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

Skip to comments.

Suing the NY Times for dis-closing classified information
Just Truth Please

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2006 3:24:45 PM PDT by just truth please
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: just truth please
Boy...send this to the top again....

and Again

and Again

2 posted on 06/24/2006 3:26:01 PM PDT by pointsal (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

Sue the leaker not the Times.


3 posted on 06/24/2006 3:26:03 PM PDT by John Lenin (The RAT party is still Stuck on Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

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).


4 posted on 06/24/2006 3:26:25 PM PDT by Philistone (Turning lead into gold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

bump.


5 posted on 06/24/2006 3:26:27 PM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

Why in hell would anyone give the NYT classified info?
Unless...


6 posted on 06/24/2006 3:27:26 PM PDT by purpleland (Elegy 9/11/01 Vigilance and Valor! Socialism is the Opiate of Academia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

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.


7 posted on 06/24/2006 3:27:55 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
Sue the leaker not the Times

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..

8 posted on 06/24/2006 3:28:58 PM PDT by cardinal4 (Allah is the opium pipedream of a desert pedophile...Freeper Ax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

Let's get all that are involved. We know what the Times did. When we learn who the leakers are get them too!


9 posted on 06/24/2006 3:29:24 PM PDT by just truth please
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

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?)


10 posted on 06/24/2006 3:29:37 PM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin; just truth please
Sue the leaker not the Times.

That depends.


11 posted on 06/24/2006 3:29:41 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

My guess is that you don't have a case against anyone. My guess is that only the government can complain.


12 posted on 06/24/2006 3:30:43 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Seems to me a better tact would be a mass email campaign to
companies that support treason by advertising in the Slimes.


13 posted on 06/24/2006 3:31:04 PM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

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!


14 posted on 06/24/2006 3:31:09 PM PDT by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

How about jail the leakers and sue the Times.


15 posted on 06/24/2006 3:31:12 PM PDT by PhillyRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

They talked it over with the White House. They did nothing illegal but the leaker definitely broke the law.


16 posted on 06/24/2006 3:31:16 PM PDT by John Lenin (The RAT party is still Stuck on Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Philistone

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).


17 posted on 06/24/2006 3:31:48 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
"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."

This is a crime, though, so a citizen action lawsuit wouldn't be applicable. ?

18 posted on 06/24/2006 3:34:02 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

bttt


19 posted on 06/24/2006 3:36:33 PM PDT by toddlintown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

Handling classified info without authorization is crime, regardless of what the White House says. Im surprised they are taking this road with the Times..


20 posted on 06/24/2006 3:36:55 PM PDT by cardinal4 (Allah is the opium pipedream of a desert pedophile...Freeper Ax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

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.


21 posted on 06/24/2006 3:38:20 PM PDT by Philistone (Turning lead into gold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: just truth please
Don't sue.

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.

22 posted on 06/24/2006 3:39:52 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

Two times now they have leaked and the AG does nothing. I blame him now.


23 posted on 06/24/2006 3:41:04 PM PDT by John Lenin (The RAT party is still Stuck on Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

Just remember they have the terrorists on their side.


24 posted on 06/24/2006 3:41:27 PM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: just truth please; All

OK, I must of been asleep at the wheel, what did the NYslimes leak this time?


25 posted on 06/24/2006 3:46:33 PM PDT by LowOiL ("I am neither . I am a Christocrat" -Benjamin Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

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.


26 posted on 06/24/2006 3:50:00 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

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.


27 posted on 06/24/2006 3:53:01 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

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


28 posted on 06/24/2006 3:54:34 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: just truth please
Take the reporter and his editor behind the barn and beat the ever lovin' sn0t out of 'em. (That's a joke: I'm not advocating violence on FR)
29 posted on 06/24/2006 3:56:49 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

"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!


30 posted on 06/24/2006 3:57:19 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Do you mean McCarty..not McBride?


31 posted on 06/24/2006 4:02:12 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy ("When Cabals Go Kaboom"....upcoming book on Mary McCarthy's Coup-Plotters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
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

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...

32 posted on 06/24/2006 4:03:43 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

I'm with you. Good idea.


33 posted on 06/24/2006 4:04:17 PM PDT by Zman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
Two times now they have leaked and the AG does nothing.

You have no clue what he's done or not done.

34 posted on 06/24/2006 4:04:40 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

Two times now they have leaked and the AG does nothing. I blame him now.

BINGO.

35 posted on 06/24/2006 4:05:14 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt
Ideas welcome!

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!

36 posted on 06/24/2006 4:05:17 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Suzy Quzy; EDINVA

It's Mary O. McCarthy

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/washington/22leak.html?ei=5088&en=b5cc2844c89ebaae&ex=1303358400&partner=&pagewanted=print


38 posted on 06/24/2006 4:11:40 PM PDT by khnyny (Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

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?


39 posted on 06/24/2006 4:11:52 PM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

Thank you!


40 posted on 06/24/2006 4:14:22 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy ("When Cabals Go Kaboom"....upcoming book on Mary McCarthy's Coup-Plotters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Drango

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!


41 posted on 06/24/2006 4:16:12 PM PDT by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis; John Lenin

I think Mary McCarthy would strongly disagree with you both that nothings been done.


42 posted on 06/24/2006 4:16:42 PM PDT by AmeriBrit (LIGHT A PRAYER CANDLE FOR THE TROOPS: http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jk4hc4
We don't have a clue and obviously the Attorney General doesn't either or it would have been leaked by now.

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.

43 posted on 06/24/2006 4:18:07 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
But hey, it's all fun and games if your the NYT’s.

Their selling again, so even if they get sued and loose a million, what does it matter? Look at it as an "investment" on their behalf to boost sales and write off any legal costs as needed publicity expenses.

The minor detail of basically "instructing" the enemy tactics in avoiding US detection and monitoring does not concern them either. That's just some issue that affects those stupid red necks that join the Army or those bigoted NAZI's at the CIA, NSA etc.

Besides, anything which brings discredit onto this "Bush" is a good thing.

---
I image that is about the level of thought that is in reality driving the decision making at the NYT’s.

It is sad, but I bet that their calculations will prove right. I would not be surprised if the NYT's reverses it's decline in sales with these stunts. I guess adding color like "USA Today" just don't cut it anymore.
44 posted on 06/24/2006 4:18:53 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655052/posts

An FR call to indict, not sue.

However, I believe a RICO case could be made against media (like against abortion clinic protesters).


45 posted on 06/24/2006 4:20:18 PM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

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.

Bump


46 posted on 06/24/2006 4:28:29 PM PDT by Bobibutu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
You have no clue what he's done or not done.

What has he done ? The leaks keep coming. I'm to the point that I see no reason to continue this war if we are going to lose it because of our own stupidity.
47 posted on 06/24/2006 4:31:20 PM PDT by John Lenin (The RAT party is still Stuck on Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit
NOTHING has been done, except to encourage MORE treason.

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."
George Santayana



48 posted on 06/24/2006 4:31:30 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

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.


49 posted on 06/24/2006 4:32:28 PM PDT by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: just truth please

>>>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.


50 posted on 06/24/2006 4:37:21 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

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.

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