Archive for Monday, May 22, 2006

Journalists may face threat of prosecution

May 22, 2006

Advertisement

— Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name as well as the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she presumed that Gonzales was referring to the 1917 Espionage Act, which she said has never been interpreted to prosecute journalists who were providing information to the public.

"I can't imagine a bigger chill on free speech and the public's right to know what its government is up to - both hallmarks of a democracy - than prosecuting reporters," Dalglish said.

Comments

xenophonschild 8 years, 10 months ago

bucephalus said it best in a recent post: This is America. We don't suspend the Constitution whenever we're attacked. We don't make up totalitarian laws that do not reflect the character and heritage of our people, and pass them off as needed for security.

xenophonschild 8 years, 10 months ago

Arminius:

Surprised you had the temerity to post "at risk." Who decides the subtle nuances of "at risk"? Should we trust GWB, Dick Cheney, or even Gonzales to make that determination?

Holygrailale pointed out a glaring incongruity - and I mean neon light blinking in the desert at midnight glaring: that Gonzales is defending the White House against charges that it violated the very laws Gonzales defends in this article.

While your point about Roosevelt and the Japanese is apt, it does not bear on our circumstances. Journalists have a responsibility, a professional duty, to expose official malfeasance, regardless of how it is packaged.

xenophonschild 8 years, 10 months ago

Arminitwit:

"The Dems would rather be friends with them."

Another lie. Democrats will prosecute the war against terror more successfully, because Hillary will re-build alliances and international rapport that your Cowboy Idiot let die in his rush for unilateral action - in an unnecessary, unjustified war. Democrats will preside over the capture and execution of Osama bin Laden, and that Jordanian puke Zarqawi, while all GWB and his minions have managed is to make us look impotent to the world.

Moonbats? How about troglodyte conservatives who don't care about incompetence in the Oval Office?

meggers 8 years, 10 months ago

Let's not forget that the media doesn't operate in a vaccuum. The Bush administration intentionally leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent AND intentionally leaked cherry-picked, misleading portions of the still classified National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times, in order to sell the Iraq war to the public.

If the Bush administration doesn't want the media publishing classified information, perhaps they should quit leaking classified information to the media for political purposes.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

Linda Endicott 8 years, 10 months ago

Exactly what classified information do they mean? Classified because it's truly a threat to national security, classified because knowledge of it would be embarrassing to someone in public office, classified because no one ever bothered to de-classify it, even if there's no longer any need for it to be?

If the government starts prosecuting journalists, they'll be on a very slippery and dangerous path. Freedom of the press used to mean something in this country.

Now it apparently means you can only publish things that are PC, support the current administration, and don't show any bias for or against any one who's been elected or thinking about running for election.

meggers 8 years, 10 months ago

holygrailale,

Vacuum IS spelled v-a-c-u-u-m...isn't it?

As for the sanctions era vs. the invasion in terms of death toll, illness, birth defects, etc., it will take decades to make any sort of accurate comparison, but I fear the long-term repercussions of the current war will far outweigh the human costs of the sanctions policy.

ben_ness 8 years, 10 months ago

I would think one is getting into some sticky constitutional law when a move is made to limit the free press. Common sense would dictate that the true criminal is the individual that leaks the classified information to the press, not the press itself. Those who think Gonzalez is right are certainly in a "burning barn". The implications of the DoJ prosecuting journalist for publishing classified documents is very serious and is something, as Americans, we should not stand by and allow. The freedom of the press is a fundamental constitutional right.

xenophonschild 8 years, 10 months ago

Arminitwit:

Quit telling your lie that "OBL was offered to the Clinton Administration on a silver platter." At that time (1996) there was no evidence (does the phrase "no dead American" resonate anywhere in your sick, twisted, febrile mind?) to indict OBL in any American court. The Saudis refused to take him, as you well know.

You can only slant information so much before you become a liar. You are a liar about William the Great.

You trogs whine about "traitors" and grunt wistful scenarios of punishing journalists, but it is the free press that protects your freedoms.

xenophonschild 8 years, 10 months ago

What about that, Arminitwit? Not only are you a liar, but you're stupid to boot. GWB "doesn't think about him all that much"?

"If Clinton wasn't a coward, he would have taken OBL when he was offered to us." Go back and read your own sources, liar-boy. There was a marked disagreement in the intelligence community about the Sudanese offer to arrest OBL, about how viable it was. More telling was that the Saudia refused to take OBL.

Go back and read your own source, liar-boy, the source you so blithely posted to substantiate your lies. "No dead American" equals no indictment. Your opinion is less than worthless, for not only are you a liar, but you actually got bounced from a forum for being "irascible."?

xenophonschild 8 years, 10 months ago

holygrailale:

Didn't William the Great and his people - leaving office - warn GBW and his people - coming in - that their greatest security threat was OBL? And didn't the Chief Cowboy Idiot mutter some drivel about: "I don't think about him (OBL) all that much."?

And who exactly was the president - in the Oval Office, on watch - when 9/11 occured? Why, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was George W. Bush.

Trogos need to get their facts straight, and cease lying, like Arminitwit, to bolster their fatuous contentions. The guy just posts one lie after another. Is there any kind of counseling or professional help available for pathetic twits who deliberately lie, over and over, on blogs?

