Posted on 02/07/2006 8:45:35 AM PST by Kaslin
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez revealed Monday that the Justice Department is still investigating the leak of national security secrets to the New York Times concerning the NSA’s controversial terrorist surveillance program.
The possibility of criminal charges looms for the suspected leakers, as Gonzalez vowed to file charges if warranted by the findings of the investigation.
Gonzalez offered the information in response to questioning by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was there testifying on the constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program that tracks communications to and from the United States.
"The department,” Gonzalez said, "has initiated an investigation into the possible crimes there.” But he refused to go further.
"Consistent with our practice,” Gonzalez continued, "I’m not going to talk about an ongoing investigation … But we will look at the evidence and if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution.”
Sen. Grassley evinced indignation toward the unknown leakers. "We do not hear as much public outcry as we did with the Valerie Plame case,” he noted, adding that case "was a two-bit nothing compared with this issue – with this information … being leaked to the press.”
The leaker and the New York Times could be subject to prosecution under the federal espionage law.
One section of that act prohibits authorized persons possessing "information relating to the national defense which … the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States” from passing the information onto unauthorized persons.
Another section prohibits disclosure of classified communications "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.”
If charged, the Times would likely assert the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press as a defense. The case would present an important and as yet unresolved question of constitutional law.
Though the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot suppress publication of classified information before the fact, it has not examined whether government could impose criminal sanctions for publication after the fact.
One section of that act prohibits authorized persons possessing "information relating to the national defense which … the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States” from passing the information onto unauthorized persons.
Another section prohibits disclosure of classified communications "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.”
If charged, the Times would likely assert the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press as a defense. The case would present an important and as yet unresolved question of constitutional law.
Though the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot suppress publication of classified information before the fact, it has not examined whether government could impose criminal sanctions for publication after the fact.
Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.
So should we just ignore this? I don't like this
(In my best Maggie Thatcher voice) NOW DON'T GET ALL WOBBLY ON US, AL!
Time for Gonzales to get in gear and do what's right and proper.
Conservatives will just have to change the political calculation then, like we did with Janet Miers.
Time to get the VRWC mobilized.
I expect that events and attacks yet to come..Iran nukes, the riots over the cartoons..may well shape events in ways we do not yet forsee..
"Janet Miers."
_________________
Who is she?
Did I say Janet? I meant Harriet. Sorry.
Political implications, IMHO, argue in favor of prosecution. It's the only way to put an end to these constant leaks being used to attack the administration. And it's the only way to clean out the human garbage who are using their positions to undermine the country they are pledged to serve.
As the quote from Charles Grassley suggests, the Plame case, known as "Leakgate" in the MSM, gives Bush a perfect opportunity to strike back. How can they complain about going after sources when the NY Times and the Washington Post have been urging Fitzgerald for two years to go after sources? How can they complain about persecuting reporters when the NY Times actually fired their own reporter for "entanglement" with government sources and never really complained about here jailing, more than pro forma?
There will never be a better opportunity than this. And it would energize Bush's base like nothing else, except for another good SCOTUS appointment.
Tim Russertt should be subpoenaed for his involvement!
Spine of linguini, gut of Jello and no balls = RINO/ GOPer.
Hope you're wrong, but you probably aren't. Sometimes it takes something major before people wake up out of their stupor and start taking action. 9/11 was one such event, but it quickly faded from most peoples' memories--with much help from the media.
Sedition or outright treason is no longer punished in this day and age. The concept of nation-states and the attendant allegiance to said entity is so outdated, doncha' know... /s
As an extra-special bonus, Chimpy McCokeSpoon will take great pains to shield us all from the awful reality by pretending none of it is actually happening. To prosecute for treason is to fully and openly admit that this nation is in a fight for it's very survival, and we can't admit that - it might upset all us po' chillens. /more s
Then it's time to revive the tradition.
Agreed!
this leaker is going to need alot of theropy for having to carry the guilt so long, and they should get it
one chamber at a time until all quick reloads in the NYPD have been used
"Chimpy McCokeSpoon"..? geeze, try to get a grip, will yaz?
Get a rope!
Sounds good. I'll supply the ammo, N/C.
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.