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?"

Comments

Gonzo needs to go back to law school.

[DougLorenz]

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.

Re:Gonzo needs to go back to law school.

[lynx_user_abroad]

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.

Suspicious

[udoschuermann]

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.

Re:Congress shall make no law...

[voice_of_all_reason]

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.

Old Polish joke springs to mind.

[Vo0k]

Seems currently in the USA the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech...

So much for the Pentagon Papers precedent.

[Mr Z]

The Introduction to the Court Opinion on the New York Times Co. v. United States Case (the Pentagon Papers case) opens with:

In a democracy, there is always a tension between a free press and the government, between what the government claims ought to be kept confidential and what reporters believe the public ought to know.

There are some other choice tidbits in there... such as (emphasis added):

[The First Amendment] leaves, in my view, no room for governmental restraint on the press. There is, moreover, no statute barring the publication by the press of the material which the Times and Post seek to use... [I]t is apparent that Congress was capable of and did distinguish between publishing and communication in the various sections of the Espionage Act.

So any power that the Government possesses must come from its "inherent power." The power to wage war is "the power to wage war successfully." But the war power stems from a declaration of war. The Constitution by Article I, Section 8, gives Congress, not the President, power "to declare War." Nowhere are presidential wars authorized. We need not decide therefore what leveling effect the war power of Congress might have.

These disclosures may have a serious impact. But that is no basis for sanctioning a previous restraint on the press...The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental sup-pression of embarrassing information. A debate of large proportions goes on in the Nation over our posture in Vietnam. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our National Health. The stays in these cases that have been in effect for more than a week constitute a flouting of the principles of the First Amendment as interpreted in [Near v. Minnesota].

Hmm....

--Joe

Re:Congress shall make no law...

[lynx_user_abroad]

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...

Re:Not surprising from W's rubber stamp

[arivanov]

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.

Re:no press super-citizens

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

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.

Re:Military is supposed to "Defend the Constitutio

[Just Another Perl Ha]

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?

Re:Congress shall make no law...

[gkhan1]

There is a Swedish law that I am very, very fond of. In sweden, if someone leaks information to the press about the government, the government is not only forbidden to prosecute, or even fire, the person who leaks, but it is infact illegal for the government to even investigate to try and find out who the leaker was (this obviously does not apply to cases where the leak is illegal, ie someone has leaked classified information. Though almost all leaks to the press, in terms of quantity, are not illegal, neither here nor in the US). Note also that this only applies to the government, not the private sector.

I don't mean to brag about my country (although I enjoy it, it's such a rare occorance ;), but freedom is something we do really well. Infact of the four parts of the swedish constitution, the Freedom of the Press Act is the oldest one, dating back to 1766 (the three other parts are The Act of Succession, The Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression and The Instrument of Government). That act also includes whats known as "Offentlighetsprincipen", roughly translated as "The Publicity Principle", stating that all government documents (with certain exceptions, such as documents that would endanger national security and documents relating to matters under investigation, although no document may be withheld more than X number of years (I believe X=70, but I'm not sure)) should be readily available to the entire public. Basically, it's the same as The Freedom of Information Act. But Offentlighetsprincipen was included into the constitution in 1766! 1766! The US got it's in 1966, 200 years later.

I realise that I sound like a ridiculous patriot here, and I don't mean to offend anybody. It's just that while My Country might be lacking in many areas where other nations excel, there is one thing nobody can beat us in: Freedom, Civil Liberties, and a the most solid defence against a corrupt government in history.

Re:Congress shall make no law...

[willCode4Beer.com]

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.

Re:Congress shall make no law...

[SvnLyrBrto]

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

Re:What is "inconsequential"?

[hab136]

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.

Re:Congress shall make no law...

[TheLink]

"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.