Posted on 06/24/2006 3:24:43 PM PDT by just truth please
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.
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.
Two times now they have leaked and the AG does nothing. I blame him now.
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?
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.
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.
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
"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!
Do you mean McCarty..not McBride?
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...
I'm with you. Good idea.
You have no clue what he's done or not done.
BINGO.
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!
It's Mary O. McCarthy
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/washington/22leak.html?ei=5088&en=b5cc2844c89ebaae&ex=1303358400&partner=&pagewanted=print
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?
Thank you!
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.