Gonzales Says Publishing Leaks Is A Crime

Congress shall make no law... by Ckwop · 2006-05-22 00:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

Slimey bastards! I wonder what the fallen in the September 11th terrorist outrages would make of this. The US government has repeatedly used their memory to justify secrecy right across government. It is now trying to use their memory to to silence people who whistle-blow on their deepest darkest secrets. Well fuck them!

Quite frankly, I couldn't give the faintest whiff of shit what the Attorney General has to say about the issue. The Constitution trumps everything, the Attorney General include, and it states in no uncertain terms which the rights of citizens of the United States retain for themselves:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see any exception for the state to keep secrets from the electorate. Bring the prosecutions and watch them fall one by one.

Simon

Re:Congress shall make no law... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-22 01:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anyways, this creates a very unstable situation, since the Administration can leak (I mean, "selectively declassify") information any old time they feel like it in order to make political points.

Actually, as the head of the Executive Branch, the President is allowed to declassify just about anything he wants at any given time. The key is that it's usually a bad idea a) if American lives are on the line, or b) the operation/investigation is ongoing.

As someone who has had their life threatened by individuals in the US due to the incompetence of Sen Dick Durbin (D-IL) - who does *not* have the legal authority to declassify - I don't think the Democrats have room to talk.
Re:Congress shall make no law... by HK+MP5-A3 · 2006-05-22 01:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

The first amendment does not grant any special exemption to members of the press, it states that the press may not be specifically targeted by laws that do not apply to the population as a whole. Reporters are subject to the same laws as everyone else, as they should be. Reports cannot: Smuggle real bombs onto planes for a story. Harbor criminals in order to get an interview. Slander people in thier stories. Run red lights on the way to cover a story. and finally, they cannot publish classified documents. If they do they can be charged and a jury of thier peers will determine if thier actions were justified. If thier actions were committed for good cause I have confidence in the people to see that. The reporters will go free, the mighty will be laid low, and all will be right with the world. If thier actions were not justified they may well end up in jail, and all will still be right with the world

--
There is more than one way to skin a cat.....I got up to 4,521 ways, but the batteries died in my electric belt sander
Re:Congress shall make no law... by kalirion · 2006-05-22 01:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, this would let them prosecute wistleblowers who publish information that should be known (i.e. CIA secret prison identities.) On the other hand, this would let them prosecute morons who publish information that should not be known (i.e. CIA secret agent identities.) I don't suppose there's a way to do this on a case-by-case basis, maybe needing a unanimous grand jury to decide that a case is not whistleblowing before going to full trial?
Re:Congress shall make no law... by ArcherB · 2006-05-22 01:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

The US government has repeatedly used their memory to justify secrecy right across government. It is now trying to use their memory to to silence people who whistle-blow on their deepest darkest secrets. Well fuck them!

You're right. Fuck everybody. There is absolutely no reason why the gov't should keep secrets. Let's go ahead and release troop movements to whatever enemy may want them. Let's go ahead and release the President's travel schedule to every would-be terrorist out there. Let's throw in Congressional schedule's as well. Hell, why limit it the gov't? How about if your bank publishes your PIN number and all the data on your ATM card so we can all access your bank accounts. All in the name of free speech of course.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:Congress shall make no law... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-22 01:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

If the constitution trumped everything, the federal government would hold less than 5% the power it holds today. The constitution provided the federal government with exactly three powers: border control, national defense (NOT offense), and inter-state mediation. Today, the US federal government is the most powerful, expensive government that has ever existed in the history of the world, with powers so broad and arbitrary it is impossible to enumerate them or define their limits. Today, the US federal government holds the most powerful world empire that has ever existed, with troops stationed in some 150 countries around the world. The US federal government has gone to war with someone, somewhere in the world, every single year of the past century. Clearly, today, the constitution IS "just a piece of paper".

