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

Skip to comments.

Suing the NY Times for dis-closing classified information
Just Truth Please

Posted on 06/24/2006 3:24:43 PM PDT by just truth please

To the Lawyers in Free Republic land: How would a Citizens Action Group go about filing a lawsuit against the NY Times for their, seemingly, illegal release of classified Government information? It seems obvious the US Attorney General is not going to. Someone, some how needs to get this moving. Free Republic might be a good starting point.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: sageb1

It doesn't necessarily have to be an injury, it can be increased exposure to the possibility of future injury (you can sue a company for releasing toxic chemicals into the environment giving an increased risk of cancer, EVEN if you don't currently have cancer).

But it is a lot more difficult to prove than a direct injury.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth the publicity a suit against the NYSlimes would generate.


21 posted on 06/24/2006 3:38:20 PM PDT by Philistone (Turning lead into gold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: just truth please
Don't sue.

Prosecute.

18 U.S.C. §798. Disclosure of Classified Information. (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (b) As used in this subsection (a) of this section— The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; ......... The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients; The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

22 posted on 06/24/2006 3:39:52 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

Two times now they have leaked and the AG does nothing. I blame him now.


23 posted on 06/24/2006 3:41:04 PM PDT by John Lenin (The RAT party is still Stuck on Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

Just remember they have the terrorists on their side.


24 posted on 06/24/2006 3:41:27 PM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: just truth please; All

OK, I must of been asleep at the wheel, what did the NYslimes leak this time?


25 posted on 06/24/2006 3:46:33 PM PDT by LowOiL ("I am neither . I am a Christocrat" -Benjamin Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

yes, it's criminal, so it is up to the government to pursue.

The only 'public interest' claim whch was the thrust of this thread, that this non-lawyer can see because of our First Amendment would be very remote, and based on the Freedom of Information Act.

It would be very helpful for us to have a law like the UK's "Government Secrets Act" which does allow claims against their media (as I understand it). But that's not likely to happpen in the US. The First Amendment is too sacrosanct in this country.


26 posted on 06/24/2006 3:50:00 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

Agree, the editor, copy editor and managing editor have to have seen the story and approved as well. Civil suit is nice but this should be a criminal prosecution.


27 posted on 06/24/2006 3:53:01 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

How about a class action suit with all proceeds going to various military foundations and causes? That would drive the 'Drive by Media' into oncoming traffic....lol


28 posted on 06/24/2006 3:54:34 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: just truth please
Take the reporter and his editor behind the barn and beat the ever lovin' sn0t out of 'em. (That's a joke: I'm not advocating violence on FR)
29 posted on 06/24/2006 3:56:49 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

"Two times now they have leaked...."

I count three (if not more). Secret Prisons..NSA...and now the newest one detailing our sources and methods of tracking terrorist money all over the world!


30 posted on 06/24/2006 3:57:19 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Do you mean McCarty..not McBride?


31 posted on 06/24/2006 4:02:12 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy ("When Cabals Go Kaboom"....upcoming book on Mary McCarthy's Coup-Plotters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
You need to allege that the leaks make you less safe and cause you -- and if you make this a class action lawsuit millions of other Americans -- less safe in your person and cause you great emotional anguish

You are a genius. I'm already having cold sweats, nightmares, breaking out with boils and weird rashes, my dog won't talk to me and looks at me funny...

32 posted on 06/24/2006 4:03:43 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

I'm with you. Good idea.


33 posted on 06/24/2006 4:04:17 PM PDT by Zman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
Two times now they have leaked and the AG does nothing.

You have no clue what he's done or not done.

34 posted on 06/24/2006 4:04:40 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

Two times now they have leaked and the AG does nothing. I blame him now.

BINGO.

35 posted on 06/24/2006 4:05:14 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt
Ideas welcome!

Ten FReepers getting ten other people, who committe to getting ten others, who promise to get 10 more....Then start calling the advertisers. Follow the money!

36 posted on 06/24/2006 4:05:17 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Suzy Quzy; EDINVA

It's Mary O. McCarthy

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/washington/22leak.html?ei=5088&en=b5cc2844c89ebaae&ex=1303358400&partner=&pagewanted=print


38 posted on 06/24/2006 4:11:40 PM PDT by khnyny (Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

Tell me again what the compelling reason is that THE new york times disclosed the program:

1. Because they uncovered government abuses in the program;

2. Because the program is unconstitutional;

3. Because they could?


39 posted on 06/24/2006 4:11:52 PM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

Thank you!


40 posted on 06/24/2006 4:14:22 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy ("When Cabals Go Kaboom"....upcoming book on Mary McCarthy's Coup-Plotters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 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