Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pissant
Not only a disgrace, but illegal as hell. We cannot let this man leak again...

Disgrace? Yes. Irresponsible? Definitely. But illegal? No, not according to the Supreme Court. The criminal act is committed by those who leak the information to the media. The only way things like this are going to be prevented is to find the leakers and throw them in prison.

21 posted on 06/26/2006 2:24:40 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

Licorice: "Even us hamsters know that this is treason.
America's rodents and people would be much safer if you stupid dhimmis would hang
some of these seditious traitors who repeatedly violate 18 U.S.C. §798 over and over,
beginning with Bill Keller and my Mistress' competition for my savior, hottie Emma Gilbey, now Ms. Keller."


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.


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana


27 posted on 06/26/2006 2:28:25 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
The criminal act is committed by those who leak the information to the media.

When has the MSM shown any common sense or restraint about NOT publishing information detrimental to safety of citizens of The United States?

38 posted on 06/26/2006 2:34:17 PM PDT by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

Not true. It is illegal to publish gov't secrets.


41 posted on 06/26/2006 2:36:17 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
Disgrace? Yes. Irresponsible? Definitely. But illegal? No, not according to the Supreme Court.

I am sorry but I must completely disagree with you. If the NYTs received child porn would they have a right to publish it? I don’t think so.

Unambiguously taking within its reach the publication of the NSA terrorist surveillance story (though arguably not the Times's more recent terrorist banking story), Section 798 reads, in part:

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 . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added].

The law is clear and the NYT must be brought to justice along with the leaker.

102 posted on 06/26/2006 3:16:01 PM PDT by usurper (Spelling or grammatical errors in this post can be attributed to the LA City School System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

What's the likelihood of that happening? We pretty much already figure it's just another leftist DemRat. And when DemRats like Sandy Burgler get off with a slap on the wrist for stealing and/or destroying classified documents, how can we logically expect any harsher consequences for the leakers?


"The only way things like this are going to be prevented is to find the leakers and throw them in prison."


190 posted on 06/26/2006 8:56:40 PM PDT by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson