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?"
I think if you look how the votes drop that the democrats are just as bad.
The USA is a dictatorship, you just get to vote which of the two dictators gets to run the country for a while.
I think your government needs an overhaul where you can get better representation that doesn't involve moving to Ohio.
I saw one of the interviews Sunday adn Atty. General Gonzales was clearly uncomfortable discussing the issue and made a muddle of his otherwise clear case. Allow me to say some truths more bluntly than he did.
1. The Press isn't some sort of Church, with an annointed Priesthood set above the laws. Yes they may publish whatever they want without preclearing it with a government censor.... exactly the same as I am publishing this. But they have no more protection from the CONSEQUENCES of their actions than I do.
2. In exactly the same way as one must assume responsibility for their words when it comes to libel, slander and fraud, violating the secrecy laws should have consequences or those laws are meaningless and our society is no longer possible to maintain. So yes, a Free Press is essential to a Free People but there are some restrictions required to maintain the sort of advanced civilization needed to make a Free Press possible.
3. I have yet to see anything in these 'leaks' (I'd dare call it treason) that have advanced the cause of Freedom. Yes we bug the terrorists, even when they dial into or take a call from the US. And do you think we didn't bug German agents during WWII? Hell yes, inside and outside the US. That is War. Spying between nation states isn't the same as police work. Few also have a problem with the notion that the NSA might have done some interesting pattern analysis on calling records looking for stuff worth poking further into. If they went further without passing by a judge for a warrant I'd have a problem, but there isn't an accusation of that.
4. In light of 3, one must question the motives for making the leaks in the first place and whether it was for the express purpose of lending aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war is certainly a question worthy of asking. Because from where I sit it is either that or something that to my mind is even worse. That it was leaked in a base political effort to discredit the current administration. Now tearing at political enemies is normally ok, but there are limits. Endangering the national secutity in wartime to do it, and having way over half of the opposition party supporting such actions means we are probably too far lost to have much hope for survival. If the moonbats are simply being decieved by a few traitors we might can make it through, but if most of them are so far lost as to think losing the war would be an acceptable price of removing "Chimpy McBushHitler" from office and have thrown their lot in with Bin Laden we are doomed.
Democrat delenda est
I think you'll need an amendment to manage that one.
Not so far. Spys and their handlers have been caught and prosecuted 1000s of times. The only difference is that this time the handlers are reporters at the NY Times.
Ah, but you're forgetting Article Zero of the Constitution. I know, you probably haven't heard of it. It's small, and written in pencil on the back side of the Constitution. No one had even noticed it until after 9/11. It reads:
"The President shall have sole interpative power over this here documint. Or if he's busy, then Cheney can read it too."
The whole problem with the First Amendment is that word in the middle of it, respecting. "Congress shall make no law respecting..." You know, I don't see a whole lot of respect for the press here... Ergo, this is entirely Constitutional.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
When I took the oath in January, 1986, there was no mention of "lawful" orders. However, the UCMJ covers that point quite succinctly.
-h-
You're actually saying that journalists can magically publish all classified information, and then turn around and don't get in trouble for doing something thats screwing over the country?
Exactly what I was wondering. When I was in the Navy, I had access to top secret documents. What happens if I get a job as a reporter for a newspaper and write about what I know? Can it be any classified information? Or is it OK only when the classified information makes the government look bad? Maybe it's OK if you get the information from a third party - as if that removes the classification of the information. Or maybe it's OK if you can show that you had sufficient moral outrage.
I'm pretty sure that it would be OK (as in justifible to a judge) if you could show that the material was classified to protect the government from embarassment or to cover something unlawful. Or maybe not, I'm no lawyer.
It seems to me that if a journalist publishes classified information then he should be ready to face the consequences, and not just contempt for not revealing a source. Now, it may turn out that what was published deserved to be published. Or, maybe not. I guess it opens a whole new category of law for the New York Times' lawyers. It just seems wrong, somehow, for a news outlet to be able to publish something that's classified and then to be able to wave a press pass like it was a get out of jail free card and expect to brush off any scrutiny from the government. On the other hand, it seems just as wrong for the government to classify information just to keep from embarassing themselves.
-h-
the right to regulate pot was goatse'd out of the commerce clause, appaently the right to regulate interstate commerce can be extened to non-interstate non-commerce
It goes back to the early 1940s, actually, when the Supreme Court ruled that the government could regulate what crops a farmer could bring to market, even if the market was entirely within one state. Based on that ruling and Article 6 of the Constitution, the Court has precedent to declare medical marijuana clubs illegal.
To be fair, though, it's interesting to see what the courts have not used the Supremacy Clause for (such as Oregon's assisted suicide law). It's also interesting to note that in the past 20 years or so, they've watered down the 1940s ruling - I think that one of the justices, maybe Burger, wondered exactly where the line would be drawn on just what the federal government could regulate. Apparently the Court believes that pot is still one of those things.
-h-