and Again
and Again
Sue the leaker not the Times.
You would have to show tort. Which is possible though extremely difficult to prove in this case (that the harm caused was caused specifically to the persons initiating the suit).
bump.
Why in hell would anyone give the NYT classified info?
Unless...
I'm not a lawyer (but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night) ....
it seems that the Times can't be sued for publishing, but they can sure go after the leaker, a federal employee who has to have a very high security clearance and who has to have signed non-disclosure agreements with the government. I will assume that like the McBride woman who leaked CIA information, this civil servant will also be nabbed, but it IS time to get seriesly tough with these people.
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. (I don't believe there should be class action suits and I also do not believe in compensation for the rather nebulous and unprovable "great emotional anguish" but those concepts have been brought to us by Breckgirl and her friends so why not use them?)
My guess is that you don't have a case against anyone. My guess is that only the government can complain.
I just posed this question privately to a FRiend.
The NYT is owned and controlled by the Sulzbergs by virtue of their 91% ownership of All outstanding Class B shares. If Gun Manufacturers and Tobbaco companies can be sued for harm should'nt these folks be perp walking? Ideas welcome!
bttt
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.
Just remember they have the terrorists on their side.
OK, I must of been asleep at the wheel, what did the NYslimes leak this time?
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?
>>>It seems obvious the US Attorney General is not going to.<<<
George Bush's Justice Department goes hard after republicans. Democrats, like Sandy Berger and the New York Times, get a mild rebuke.
First you have to identify the classified information. Is there something in particular that you have in mind?
President Bush has been very tentative in responding to his critics. The hands off approach is probably a result of the new tone he wanted to establish in Washington at the beginning of his first term. Most people think that he is naïve to let his critics incessantly hammer away with immunity, but you could argue that its been a good strategy. While his opponents have been busy acting like fools, they have been unable to win elections. But the NY Times disclosing National Security Secrets is a whole other thing. The NY Times is fighting a war against the War on Terrorism and one day risks being complicit if a future terrorism attack is successful in the United States. The United States Attorney General must aggressively prosecute the leaker and the NY Times for treason in a time of war. Nothing less is shameful and dishonors the memory of all that have given their lives in the defense of their country since 9/11.
from another thread: " ......then his Administration must not let the Times continue to disregard the law. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917 specifically to punish the kind of subversive acts in which the Times engaged by exposing the wiretapping and SWIFT programs."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655044/posts?page=74#74
Nam Vet