VERY interesting article about the legality of publishing classified information:
[quote]Over the past six months, we have witnessed the publication of several pieces of classified information that appear to be extraordinarily sensitive, and extremely important tactical components of our ongoing effort to protect American citizens and property from additional terrorist attacks: The New York Times revelation last December of the NSA program conducting surveillance on Al Qaeda communications into or out of the United States, which the Times itself characterized as our “most closely guarded secret”; the USA Today disclosure earlier this month that several telephone companies were turning over databases of information about numbers called–so-called pen registers; and the Washington Post’s story that some terrorists captured by U.S. forces were being held by the CIA in undisclosed locations in allied countries.
No one contests that in each instance, classified information was illegally provided to these media outlets and then subsequently published by them. And to my knowledge, no one seriously contends that the individuals who leaked the information are not subject to prosecution for violating the Espionage Act (or even subject to prosecution for treason if it could be proved that their intent in leaking the classified information was to undermine our war effort and thereby give aid and comfort to the enemy). Even those who would seek to bestow on the leaker the protected status of “whistle-blower” surely will acknowledge that the whistle-blower statute requires that the allegedly illegal activities be reported internally, through a certain specified administrative route, rather than shouted to the world from the front pages of our nation’s major newspapers.[/quote]
[quote]
That poses interesting constitutional questions if we assume, as I shall do, that classified information was leaked and subsequently published, and that the leaker himself, should his identity become known, is subject to criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act, among other things, for that illegal disclosure.[/quote]
Have you read the 1st amendentment of the USA Constitution ? What does it have to do with this ?
Are you saying that the Espionage Act of 1917 is unconstitutional ?
…would they include asking why the Neo-Jacobin criminals in the “Executive Branch” of the US Government have authorized the leak(s) of classified information if it served their treasonous agenda?
…would they include asking why the Neo-Jacobin criminals in the “Executive Branch” of the US government have authorized the leak(s) of classified information if it served their treasonous agenda?[/quote]
[quote=“Big Fluffy Matthew”]Have you read the 1st amendentment of the USA Constitution ? What does it have to do with this ?
Are you saying that the Espionage Act of 1917 is unconstitutional ?[/quote]
Yes sire, I sure have.
[quote]So where does that leave us with respect to the New York Times’ contentions? Once it is clear that the “Freedom of the Press” acknowledged in the First Amendment does not create a special preserve for the institutional media, the full import of Bill Keller’s claims come into view, and it is the old saw, long since disproved, that democratic governments are not permitted secrets, even in time of war.
Our Constitution expressly recognizes the common-sense necessity of government secrets, for example, in the Article I requirement that each House of Congress shall publish a journal of its proceedings, “excepting such Parts as in their Judgment may require Secrecy.”
The need for secrecy is even more urgent in the executive branch, and as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 71, it is one of the key reasons the Constitution provides for unity in the executive office, establishing an “energetic” executive who can operate with “secrecy” and “despatch” when necessary to protect "the community against foreign attacks."33 This need for secrecy in the conduct of certain executive functions such as those under consideration today has repeatedly been recognized and approved by the courts as well. Writing for the Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., for example, Justice Sutherland explained why the President’s authority over foreign affairs was so great, noting that he "has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results."34 A similar view was expressed by Justice Jackson in Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp.: “The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation’s organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world.”[/quote]
[quote]
The Freedom of the Press was designed to protect the published word of all citizens, not just an institutionalized fourth estate.[/quote]
btw, have you been talking with miltownkid?
"amendentment "
You quoted all that without quotalizing the actual first addmendymendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Only Congress has to stop prohibiting freedom of press, any other agency can prohibit whatever they like (depending of other laws, but not the 1st amendment)
Look, there are certain things the press cannot publish, right? Calling for the assassination of any person, I imagine would be one; printing libelous accusations; and publishing government secrets.
Read the article again. Press freedom is not boundless.
I would like to hear what you have to say with the neojacwhatevers and conspiracies left out though.[/quote]
That Bush has taken and will take away and admend what ever paper he can so that America can stay ahead in the game. Once that pesky 2nd admendymentdant is taken away, Aronld can run and rule the world.
I would like to hear what you have to say with the neojacwhatevers and conspiracies left out though.[/quote]
That Bush has taken and will take away and admend what ever paper he can so that America can stay ahead in the game. Once that pesky 2nd admendymentdant is taken away, Aronld can run and rule the world.
I would like to hear what you have to say with the neojacwhatevers and conspiracies left out though.[/quote]
That Bush has taken and will take away and admend what ever paper he can so that America can stay ahead in the game. Once that pesky 2nd admendymentdant is taken away, Aronld can run and rule the world.
the 10 cents I owe you [/quote]
Have you read the article?[/quote]
Ah no, cause I no longer believe in the media. Sorry
I would like to hear what you have to say with the neojacwhatevers and conspiracies left out though.[/quote]
That Bush has taken and will take away and admend what ever paper he can so that America can stay ahead in the game. Once that pesky 2nd admendymentdant is taken away, Aronld can run and rule the world.
the 10 cents I owe you [/quote]
Have you read the article?[/quote]
Ah no, cause I no longer believe in the media. Sorry [/quote]
I would like to hear what you have to say with the neojacwhatevers and conspiracies left out though.[/quote]
That Bush has taken and will take away and admend what ever paper he can so that America can stay ahead in the game. Once that pesky 2nd admendymentdant is taken away, Aronld can run and rule the world.
the 10 cents I owe you [/quote]
Have you read the article?[/quote]
Ah no, cause I no longer believe in the media. Sorry [/quote]
The article is Congressional testimony.
Not exactly and article.[/quote]
Sorry no longer believe in them either. So just call me stupid or a Bush Basher. Either way I’ll be unemployed and under Homeland watch.
See what a climate of fear Bush and his thugs have created. The media is next to worthless; spouting bile and vitriol at Arabs equal to if not more than they do towards Amerika. And the hapless population soaks it all up. A nation of immigrants is becoming a nation of xenophobes. How sad. How ironic.
Still, there is some hope (at least in private conversations with Americans) that the tide will turn against Bush with greater speed and they might be able to rescue their bankrupt sham of a ‘nation’ and restore the U.S. to what it once was: a beacon of hope for the world. In the meantime we have to put up with that stupid fuckwit and his even more misguided and pathetic supporters.
Damn man, you could write for the Guardian! :bravo:
“Anyone who supports someone I don’t like is pathetic.”
Excellent. You’re right though, in that the world would be a much better place if no one read the newspapers or watched the news. The good ole days. [/quote]
You mean the London Guardian from London, England?
And…yeah. You’d call me pathetic if I liked Saddam: so bloody what?
You know, if we Americans are all brainwashed slaves of the great Bush media conspiracy then why is it that he can’t seem to get a decent approval rating to save his life?
[/quote]
