Replies

Reality check:

As much as I detest the NYT these days, the writer has little knowledge of the operation of law.

The concept of laws in conflict is common. One law says X, another says "not X." Courts sort them out.

The constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press is settled con law. As much as a statue may prohibit certain conduct, when the Constitution says certain conduct can be accomplished without penalty, the Constitution outweighs the statute.

Is a leaker of such information very guilty of a crime? Yes.

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

This is a slippery slope we do not want to go down. For example, Grand Jury testimony is secret. Did you want Jackie Judd of ABC prosecuted because she publicly broke the story about Clinton's grand jury lines re: Monica?

The NYT actions were stupid and wrong, perhaps even "criminal" in the sense that they were grossly offensive and dangerous to the People of the United States.

Were they a chargeable crime? No.

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

===

WRONG!

President Bush PERSONALLY talked to the chief editor of the NYT, explaining to him the classified nature and the harm to national security that will result by revealing the information, and the NYT did it ANYWAY.

I want to see some traitor perp walks.

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse for violating the law although it maybe used as a cause to mitigate the punishment for such a violation. Unfortunately for the Slimes they can't mitigate the punishment with a cause of "I didn't knows" because they wasa told. Even Risen in his now fabulous book admits that he knew the info was government classified and then Keller stated the Slimes printed it with care to leave off the classified parts but there lies the problem for him, it was the program its self that was classified and who is he to determine what should or shouldn't be declassified?

The NYT actions certainly were a crime. It is illegal to reveal secret information about the conduct of a war during wartime. It really doesn't get any more straighforward than that, and the NY Times indulged purposefully in what they knew well beforehand would be a crime.

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.

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.