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?"

10 of 889 comments (clear)

  1. Suspicious by udoschuermann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the federal government invokes the "national security" card over and over again as it has in recent months and years, it is no longer national security that's at issue but abuse of power and the covering up of mistakes.

    --
    --Udo.
  2. Re:Congress shall make no law... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Repeat after me:

    1) Terrorism is an inconsiquential threat.
    2) Every law passed since 9/11 is part of a grab for power.
    3) Profit.

  3. Re:Congress shall make no law... by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Don't like a particular secret, activity, or program?

    So, just exactly how am I supposed to figure out if I like a particular "secret, activity, or program" if I'm not allowed to even know such secret, activity, or program exists?

    Or, are you saying that if I don't like it when such secrets are kept in the first place, I should vote into power a set of representatives which support "no secrets" priorities?

    Perhaps, if it's important enough to myself and a large enough number of my fellow supporters, I should propose a Constitutional Amendment? Maybe something that would prohibit Congress from making a law that prevents the Press from publishing as it sees fit?

    Is that what you're proposing? Because I seem to remember something like that hapening in the past somewhere...

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  4. Re:Not surprising from W's rubber stamp by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hitler is the wrong comparison.
    • Hitler did not have to invent a terrorist organisation called the Trust (or "the Base", or whatever) and did not blame it to be responsible for any act of violence against Nazi Germany.
    • Hitler did not use of the phrase "Who is not with us, is against us" on a daily basis. He did not speak it with thick southern accent either.
    • Hitler did not blame every country he disliked to be planning an outrage against the "Peacefull folks of the Third Reich". He simply stated what is a "historical part" of the Third Reich (half of the world in fact) and tried it by any means necessary without inventing excuses. Any opposition was declared to be racially inferior without any extra added excuses.
    • Hitler did not play a simpleton to appease the crowds. In fact the Nazi propaganda machine tried to paint him smarter and more talented than he really was.
    • So on so fourth.

    The right comparison is the other genocidal dickhead. The Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvilli one. Just ask any Russian speaker for a comparison of Bushisms with koba's pearls of wisdom. There is a clear one-to-one match there as well as a one-to-one match with Koba's vindictiveness, paranoia and simulated stupidity.

    This is also the scarier comparison. 'cause for all of his efforts Hitler never reached a fraction of Stalin's body count.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  5. Re:Gonzo needs to go back to law school. by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    These are rather jumbled. Let's sort them out:

    Yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

    Yup. Supreme Court is clear on this. Hopefully we all understand the reasons why.

    Commit libel or slander

    A Boils down to "you can't knowingly tell falsehoods for the purpouse of causing harm to others". Hopefully we all understand why here, too.

    Say something that creates a "hostile work environment" for others

    This it not entirely correct. You can say something that creates a "hostile work environment" for others, what you can't do is maintain a hostile work environment by allowing others (or, I suppose, doing so yourself) to say things which create a hostile work environment. It's not the speech itself which is prohibited, but rather the circumstances of the speech.

    Criticize a political candidate on television 60 days before an elections.

    You can, but:

    • Don't expect to get federal funding or tax breaks to do so.
    • Don't expect to utilize the grant of a public monopoly (broadcast airwaves or publically regulated cable monopoly) to do so.

    In short, you need to be civil when you do so.

    Not politically correct, just civil.

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  6. Re:no press super-citizens by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They are no different than anyone else.

    Actually, they are. They are specifically cited as a special protected group in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Congress is specifically prevented from making any law abridging the freedom of the press.

  7. Re:Congress shall make no law... by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Excellent summary.

    People seem to act as if terrorists didn't exist before 9/11.
    Lets face it, having freedom in society inherently increases the risk of living in that society. The freedom one enjoys also makes things easier for those who wish to cause them harm.

    It all comes to how one rates their freedom with safety. Some agree with the president (and the previous one) and his administration, that safety is more important than freedom. Others, myself included, argue that freedom is more important than safety.

    Whats more amazing though is that while there is talk of trying to stop terrorists, the actions are completely bogus. Since the Oklahoma City bombing, its has become no harder to rent a U-Haul. In many states all you need to purchase dynamite is permission from the fire dept. You can buy fertilizer by the ton even if you don't own a farm. The average Walmart sells everything needed to build a bomb.

    Lets also remember that our military and government officials know that there is no way at all to stop a determined attack. This is the country that invented and perfected guerilla warefare. The Amry Special Forces goes to other countries to teach the locals how to conduct guerilla warfare. We know better than anybody else that you can't really stop it.

    Israel has some of the best security forces on the planet. They have road blocks and check points all over the place. Even they can not stop attacks within their borders.

    So, the only option left is to suck it up, learn to defend your self, accept that we live in a dangerous world, and THINK. The world is a lot less dangerous than it used to be. We aren't under the constant threat of global annihilation like we used to be. Crime is down, living standards are up. Lets all work to keep things improving and to help other to improve their lives as well.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  8. Re:Congress shall make no law... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No...

    Terrorism is an inconsequential threat when you actually bother to run the numbers. And find that you are a FAR more likely killed by an inattentive or incompetent driver while you're crossing the street, (or any number of other mundane things that we have no "war on $x" to justify abusing our rights.) than you are to be killed by "the terrorists".

    cya,
    john

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  9. Re:What is "inconsequential"? by hab136 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Depends - a country really cannot function normally unless political violence (of which terror tactics against the general population is perhaps the most potent kind) is curtailed and kept at an absolute minimum. Having city centers and landmarks get blown up with any regularity is a no-no if you want a working country.

    Tell that to England (IRA bombings) or Israel, which seem to function just fine.

    In fact, England seemed to chug right along during WW2, when they were getting bombed to pieces. The difference is, the government back then told people to keep going despite the bombings, instead of trying to frighten the populace in order to grab (more) control.

  10. Re:Congress shall make no law... by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I don't think the Democrats have room to talk"

    Are the US people stupid or what? Always seeing things as if it's "Pro-Wrestling".

    Currently things are getting to be US Gov vs the US citizens. Forget the Republican vs Democrat crap.

    You guys are getting screwed by the theatre and you're complaining about the characters in the play.

    Doh.

    --