendment start covering leaking classified national security secrets to Al Quaeda so they can kill more Americans?


"Like I said, they can still print whatever they wish."

And Saddam Hussein is mother Theresa too.
No one is above the law.

[xzins]

Simply read the amendment and look at past interpretations of it.

In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court's decision included this: "Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraint." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/decision.pdf

There is no claim, however, that LEAKERS are not subject to prosecution.

If I want the other amendments (religion, guns, etc) interpreted strictly, then I must do the same with the press.)

[Jameison]

"Simply read the amendment and look at past interpretations of it. "

Nice try.
The legal eagles at Powerline have gone all over that.
No one is above the law, whether they work for the Slimes or not.
Giving national security secrets to the enemies of America is treason, even if you do it through the front pages of The Slimes.

From Hugh Hewitt:

"Again, I quote McManus to Baquet:

HH: Sure. Do you agree, Doyle McManus, that the press has no exemption from the national security statutes?

DM: I do agree with that."

McManus btw, is the Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/

From Dr. John Eastman, Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, testified Friday, May 26, before a hearing conducted by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence "

"Eastman contended that the First Amendment's Freedom of Press clause does not provide the institutional media a special exemption from the Espionage Act and other laws, and that enforcement of those laws is particularly important in the present assymetrical war against international terrorist organizations. A copy of his prepared testimony is available here."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905167


"In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court's decision included this: ""Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraint." "


The US Supreme Court also recognised these:


Abstract:
"Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, contending that Section 798 of the Espionage Act, prohibiting the publication of classified information regarding U.S. communications capabilities, can constitutionally be applied to the media, for several reasons: 1) A majority of the Justices in the Pentagon Papers case recognized that prior restraints on publication of highly sensitive, classified information regarding ongoing military and communications operations would be permissible; 2) The prospect of post-publication liability for violating the Espionage Act was also recognized by a majority of the Justices; and 3) the Freedom of Press Clause of the First Amendment is equally applicable to citizens and the the institutional media. "

[xzins]

There's an easy way to tell.

If the DOJ indicts the NYT, then they believe that the press can be punished for publishing information that they received from a 3rd party.

If the DOJ does nothing or attempts in some manner to indict a leaker to the NYT or attempts to force the NYT to reveal its source(s) so they can be indicted, then the DOJ does not believe that the press can be punished.

We'll see which happens, and from it get some sense of where the correct legal interpretation lies.

[P-Marlowe]

If the DOJ indicts the NYT, then they believe that the press can be punished for publishing information that they received from a 3rd party.

If the NY Times knew that the information they received was classified or top secret and that the leaker committed a felony in giving that information to the NY Times, then the NY Times is culpable as an accessory to a felony. If the NY Times knew that the information was classified and they in any way conspired with the leaker to have the information made public through the presses owned by the NY Times, then that makes the NY Times a co-conspirator and a principle and not an accessory.

If the NY Times actually paid for this information and then published it, then it would make the NY Times guilty of espionage

There are a lot of scenarios in which the NY Times itself could be seized and where the editors and the publishers could find themselves behind bars for the rest of their lives.

There is a limit to the freedom of the press. Giving the playbook for the war on terror to the enemy is clearly beyond that limit. The tools we had to detect the positions and the activities of terrorists have been compromised beyond repair. The leaker needs to be publicly executed. The NY Times needs to be seized and the property auctioned off. Finally those responsible for publishing the leak need to be jailed for the rest of their lives.

[xzins]

We'll know when they get prosecuted.

It clearly was classified info. They clearly came across it in an unauthorized way. They clearly published it.

I'm betting they'll not be prosecuted.

After the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent their publicatin. The Scotus ruled against them 6-3. The decision was essentially that there are no limits on the 1st amendment freedom of the press.

The administration attempted to prosecute the leakers....only to discover that we didn't have a law that made leaking illegal. (Since remedied.)

My point is that the Nixon Admin wanted to go after the leakers because they COULD NOT go after the Times. Likewise, we'll not have anyone go after the Times in the Finance Leak because they don't think they can. They'll go after the leakers.

If they succeed that will be as effective as going after the NYT. It will stop it in the future.

[Mia T]

 

When the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

<snip>

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

READ MORE

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)
by Mia T, 6.27.06

[jude24]

Do not post your over-the-top, frantic propaganda to me again.