Repent, Groenhagen!

xenophonschild 8 years, 10 months ago

Like holygrailale pointed out, lies of omission are still lies. Did OBL mean only Clinton in the Peter Arnett interview? Well, Liar!

Didn't Clinton's people warn Bush's people about OBL? Well, Liar!

No one cares about your bogus "citations." You are a liar, one with a troubling pyschological fixation on William J. Clinton. You need help . . . seriously.

meggers 8 years, 10 months ago

Arminius,

You keep citing dated material. Why, in 2001, did Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both publicly state that Iraq did not possess the weaponry to threaten it's neighbors, let alone the US?

lunacydetector 8 years, 10 months ago

i appreciate your arguments arminius because you back up everything with facts. it's a pity liberals are so closed minded.

meggers 8 years, 10 months ago

Aminius: "You've mistated Rice and Powell's position on Iraq. If Powell believed that in 2001, he would not have given his presentation at the UN in 2002."

I did not misstate their position. Here are their exact words:

Colin Powell in February of 2001:

'We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...'

Condoleeza Rice in July of 2001:

'But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.'

Video link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm

ben_ness 8 years, 10 months ago

Arminius, Holygrailale

Seriously, are you guys on the LJW's payroll?

Reading your guys' blogs is entertaining , educational, and insightful but don't you both think there is a point when you should hang up your hats. To a certain degree I feel like I am witness to the hundred year war.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

Poster formerly known as "holygrailale," ak "Drama Queen"

"I took down four of them the other day in a creationism blog, all by my lonesome."

That is perhaps the most idiotic thing I've seen you post.

In your triumphalist delusional dreams mizz "I can't answer tough questions and am ony capable of diversion!"

"I took down four of them the other day in a creationism blog, all by my lonesome." What's that you say?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

perhaps you should change that to,

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

To the poster formerly known as holygrailale, aka "Drama Queen:"

"I took down four of them the other day in a creationism blog, all by my lonesome."

All by your lonesome? Poor wittle fing. Oh, the drama of it all.

The only thing you "took down" was your intellectual credibility, and I'll be sure to remind you of it from time to time sugar shorts.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

holygrailale,

How is the above quote "admitting defeat?" Be specific.

You're grasping and sound scared.

You're right about one thing. You are pathetic "dude."

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

holygrail, as you are not reliable for comprehensive quoting:

Let's post the entire quote for a bit of context shall we?

"One thing that is common when dealing with the Triumphalist, is that actually declaring "a way" makes them liable and opens them up to having to provide burdens of proof. Negation is their only method of debate, which is, of course, as you are succinctly pointing out, intellectual cowardice.

It's best to let them claim their little victory (as their whole identity is tied to it) and live in their self-delusion; as pulling them out of a false sense of superiority would be like trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight."

Now if you think that is ceding defeat, it is you who is beyond "pathetic" and exhibiting the unique characteristics common of the "moron."

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

holygrailale,

Grasping and desperate.

Obviously I call attention to it because there's nothing for me to fear.

Let's say it again:

"One thing that is common when dealing with the Triumphalist, is that actually declaring "a way" makes them liable and opens them up to having to provide burdens of proof. Negation is their only method of debate, which is, of course, as you are succinctly pointing out, intellectual cowardice.

It's best to let them claim their little victory (as their whole identity is tied to it) and live in their self-delusion; as pulling them out of a false sense of superiority would be like trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight."

You chose to "link" as opposed to actually quote in full. That was your only option lest you look the fool.

That's about your normal "linking" routine.

Oh yeah, holygrail you "took down four of them the other day in a creationism blog, all by your lonesome."

It would seem that where I discuss the "delusion" associated with the triumphalist sophist is on target (and prophetic).

Still seedless?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

"I was right. You are drunk."

It would seem that one who "took down four of them the other day in a creationism blog, all by her lonesome" ought to be able to muster better than desperate idiot prose.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

holygrail,

Use of dopey dismissives is also trait of the Triumphalist who continuously attempts to deflect her inabilities and lack of depth in a given subject when pressed to answer for her assertions.

Care to try again?

I repeatedly ask you questions that you are incapable of answering (actually unwilling to answer, out of fear). Feel free to actually show how you "took down four of them the other day in a creationism blog, all by your lonesome."

I thought you would have learned by now that dopey dismissives have little effect on me, but then again you have shown yourself resistant to debate.

"Drunk?"

Not much of a response from one who "took down four of them the other day in a creationism blog, all by her lonesome." I don't think the readership is buying into the delusions you have established for yourself.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

Good afternoon sir, it's actually 1:56 PM. Certainly your parents taught you how to tell time?

Nice try.

I think we've firmly established your state of delusion.

Have a great day!

ben_ness 8 years, 10 months ago

Lepanto: Has anybody ever told you that your writing style is contrived, pompass, and makes you come across like a pseudo-intellectual. It really isn't that impressive.

Both holygraileale and arminius are much better writers and at least have some voice in their passages.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 10 months ago

ben-ness,

"Lepanto: Has anybody ever told you that your writing style is contrived, pompass, and makes you come across like a pseudo-intellectual. It really isn't that impressive. Both holygraileale and arminius are much better writers and at least have some voice in their passages."

I appreciate your feedback and will give it due consideration.

I regret that I have run afoul of the "pompass" police!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.