I used to believe in limited government. I still believe it is the only morally correct form of government -- I just no longer belive it is actually possible. Government continuously works to expand its powers over the people -- no matter what the process or style of government -- and the US experiment in constitutionally-limited government is perhaps the most spectacular example of that.
Re:Congress shall make no law... by JavaLord · 2006-05-22 02:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

Terrorism is an inconsequential threat to this country. Statistically, it is inconsequential to the individual, quite similar to the threat of dying in a "conventional" airplane crash. Obviously it is consequential to its victims, the same as any other threat, so your point has no real point.

Statistically you are much less likely to be murdered than you are to die in a car accident. Does that mean we shouldn't put murders in jail, or allocate resources to capture them? Your politics are clouding your judgement.
Re:Congress shall make no law... by HUADPE · 2006-05-22 02:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

they cannot publish classified documents.
They can, however, republish them. The original leaker has made the information public. The reporter is simply repeating information that has been (illegally) released into the public. Once the secret is out, its fair game

--
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Re:Congress shall make no law... by JavaLord · 2006-05-22 02:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

AFAIK zero.

Five. Unless you count the jihadist (Joel Henry Hinrichs III) who blew himself up outside of an Oklahoma football game last year. Then it's six. Look into his story and figure out how many deaths could have happened that day.

But hey, there is no threat right?
Re:Congress shall make no law... by gkhan1 · 2006-05-22 04:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I should say that way-back when, during the 18th century (especially the early 18th century), we were pretty much as violent as anybody. We had what is called the Great Northern War which started in 1700 and ended in 1721 (we lost it, but it was us against Russia, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Prussia and Hanover, so it's not like we were pushovers). It was much because of that war that we started to impose democracy and civil liberties, which led to the constitution of 1766. Unfortunatly, King Gustav III went and ruined everything with a coup d'etat (a bloodless one) sometime in the beginning of the 1770s (I think it was in 1772, but I'm not sure), once again establishing absolute monarchy. But by 1809, we were back on track :P
I agree that the laws are similar, these kind of laws are fundamental to all democracies, the difference is (as you point out) the culture. We simply do not have a culture of a government that oversteps it's boundaries, nor a culture of hostile dealings with other countries. We try to act, always, in a diplomatic fashion. We were (I think) the first western country to diplomatically recognize The Peoples Republic of China as a countr for instance, back when everyone was scared shitless of communists.
This might have something to do with not having fought in any war since 1814 (which must be the world record, most countries haven't even existed that long), but Denmark and Norway fought in WWII and in Denmarks case Iraq, and they have similar openness to us. I think it has very much to do with our labour unions. We always have had very, very strong unions, and that tends to dampen any sort of mentality tends to be unforgiving to abuses of authority.
Re:Congress shall make no law... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-22 04:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

> 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.

You might be able to get enough dynamite for a small car bomb, but try packing a u-haul with it or getting enough to blow up a building. Same story with ammonium nitrate -- McVeigh was lucky enough to get bomb grade stuff, which meant he needed far less of it. You just don't get that stuff all that easily now.

Of course if industrial quantities of explosives get out to domestic terror groups, the bombs will be going off for decades. Scary stuff. The fact that TNT is cheap as sugar in most third-world countries makes for the vast amount of explosives out there.
Re:Congress shall make no law... by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-05-22 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't expect them to see it my way. That's why we try to keep people with an emotional investment from important decisions such as national policy.

