zook: "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
Posted on 12/30/2005 7:26:42 AM PST by Pukin Dog
zook: "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
1) Journalists are not guilty. They do not have security clearances and therefore cannot be guilty of releasing information they got due to their clearance. If a reporter receives a piece of paper in the mail with a SECRET stamp on it, he'll go to his editor and the editorial staff will make a decision on releasing it. The reporter himself has no clearance and therefore can't be guilty of releasing information obtained via his clearance.
2) In the above scenario it is likely that the guilty party, i.e., the person with the clearance who disclosed the information, provided the info with the SECRET stamp absent. The NYT did hold the story for a time, past the election. Think what that means as to who disclosed it.
2) The person with the clearance is the target. Chances are, given the timing of the information provided, it was someone within the government trying to influence the election.
I highly doubt if any elected official will get pinched in this even if they are guilty. If anything does come of it, it will be some low level grunt that takes the blame.
Even so, thats all it will take. Make an example of one and you'll never hear about any leaks in Washington again, or at least for a very long time.
If the FBI is involved it's more than just an inquiry, it's officially a criminal investigation. I guarantee right now the Slimes are consulting with their lawyers and are going to try their hardest to make this into "Whistle-Blowers" Status.
"The administration wanted a resolution that allowed for "all necessary and appropriate force in the United States and against those nations...", but didn't get it."
That's a Democrat talking point, raised by the loser Tom Dashle. There's no evidence to support it other than his lying mouth. A more likely scenario, if anything like this happened at all, is that Bush asked for specific wording but was told it wasn't necessary. "All necessary and appropriate force...." means exactly that.
No. If the administration was serious about finding the leaks, it would not be the justice department conducting the investigations. Furthermore, they would be dumb to even announce that they were initiating an investigation. Why give the leaker a warning?
I think the administration is just throwing a bone to the base.
It's also Friday. Guess what the media is going to HAVE to talk about all weekend. The spinners are in full overdrive this morning.
First amendment doesn't cover the illegal disclosure of classified information.
If a journalist gets his/her hands on something classified, they are as bound as you or me to follow the law, secure the item and notify the FBI.
You walk into a Starbucks and watch two guys leave the restaurant. On the table is a briefcase, and you grab the case and run out the door, trying to flag the car down with the two men in it, now speeding away from you oblivious to what has happened.
You examine the outside of the case for a tag and find none.
The case is unlocked. You open the case and find this document staring back at you.
Operations Manual
W80 Nuclear Warhead
Classified: Top Secret/NOFORN
Inside the case also is a daytimer with a 'If lost, please call . . . '
What do you do?
What if a journalist found the same case? Would they not be under the exact same obligations you would be as a non-journalist?
Nothing special about the first amendment that shields a journalist from national security laws.
If I remember correctly, RUSH made a VERY strong aim at Rockefeller and judge Robertson!! You're right... the WH probably knows who's finger prints are on this HOT POTATOE!!!
I'd love it if he ran on MTP and his mouth gets him into more trouble.
Great news. Glad to see they're ahead of the curve on this one.
Start with the Pentagon Papers case.
Thanks I will read it ASAP
Or the FISA court whiners?
Jay Rockefeller
BRAVO ZULU!!!
H2O Man (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-30-05 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. Actually the law that can force reporters to testify to grand juries in federal investigations, and the case law that follows, allows the journalist in question to have a judge review the case: if the journalist is protecting a "whistle-blower," the judge is not required to force them to testify. The obvious point is that "whistle-blowers" are those who expose illegal activities, as opposed to in the Plame case, where the government employees were engaged in illegal activities.
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.