Skip to comments.Justice Department going after leakers! - Fox News
Posted on 12/30/2005 7:26:42 AM PST by Pukin Dog
Just announced on Fox News, the Justice Department is going to investigate leaks pertaining to Goverment Wiretapping and Security programs.
and who or whom should have Congress declared war on??? Dude....you don't sound like you're playing Devils Advocate....
There were two interesting things about FISA. One was an article that detailed that the Court had rejected or modified more warrants under the Bush administration than all the previous four administrations combined.
But the post you are referring to, I think, Txsleuth, is regarding the chief of the court, Lamberth. And it was pretty scary. Here it is in post #208:
Howlin nagged me until I got my husband to run a line for the satellite to the computer room and put a small TV in. Now I don't know how I functioned without this set up!
The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 5 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, 6 also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems [403 U.S. 713, 736] or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. 7 If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they [403 U.S. 713, 737] publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.I assume that the NYT has a fresh legal opinion on hand, that concludes that the publication as fact that a certain sureveillance activity is going on does -not- constitute publication of a procedure or method used in the interception of communications. That is, that publication does not run afoul of 18 USC 798(a)(3).
The same would be true under those sections of the Criminal Code casting a wider net to protect the national defense. Section 793 (e) 8 makes it a criminal act for any unauthorized possessor of a document "relating to the national defense" either (1) willfully to communicate or cause to be communicated that document to any person not entitled to receive it or (2) willfully to retain the document and fail to deliver it to an officer of the United States entitled to receive it. The subsection was added in 1950 because pre-existing law provided no [403 U.S. 713, 738] penalty for the unauthorized possessor unless demand for the documents was made. 9 "The dangers surrounding the unauthorized possession of such items are self-evident, [403 U.S. 713, 739] and it is deemed advisable to require their surrender in such a case, regardless of demand, especially since their unauthorized possession may be unknown to the authorities who would otherwise make the demand." S. Rep. No. 2369, pt. 1, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 9 (1950). Of course, in the cases before us, the unpublished documents have been demanded by the United States and their import has been made known at least to counsel for the newspapers involved. In Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 28 (1941), the words "national defense" as used in a predecessor of 793 were held by a unanimous Court to have "a well understood connotation" - a "generic concept of broad connotations, referring to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness" - and to be "sufficiently definite to apprise the public of prohibited activities" [403 U.S. 713, 740] and to be consonant with due process. 312 U.S., at 28 . Also, as construed by the Court in Gorin, information "connected with the national defense" is obviously not limited to that threatening "grave and irreparable" injury to the United States. 10
It is thus clear that Congress has addressed itself to the problems of protecting the security of the country and the national defense from unauthorized disclosure of potentially damaging information. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 -586 (1952); see also id., at 593-628 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). It has not, however, authorized the injunctive remedy against threatened publication. It has apparently been satisfied to rely on criminal sanctions and their deterrent effect on the responsible as well as the irresponsible press. I am not, of course, saying that either of these newspapers has yet committed a crime or that either would commit a crime if it published all the material now in its possession. That matter must await resolution in the context of a criminal proceeding if one is instituted by the United States. In that event, the issue of guilt or innocence would be determined by procedures and standards quite different from those that have purported to govern these injunctive proceedings.
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
"The Pentagon Papers Case"
The existence of "keyword" surveillance of international communications is not classified information. See cites to Jabara v. Webster, 691 F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1982); Halkin v. Helms, 598 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1978); and Hearings Before the Select Comm. to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the U. S. Senate, 94th Cong. at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548460/posts?page=91#91.
There is no dispute that NYT published, nor is there dispute about the contents of the publication. If said publication is a violation of 18 USC 793(a)(3), then indictment can occur independently of any investigation into how the NYT obtained the information.
My husband calls it "The Bunker." LOL!
My wife has some other terms for it. LOL
I like your version much better, and I'm not one of the Freepers who is constantly pessimistic.
There's just something about this issue that really grabs me, and I almost consider it a personal thing, and I'm not sure I can explain why.
Re#894 Great observations. My hope of hopes is that Goss and the FBI set up some sting ops as well. Time will tell...
Well, since you mentioned it...
It makes me quite happily smug to think that this is so.
Thanks Peach. I had seen the info somewhere and was too lazy to search. You're a Peach.
This may have already been posted but here is the NYT article about the investigation, from about 1 hour ago.
Maybe secret information about a purse or a "tag sale."
Ain't going to work.
DUH Dude ....It's pretty clear ... In his constitutionally required State of the Union Address, the President IDed the "Axis of Evil". Two of the three still stand .... US History is pretty clears about who decides what is an unreasonable search ... the Courts ... and no I'm not taking my ball home
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.