Judges have to step down from a case that they feel so strongly in they cannot be impartial. Why not extend that idea to our President, who beleives magic sky deities give him secret knowledge about what is right and wrong?
Re:Congress shall make no law... by jusdisgi · 2006-05-22 09:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wow. So many facts, and so little thought put into what they might mean.
First, your terrorism timeline is a lot of evidence that makes absolutely no point whatsoever. You appear to be trying to convince me that 9/11 wasn't the only terrorist attack ever. At least that's what I gather from "One event? I really don't know why you guys keep repeating this." But see, I never suggested that it was the only terrorist attack...in fact, the rest of my argument rather relies on the fact that terrorism has been and will be around for a long time. I said "the administration is using one event to justify..." and this is true. The administration used the single attack on 9/11 for its drum-beating and propagandizing. They didn't use "a decade-long string of terrorism" to woo the American people for their oil war, they used "9/11."
Before I continue, you do recognize that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, right? If in doubt, check with people for the new american century, a Dick Cheney think-tank. They had that war planned out at least as early as 1996, and you can download the pdf's that explain it in detail. In one place it even notes that it would require a "Pearl Harbor-esque" event to get public support for such a strategy. Well, looks like they got it.
What civil liberties have we lost? Did I miss something? The only civil liberty I've ever seen chipped away at in this country is the right to bear arms.
Yes, you missed something; do I have to repeat myself? The sentence after the one you quote listed several civil liberties (but certainly not a complete list) that have been lost under the administration since 9/11. Not that I'm the definitive source....why don't you go pick up a copy of the actual PATRIOT act and take a look for yourself? It's not really much other than a collection of new procedures for going past the bounds of what was previously acceptable law-enforcement.
No, my library records won't be searched. You think that Bush is sitting up at night thumbing through everyones personal records don't you?
Obviously Bush has lackeys for this. They're called cops. But now they can access library records without warrants. They couldn't do that before. This is what's called "loss of civil liberties." And I've got no idea what makes you so sure yours will be exempted.
[Call detail records] won't be analyzed by any human unless you happen to talk to a suspected terrorist.
Again, where are you getting this information? You work at the NSA? We have only very shaky promises from the administration that this is even limited to terrorism investigation. Hell, a couple weeks ago they were saying no data was collected at all on domestic calls. Furthermore, what difference does it make whether a human is doing the analyzing, versus a computer? I guess then it's OK to have a robot break into my house when I'm not there and take photos of everything inside? And if it finds something "flagged" as a likely terrorism indicator, then call the humans to have a look? I simply can't wrap my head around what here makes you think any of this is OK.
[Detention without attorney] happens during war. See WW2 for a recent example. We don't need to let non-citizens see lawyers.
First, we are not currently at war. Second, some of the people we have detained were American citizens.
I see, you would rather more Americans die than we torture known terrorists.
This statement assumes at least two facts not in evidence. First, it assumes that everyone we've tortured is a "known terrorist." Certainly you can't prove that, and in fact I think it would be a lot easier to prove the opposite claim. But the other, dumber assumption is that torture saves American lives. I double-dog-dare you to show even one instance where this was the case. John McCain (my favorite Republican) triple-dog-dares you. And finally, let me say that yes, even if it could be shown that we

--
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.

Gonzo needs to go back to law school. by DougLorenz · 2006-05-22 00:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

Gonzo claims in the article that:

"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, according to the U.S. Attorney General, the first amendment is a great right, but it can't be allowed when it gets in the way of law enforcement. I wonder if he feels the same things about other Constitutional amendments which restrict law enforcement, like the fourth and fifth amendments. I'm sure that the people who wrote those Constitutional Amendments didn't really mean for them to limit the power of government (BTW, that's sarcasm...)

Of course, we really have to consider that the federal government should only be going after criminal activity when such criminal activity is actually present. Something cannot be a crime when the law which makes it a crime is not constitutional.

There is a reason why we have made freedom of the press a nearly absolute right. Throughout history we have seen that hiding the activities of government creates corruption, and even when the media is biased, we need them to be able to get the issues out to the public so that they can be discussed.

It is also interesting to see the philosophy involved in Gonzo's "Pass the Buck" stragegy. He wants to claim that it isn't the Bush administration that is going after the reporters, it's actually Congress that passed the laws which REQUIRE the Bush administration to go after the press.

"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

I guess that what really bothers me is that good Republicans who should really know better, individuals who have long complained about the growing powers of the federal government, should be more concerned about this. They need to come to their senses and realize that Bush is not helping the ideologies that make the Republican Party, and they need to abandon him.

Nixon was run out of office not by Democrats, and not even by the Washington Post reporters. He was run out of office by fellow Republicans who came to him and told him that he had become an embarrassment, and it was time for him to resign. Modern day Republican leaders have to do the same thing and rid us of our modern day Nixon.

--
Slashdot, where you get modded down as redundant for stating an opposing viewpoint... Independent thought anyone?

