Skip to comments.Suing the NY Times for dis-closing classified information
Posted on 06/24/2006 3:24:43 PM PDT by just truth please
To the Lawyers in Free Republic land: How would a Citizens Action Group go about filing a lawsuit against the NY Times for their, seemingly, illegal release of classified Government information? It seems obvious the US Attorney General is not going to. Someone, some how needs to get this moving. Free Republic might be a good starting point.
Sue the leaker not the Times.
You would have to show tort. Which is possible though extremely difficult to prove in this case (that the harm caused was caused specifically to the persons initiating the suit).
Why in hell would anyone give the NYT classified info?
I'm not a lawyer (but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night) ....
it seems that the Times can't be sued for publishing, but they can sure go after the leaker, a federal employee who has to have a very high security clearance and who has to have signed non-disclosure agreements with the government. I will assume that like the McBride woman who leaked CIA information, this civil servant will also be nabbed, but it IS time to get seriesly tough with these people.
Negative, they are just as culpable. Classified means no unauthorized access. The reporter who ran is not authorized, and he knew it. They are just as guilty..
Let's get all that are involved. We know what the Times did. When we learn who the leakers are get them too!
You need to allege that the leaks make you less safe and cause you -- and if you make this a class action lawsuit millions of other Americans -- less safe in your person and cause you great emotional anguish. (I don't believe there should be class action suits and I also do not believe in compensation for the rather nebulous and unprovable "great emotional anguish" but those concepts have been brought to us by Breckgirl and her friends so why not use them?)
My guess is that you don't have a case against anyone. My guess is that only the government can complain.
Seems to me a better tact would be a mass email campaign to
companies that support treason by advertising in the Slimes.
I just posed this question privately to a FRiend.
The NYT is owned and controlled by the Sulzbergs by virtue of their 91% ownership of All outstanding Class B shares. If Gun Manufacturers and Tobbaco companies can be sued for harm should'nt these folks be perp walking? Ideas welcome!
How about jail the leakers and sue the Times.
They talked it over with the White House. They did nothing illegal but the leaker definitely broke the law.
Any soldier or civilian injured after this was made public? What if one of them initiated a lawsuit? Or parents of troops who have been killed? I have absolutely no knowledge in this area at all. It still seems it would be hard to prove that the leaker or the media were directly responsible for death or injury. (Even though I think they are).
This is a crime, though, so a citizen action lawsuit wouldn't be applicable. ?
Handling classified info without authorization is crime, regardless of what the White House says. Im surprised they are taking this road with the Times..
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.
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 processesShall 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.
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!
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?
The advertisers aren't as important when you realize that the Sulzbergs are not in this for the money, they use this rag as a paid platform for tyrany and treason. The class A shares have gone from $52 To $28. The effect on stockholders means nothing to them. They controll 91% of the Class B shares so they own, edit and publish. THEY NEED TO FROGMARCH!
I think Mary McCarthy would strongly disagree with you both that nothings been done.
It was. Last night on Fox, Judge Napolitano said that his sources told him that investigations were in progress that he guaranteed indictments were going to handed down.
An FR call to indict, not sue.
However, I believe a RICO case could be made against media (like against abortion clinic protesters).
Well ... I sure have lost sleep since this broke ...
truth be known it was more over anger and how to extract revenge vs fear of al-Q.
I would donate to get this rolling.
Proof: They do it over and over and over and over and over.
Eventually, their treason will lead to more deaths.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
it seems that the Times can't be sued for publishing, but they can sure go after the leaker, a federal employee who has to have a very high security clearance
Congress was briefed on this program. the leaker is probably a democrat senator or congressman, or staff of same.
>>>It seems obvious the US Attorney General is not going to.<<<
George Bush's Justice Department goes hard after republicans. Democrats, like Sandy Berger and the New York Times, get a mild rebuke.