Slashdot Mirror
Gonzales Says Publishing Leaks Is A Crime
loqi writes "The NY Times is reporting on a statement from US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declaring that journalists may be prosecuted by the federal government for publishing classified information. On the 1st amendment ramifications: "'But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity,' he said. 'And so those two principles have to be accommodated.'" So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?"
May I ask you why you're doing the exact same crap they are?
Them : Remember September 11th. Loads of people died.. DIED!
You : Remember September 11th. The people who DIED would be ashamed of this.
Maybe you should look at the general public around you. 99% of them couldn't give a shit what's in the consitution or even come close to telling you most of whats in it. Believe it or not these people weren't special, they weren't some super auto patriotic people. Most of them probably hated America and a lot of them were probably going "screw it, I'm moving to China".
You're complaining about someone using the emotional impact (of which there should be next to none left TBH). Then you go and do exactly the same damn thing.
I like muppets.
> So Robert Novak reporting leaked (by yet unnamed White House staff) information about Valerie Plame's identity
> as a CIA agent fits into which category?
Yes, Bush & Co. tried playing by Democrats rules and didn't do all that well. Good thing I wasn't President though, you really wouldn't have liked my solution to Idiot Joe "My wife is a secret agent!" Wilson and his traitorous bitch wife.
When Wilson was at his worst annoyance level I'd have made a couple of calls and got the facts (like Mrs. Wilson was at the Agency and had indeed sent him to Niger) and then made a very short statement to the press myself. Something on the order of "Wilson? That lying traitor? Well before you guys spew jizz over that moron anymore you might want to know a couple of facts. One: Despite what he might think, his superiors reading his report concluded it lent strength to their belief that Saddam had indeed tried to buy uranium. Two: Despite his protests to the contrary, his wife sent him to Niger. Three: This was part of an organized effort by a nest of old deadender leftists at the Agency to effect a change in policy if not an outright coup against my government. Four: Mrs. Wilson hasn't been overseas in years but at any rate there are no fears for her safety in light of this disclosure of her empployment at the Agency because she will be perfectly safe in federal prison. Five: if we can make an accessory or conspiracy charge stick on Mr. Wilson he will also get some "Pound me in the ass Federal Prison bitch lovin'."
Sorry moonbats, part of the bargain in making agents off limits to the normal press & political cutthroat world is that they don't write articles in the NYT (or let their useful idiot husbands do it for them), they don't write books, they don't become overt political agents. Wilson & Plame (and it is now clear, a large contingent at the CIA) were as much a part of the 2004 elections as Dan Rather & Michael Moore and if they seriously thought their identy would remain secret they are fools as well as traitors.
Personally I hope the rumors are true and the Goss -> Hayden switch represents a policy change from trying to reform the CIA to simply culling the few worth saving to other agencies then cutting CIA out of the loop and allowing it to rot.
Democrat delenda est
The post you're responding to is actually making that very point. The Bush Administration has released information against the interests of the country in order to engage in dirty politics. Now, by attempting to override the first amendment, they want to guarantee that it's illegal for anyone to blow the whistle on their schemes. In other words, the only protected speech is the president's own. There is indeed a lack of balance in this scenario.
I don't see what your comparison with Sen. Durbin adds to the discussion beyond a cheap shot at Democrats. Are you claiming that Plamegate, the domestic wiretapping scandal, the secret phone monitoring scandal, and now this denial of first-amendment rights are all instances of similar "incompetence" and not a systematic circumvention of the constitution?
If you're worried about dying as a result of a terrorist attack, you must be absolutely petrified of dying in a road traffic accident.
Being 'worried' about dying has nothing to do with it. I'm not worried about dying of breast cancer, yet I think donating money to find new treatments and a cure is a good idea. I'm not worried about being murdered, but I think murders should be thrown in jail, and in extreme instances (ie Timothy McVeigh) killed.
Was going into World War 2 worth it, in your opinion? After all, the men killed at pearl harbor were stastically insignificant compared to many other social ills of the day.