Re:Gonzo needs to go back to law school. by hackstraw · 2006-05-22 01:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Since when has "freedom of speech" been a "nearly absolute right"? We limit free speech all the time in this country. For instance, you can't:

- Yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

That is just stupid. If the only reason you don't yell fire in a crowded theater is because its illegal. Well, good luck in life. A better example of a lack of freedom of speech is that its illegal to talk about killing the President of the United States.

- Commit libel or slander

Libel and slander are subject to _civil_ law, not criminal law.

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

Yes, the government did initiate many civil rights laws, especially in the 60s. I think that is a good thing, and again, most of the litigation here are civil suits, not criminal ones.

Criticize a political candidate on television 60 days before an elections. (Thanks to the new Alien and Sedition Acts - AKA McCain-Feingold)

I didn't know about this law. Sounds dumb if it really exists and is that specific. So, internet, radio, press, flyers, meetings are OK to criticize a political candidate, but TV is off limits for 60 days before an election? OK.

no press super-citizens by Kohath · 2006-05-22 00:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

The "press" aren't super-citizens. They are no different than anyone else. They don't get to give themselves special immunity to laws that ordinary citizens must obey.

There's no ceremony, no initiation, no certification, license, or birthright to become a member of the press. I am a member of the press for publishing this opinion just as much as a NY Times writer. We are both entitled to the same rights and protections.

To say that the press can violate laws because they're the press is to say that anyone can violate the laws. It follows that the US maintaining national security secrets is unconstitutional when that secrecy is enforced. That's silly. Therefore, the press can be prosecuted, just like anyone else.

Re:no press super-citizens by clodney · 2006-05-22 01:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe the test has always been that the press cannot themselves break the law in acquiring classified information, but it is not a crime for them to publish information that they have innocently received - innocently meaning that some 3rd party brought to them.

I don't have a security clearance, so I should never see classified data. But if someone gives me classified data, I haven't done anything wrong, the person who gave it to me has done something wrong. That is the mechanism the press has used in the past

What if the white house does the leaking? by MECC · 2006-05-22 00:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is it illegal then? Even if its just to get back at political rivals? Even if the white house says "go ahead and leak to the press"? That's not illegal, but non-white house leaks are? Can you spell "corruption"?

I knew you could...

--
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran

Re:What if the white house does the leaking? by MECC · 2006-05-22 03:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, the president has repeatly claimed that laws don't apply to him if he doesn't want them to. And, he also claims unitary executive authority, which means that he posseses authority to control all parts and people of the executive branch directly (micromanage, if you will). Of course, now that parts of the executive branch ('scooter' libby) have been caught leaking info to the press (IDs of active undercover agents are never 'declassified'), one would think that unitary executive would place responsibility squarely on the president's shoulders.

No matter who justified Bush Administration leaks in what way, no undercover operative can be safe ever again, given the capricious way in which the Bush administration claims immunity from the laws and legislation, especially with such an obviously politically motivated classified leak. So in the end, if you're a CIA undercover operative, this would be a really good time to resign. Especially if you find data that doesn't fit the Bush admin world views and policies.

Really good time to resign.

--
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran

Re:So.... by Kohath · 2006-05-22 01:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

...it's illegal for everyone except journalists to spread around classified information? ...

And journalists are who we say they are. For example, no one at Fox News or any of the hated right-wing news outlets are true journalists. Ask Slashdot. They'll tell you that. Therefore, these pseudo-journalists can be prosecuted. Just not the NY Times.

Have we considered, perhaps, taking a more nuanced position?

I don't think it gets any more nuanced.

You just need to learn not to anger the ruling class. They're "the good people". Only greedy, evil, oil-company-funded criminal-types disagree with them.

So you'll fight to protect and retain it? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-22 01:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

There's nothing that could convince me to give up or sacrifice any part of the First Amendment.

No? Thought not.

It's so easy to be a dormroom revolutionary, but so hard to actually put your money where your mouth is.

Especially when the 'oppressed masses' are a bunch of soft, obese, apathetic, and spoiled ignoramuses whose only concerns are cheap fastfood, television and gasoline.

Which is why the United States of America is now a police state, and cannot - and won't - be salvaged.

