PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON-why we MUST prosecute The NY Times (HEAR Pete King et al)

PETE KING, Hannity & Colmes, Fox News Sunday, Gabriel Schoenfeld | 6.26.06 | Mia T

[pabianice]

Just how else do you think "Putz" Sulzberger got his nickname?

[Navy Patriot]

The reason we don't have Osama yet? .....He subscribes to the New York Times.

[3niner]

"The ex-CIA official said the leaker should be in front of a firing squad."

Also the reporter, editor, and publisher, though I would be inclined to let the reporter have life in prison in exchange for identifying the leaker.

[pierrem15]

After Kelo, can't the Fed gov just use eminent domain to seize the voting stock of the Sulzburger family (in exchange for a market value of $1), and provide a better 'economic environment' by transferring the shares to Rupert Murdoch?

Just a thought.

[GOPJ]

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press...

In short, the press can print what they wish.

xzins

You're right on such a small technical level that for all practical purposes, you're wrong. First, you're right the New York Times can print what they want. They can print slander, lies, whatever - no one can stop them from printing what they please. But, and this is a big one, they can be sued. Taken to court. Jailed.

They can print what they want but they must take responsibility for what they print. Do you think the New York Times can print copywrited material they haven't paid for? Yes, they can. Can they be sued for it. Yes, they can. Here's what you can't do with a newspaper, you can't put a government censor in the newsroom to see what's being published. You can't censor ahead of time.

Thank God for that - Thank God there are no censors in the newsrooms -- and thank the writers of the constitution and freedom loving members of the Supreme Court while you're at it.

But not having censors in the newsroom doesn't mean that anything goes, or that anything can be printed without consequences. Sometimes the consequence is someone gets sued. Sometimes a consequence is someone goes to jail. In this case, it's possible the New York Times committed treason. If so, they can be arrested tried, and jailed. They are not above the law because they own a printing press.

[xzins]

(What kind of trouble are you having posting to my Xzins handle? Weird.)

Since you posted in response to my #145, I assume you know that I think the NYT is housed with traitors and that their publishing wartime secrets is treasonous.

However, the 1st amendment seems pretty air tight to me. I'm open to correction.

However, I do not think they are immune from laws that require every American to divulge their sources on classified leaks. That is not a law by Congress "abridging freedom of the press." Like I said, they can still print whatever they wish.

[Brian Allen]

<< The reason we don't have Osama yet? .....He subscribes to the New York Times. >>

Yep.

[jmaroneps37]

I can understand the administration's hesitancy to prosecute the slimes and others in general. They need THE perfect case, but THIS IS THE PERFECT CASE. It is absolutely indefensible. They need do this only once to put these cowards in their place. That will be a sad day of course because the ratmedia will hesitate to print genuine stories in the future, but they brought it on themselves. Now if we do the right thing we all will suffer. Shame on you ratmedia, shame on you.

[Navy Patriot]

I do not think they are immune

And you would be right. 1A refers to political or religious speech and only precludes prior restraint, there is no immunity to consequences, much to the dismay of the Rosenbergs.

[johnny7]

You're right. But the leakers are fair game.

[PGalt]

BTTT

[Wolverine]

bump

[presently no screen name]

BTTT

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Mia T]

Bush would be beyond negligent to let this thing slide. It is critical to our national security that he plug the leaks (and, if need be, plug the leakers).

Does Bush have the courage to act notwithstanding a political-capital deficit? I am not hopeful.

[Mia T]

ditto

[Mia T]

touché

[Mia T]

bump

[FlyVet]

Bump for Pinchy, 10 years/$10,000.00. That oughtta wipe the little marionette's smirk off his face.