Top Secret

Power Line ^ | 5 Mar 2006 | unattributed

[MindBender26]

Please do not confuse what is right with WHAT is legal. They often have NO relation to each other.

[nopardons]

I think that message IS out, even without the "needle" and that's why these traitors are screaming.

[Greg o the Navy]

Hmmmm. Sounds like there's a need for some good creative conservative lawyering here. Maybe the new line-up in the SCOTUS will create some leeway.

[MindBender26]

re: some good Conservative lawyering.

I'm looking for a way to bring a civil action. NYT encouraged and emboldened terrorists and made their jobs easier, etc. Sounds like a bit of a stretch, but remember:

1. There is NO First Amendment shield against civil actions.
2. Could be brought by wounded veterans, families of deceased veterans, etc.
3. Requires only "preponderance of evidence"
4. Could be brought in wounded soldier's home state
...and here is the clincher. Some jurisdictions allow injured party to recover from any defendant found responsible, regardless of their degree of responsibility (guilt) if other responsible parties do not pay.

[MindBender26]

re: some good Conservative lawyering.

I'm looking for a way to bring a civil action. NYT encouraged and emboldened terrorists and made their jobs easier, etc. Sounds like a bit of a stretch, but remember:

1. There is NO First Amendment shield against civil actions.
2. Could be brought by wounded veterans, families of deceased veterans, etc.
3. Requires only "preponderance of evidence"
4. Could be brought in wounded soldier's home state
...and here is the clincher. Some jurisdictions allow injured party to recover from any defendant found responsible, regardless of their degree of responsibility (guilt) if other responsible parties do not pay.

[Greg o the Navy]

And if we see another disclosure like this one, I'm sorry to say that unleashing the blunt instrument of martial law might do less overall harm than allowing RAT-MSM cockroaches to compromise our national security.

[John Valentine]

You are apparently confusing the freedom to speak and publish with the responsiblity to do so within the law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to publish without prior restraint, but each time it has done so, it has clearly indicated that appropriate legal action could follow if law enforement agencies want to pursue a violation of law.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the same court that would defend the Times' right to publish what they will, would not hesitate to punish them with equal vigor if what they publish is treasonous or otherwise violates national secrecy statutes.

[Rembrandt]

"White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks. Sources, Reporters Could Be Prosecuted"

Still holding my breath. I turned blue a long time ago but can sill typ

[bitt]

“I just got my new Lexus RX400H and returned to the dealer the next day complaining that I couldn't figure out how the radio worked.

The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated "Watch this"! He said "Nelson"!

The Radio replied "Ricky or Willie?"

"Willie"! He continued. And "On The Road Again" came from the speakers. I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say "Beethoven" I'd get beautiful classical music, and if I said "Beatles" I'd get one of their awesome songs.

One day, a couple ran a red light and nearly creamed my new car but I swerved in time to avoid them. I yelled "A$$HOLES!”

The French National Anthem began to play, printed by the NYTimes, sung by Hilary Clinton and Michael Moore, backed up by John Kerry on guitar, Al Gore on drums, Bill Clinton on sax and Ted Kennedy on booze…D@mn, I LOVE this car!”