Re:Military is supposed to "Defend the Constitutio by Just+Another+Perl+Ha · 2006-05-22 01:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's funny.... it looks like they removed a word from that oath since I took it back in 1985. The phrase

"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..."

...used to read...

"and that I will obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..."

Now... I wonder who took that word out of there, hmmmm?

New Rules by rocketjam · 2006-05-22 01:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

Wanting to make sure I've got this straight:

1. Lying about reasons for invading sovereign nations - Okay

2. Holding U.S. citizens indefinitely without right of habeus corpus - Okay

3. Torturing prisoners - Okay

4. Eavesdropping on U.S. citizens' international calls without warrant - Okay

5. Tracking all calls made by every citizen within United States - Okay

6. Exercising 1st amendment right to free speech and possibly checking out-of-control abuse of Constitution by administration - Not Okay

Is that it?

Re:Uh. by dhasenan · 2006-05-22 02:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

As long as you have the myth that anyone can be well off if they work hard enough, Americans will keep sucking it up. Once poverty is a source of guilt, you can control the poor; and if you're the rich, you can increase the poverty gap as much as you like.

Keep the 1rst amendment by HangingChad · 2006-05-22 02:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

And throw Gonzales in jail. Then turn that domestic spying apparatus on the Federalist Society and root out that whole nest.

I think everyone who voted for Bush should have to pay extra to help pay off the budget deficit. Why should the rest of be saddled with the debt of your bad choices?

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage

Re:Chilling effects! by AhtirTano · 2006-05-22 04:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

No, I'm not for prosecuting journalists, but the 1st amendment gives us all freedom of speech and freedom of the press - narrowing down who gets freedom of the press - in this case journalists - only serves to defeat the amendment. I'm tired of seeing the press get a free ticket because they are "real professionals" and people like bloggers get written off, as if the founding fathers intended the right to apply to only those who attended journalism school.

I think this is a result of the language changing a bit since 1776. The phrase "the press" used as reference to journalists dates back to roughly 1910-20. The earliest recording of this use in the OED is 1926, but it is safe to bet the phrase was in use 10 years previous (though it's impossible to be sure).

The OED gives the meaning of "freedom of the press" as

free use of the printing-press; the right to print and publish anything without submitting it to previous official censorship;

They provide a few sentences written around the time of the Constitution to support this interpretation. This definition should cover bloggers, pamphleteers--anyone who publishes information. You can bet the founding fathers would not have censored someone who handwrote their newspaper, despite the lack of a printing-press in the process.

But because of the way English is used nowadays, politicians are getting away with claiming the constitution references professional journalism, and few are aware that this is a shift in meaning. The cynical side of me wants to say that professional journalists won't cry foul, because it helps limit their competition; but I'm not sure I'm jaded enough to really believe that yet.

Re:Give me liberty or give me death. by JWW · 2006-05-22 04:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

While I agree with the spirit of your post. I cannot fully agree. We are talking here about classified information. Things that are supposed to be classified are considered "secrets" of the government. There is an has always been punishment for those that reveal the coutries secrets, since the founding of this country (and even before).

Free speech is about being free to speak your mind and give your opinion. It is not about telling your countries secrets and undermining its security. While I believe the actions going after the "whistleblowers" in this case may be quite overzealous. They did release classified information, and that has always been wrong. Whether or not that information should be classified is debatable, and whether or not the government should be collecting it is also debatable. But anyone charged can have that debate during their trial.

Now before anyone goes ballistic over my stance, or gets all worked up about my stance with respect to our First Amentment freedoms, please ask youself this:

If the Rosenbergs had given the details on the bomb to a newspaper to be printed, instead of handing it over to the Soviets, do you think they should have been protected just because a newspaper has a right to publish under the first amendment? Do you think the newspaper should be protected? This was notably one of the biggest "leaks" ever in US history. But what if it had gone just like this one with a publisher involved with a unnamed source. Should they be protected in this? It is actually a debatable question and a hard one at that. It not as easy as "all speach must be free" all of the time.

Slashdot Mirror

Gonzales Says Publishing Leaks Is A Crime

27 of 889 comments (clear)