Top Secret

Power Line ^ | 5 Mar 2006 | unattributed

[Las Vegas Dave]

Pinging!

[John Valentine]

Is the newspaper guilty of a crime in publishing that secret leak? No.

Au contraire, mon amie.

The correct answer is yes.

Sit back and watch.

[pageonetoo]

I long ago gave up any optimism that The Left will be called to account for their crimes against our nation.

For a good example of the attitude of the Bush Justice Dept, I have only two words: Sandy Berger. Of course, I could add four more: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton...

[devolve]

                          

[MindBender26]

Law is not opinion. Law is by very specific act. Please reread the part of my post regarding the Constitutional guarantee of a free press overweighting a statute prohibiting the release of certain information.

We may not like it, but it is the way the Constitutional protections operate.

[MindBender26]

Law is not opinion. Law is by very specific act. Please reread the part of my post regarding the Constitutional guarantee of a free press overweighting a statute prohibiting the release of certain information.

We may not like it, but it is the way the Constitutional protections operate.

[MindBender26]

Law is not opinion. Law is by very specific act. Please reread the part of my post regarding the Constitutional guarantee of a free press overweighting a statute prohibiting the release of certain information.

We may not like it, but it is the way the Constitutional protections operate.

Would you really have wanted the reporters who broke the Monica story jailed because they reported on the testimony given before a Grand Jury?

[Bringbackthedraft]

Keep dreaming, nothing is going to happen to the NYT. A trial will further expose our methods as the NYT Lawyers will in all probability enter more information they have on hand into the testimony. Call it Press Blackmail. Then add the ACLU into the foray with their 1st Amendment BS.

[calex59]

Monica wasn't a matter of national security,nor were we at war. How you can compare information about Clinton screwing an intern in the WH to leaking classified information during wartime is a little ridiculous.

[Wasanother]

Our constitution allows for a free press meaning they write about whatever they want but it comes with responsibilities and consequences for failing to act responsible.
June 8, 1789. House of Representatives, Blackstone,
"Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity."

Most common held view based on the Constitutional annotations from Judiciary Opinions is the Blackstone view which was the prevailing view at the time and is the one that was voted for and ratified in the Amendment of the Constitution.

[Grampa Dave]

"(18 U.S.C. section 798) of the Espionage Act that prohibits the disclosure of communications intelligence. Violation of the statute is a felony punishable by imprisonment up to ten years."

We need to forget the treason charges and go to breaking the above law charges. Justice needs to bust some of these people, their editors and the publishers. Then, have some serious and very private discussions with their board members and let them know that they will go to jail if this happens again. Repeat the process with the Compost and the illegal disclosure events will become history.

[alarm rider]

Oh I am with you there...

Can we use the "T" word yet?

[thoughtomator]

Freedom of the press does not cover overt acts of treason, sorry. Deliberately exposing a secret defense intelligence program during a war cannot be construed in any way as the mere publishing of one's own point of view. It is a deliberate act designed to aid our enemies. This falls into the fire-in-a-crowded-theater category - it's not free speech to do so.

[Rakkasan1]

agreed. when was the last person tried for sedition?

[Greg o the Navy]

I would hope that sentence would include a Death Needle for the worst of them. Can you imagine sending a clearer message to the Journos and RATS?

[Greg o the Navy]

Just curious ... can the President push the limits of the law by invoking some sort of emergency declaration to shut down the Slimes and other outlets that carried the story, along with prosecuting the full slate of responsible individuals?

No doubt the RINOs would whine but would quickly fall into line when presented with a muscular and principled policy. The RATS and their friends would shut the ***k up as soon as they realized they put themselves in jeopardy by defending criminal and treasonous behavior.

I'm thinking in terms of a "do it now and apologize later" scenario. Haven't other wartime Presidents successfully used a similarly tough approach?

FWIW I think the great majority of Americans would admire such a course and would support it unconditionally. Those who wouldn't support it would effectively exclude themselves from the political process. Sounds like a formula for overwhelming conservative electoral victory to me.

[MindBender26]

>Monica wasn't a matter of national security,nor were we at war. How you can compare information about Clinton screwing an intern in the WH to leaking classified information during wartime is a little ridiculous.

I am not comparing anything. I am illustrating a point of law. Please do not confuse logic, right/wrong with legal.

RE Monica: Revealing Grand Jury testimony is illegal, but reporters were not prosecuted because the Constitutional guarantee of a free press has more weight than a statute prohibiting revealing Grand Jury information.

It's a question of law, not logic.

[MindBender26]

>Just curious ... can the President push the limits of the law by invoking some sort of emergency declaration to shut down the Slimes and other outlets that carried the story, along with prosecuting the full slate of responsible individuals?

He could try, but the courts would overrule immediately. "Prior Restraint" that is the prevention of publication, has been struck down and struck down hard a number of times by the SCOTUS, and usually by large majorities. Nixon tried it with the "Pentagon Papers" and failed miserably.

If he declared Martial Law, he probably could, but again, we don't want to go there.

As far as prosecuting reporters and editors for what has been published, probably a total no-go either, on Constitutional grounds.

The problem is that in the past, papers had enough sense and loyalty to not print something they knew. My radio station in Florida, WLCY, knew about Bay of Pigs invasion days before it happened, but we were asked to sit on it and we did.

Today, the editor of the NYT is a man who openly rooted for a PAVN victory in RVN, and the resultant killing of American soldiers.

[calex59]

One, is not illegal to testify against a president when he has committed a crime. That is what the Impeachment was about, testifying about Monica was not Illegal, was not treason and you were comparing it, to say you weren't is the worse kind of hypocrisy, and BTW, you did not say anything about the press printing it, you were talking about someone testifying in front of the grand jury. Even so, if the paper revealed grand jury info then they are liable under the law.

The fact that we don't prosecute doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

Two, revealing Classified Information by printing it in a paper is as illegal as the person who released the info, PROVIDED the information hadn't become common knowledge before it was printed. In other words the papers who picked it up and reprinted the times story are not guilty, but the Times sure as hell is . Read the law, law and logic work just fine. It was, and is, illegal to commit treason, first amendment rights do not excuse the fact that they committed treason. What you are saying in effect, is that if someone in the goverment told me about a national secret, during war, I could blab it all over town, endangering lives,(Provided it was not released elsewhere first) and not be liable because my first amendment rights protect me simply because I was not the one who obtained the info originally. It doesn't work that way, and news agencies are not exempt from the law regardless of how you want to twist it.

[MindBender26]

#1 In the first case, the issue was not testifying against the President. It was the media's revealing what was said before a Grand Jury. Normally, revealing such information is illegal, but the media can, under the privileges of "higher law," ie: the Constitution, publish facts. It's call a "Free Press."

#2 Revealing classified information in a recognized publication is NOT illegal. You may not like it, but it is so. Please see comment above for clarification.

Please, as a very conservative retired reporter and lawyer, it's an issue I have dealt with a hundred times.

Was the NYT very wrong in publishing what they did? Yes.

Should Punch be punched? Yes.

Was it illegal under our system of constitutional law? No.

Please do not confuse what is right with hat is legal. They often have to relation to each other.

Kennedy's back seat bingo with teenagers in the Presidential limousine was very wrong, but not illegal.