News Should the Times and the Washington post be presecuted

[edward]

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales raised the possibility yesterday that New York Times journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information based on the outcome of the criminal investigation underway into leaks to the Times of data about the National Security Agency's surveillance of terrorist-related calls between the United States and abroad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html

Lately, the Bush Administration has been talking of using the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute the New York Times and the Washington Post. Yet these veteran newspapers' "crimes" consist merely of publishing Pulitzer-Prize-winning articles on the CIA's secret prisons, and the NSA's secret surveillance programs.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060519.html


Should the Times and The Washington post be prosecuted for for their revelations to the public that Cia secret prisons and NSA domestic spying exist.

No these are issues involving the freedom of the press.

Yes, they should be prosecuted by the Attorney general under a 1917 law.

Only the government officials who leaked the information to the press should be prosecuted.

I only suggest a few options. This probably should be a poll.

 

[scott1]

I think everone who is involed in leaking of national security secerts should all be presecuted. The poltican who leaked should be presecuted because he should know not to leak information and the media for reporting it they should not to report about classifed government secerts.

But I think it should be more of the polticans fault then the reporter since the reporter might of thaught that it was declassifed because he told him.

Wasn't there another case about a reporter being found guilty for reporting the name of a covert CIA agent?

 

[Astronuc]

Wasn't there another case about a reporter being found guilty for reporting the name of a covert CIA agent?

There were two reporters who were jailed for not turning over names of sources of information.

As far as we know, Robert Novak, who did publish the identity of a CIA agent, apparently with the endorsement of the White House, has not been prosecuted.

It is not clear that the disclosure of secret CIA prisons or the extraordinary rendition, nor the acquistion of phone records, has compromised 'national security'. What it has done is revealed potentially illegal and otherwise criminal activity on the part of the US government, particularly members of the Bush administration.

 

[Pengwuino]

Anyone who actively helped compromise classified information should be prosecuted no matter what its eventual effect on national security was. Their employers shouldn't unless it can be proven they directly contributed to the act. Simple. I win.

 

[Manchot]

Of course they shouldn't be prosecuted. They were doing a valuable service by protecting us from a government that has become far too opaque.

BTW, scott1 and Pengwuino, I'm just curious: do you think that Daniel Ellsberg should have been prosecuted for leaking the Pentagon Papers?

 

[Pengwuino]

Manchot, that's like saying is a poor person justified in robbing a bank because he is poor. A crime is a crime is a crime.

An even better example: Should the FBI be able to go into anyones house and take everything if they suspect you of criminal actions? I mean, if they catch you committing a crime, then what's the problem according to your logic.

 

[Manchot]

According to my logic, the freedom of Americans should be protected at all costs. In your example, the rights of the innocent are impinged upon by the FBI. At the same time, there are legal ways for the FBI to do its job. In this case, doing something that is (nominally) illegal protects the rights of American citizens. Moreover, since there is no legal way to do it, it must be done in an illegal way.

 

[Pengwuino]

So strengthening national security has nothing to do with the citizens of the United States?

 

[Manchot]

Sure, you strengthen it, but by how much? Any moron (terrorists included) can send an encrypted e-mail using a one-time pad. If you do it correctly, not even the NSA's computers can break it in any appreciable time. At some point, you're just sacrificing liberty and morality for a limited increase in safety. Like it or not, at some point you simply have to bite the bullet and say, "Listen. We can't strengthen national security any further without sacrificing personal liberties. If you want the ultimate in safety, go live in a police state."

BTW, what do you think of my Pentagon Papers question? I realize that it's quite loaded, but that's the point I'm trying to make here.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well i should have been more explicit but i think anyone, including Ellsberg, should be tried according to the law.

I personally don't understand what you're getting at with the email thing.

 

[scott1]

. If you do it correctly, not even the NSA's computers can break it in any appreciable time. At some point, you're just sacrificing liberty and morality for a limited increase in safety. Like it or not, at some point you simply have to bite the bullet and say, "Listen. We can't strengthen national security any further without sacrificing personal liberties. If you want the ultimate in safety, go live in a police state."

Frist of all a mourn can send an encrypeted but any hacker can decyrpt that message
We needed security in a war. We can't let secuirty down during we have to prevent another terroist attack.

BTW, what do you think of my Pentagon Papers question? I realize that it's quite loaded, but that's the point I'm trying to make here.

Well the pentegon papers were just showing the showing the U.S. involment milltary and poltical involment in vietnam. So if it wasn't too much of big deal.

 

[Manchot]

So, even though the Pentagon Papers basically revealed that the entire premise of the Vietnam War was a sham, you're still for prosecuting Ellsberg? That's rather telling. Ok, I've got another situation for you. Let's say that someone--we'll call him Jack Bauer--discovers that the president--we'll call him Charles Logan--ordered a hit on a former president. In the course of delivering the evidence to the Attorney General, let's say that Bauer is forced to hijack a plane to prevent the president's men from killing him. Should Bauer be prosecuted for his activities, simply because they are illegal?

On a side note, with the "email thing," I was making the point that any terrorists are probably communicating using encrypted emails, and that there is nothing that the NSA can do which can prevent that. Therefore, spying on innocent Americans is a waste of time.

Frist of all a mourn can send an encrypeted but any hacker can decyrpt that message
We needed security in a war. We can't let secuirty down during we have to prevent another terroist attack.

If the encryption is done correctly (i.e., using more than 1024 bits), no hacker can decrypt the message in any appreciable amount of time. You can mathematically prove that it will take, on average, several years to decrypt such a message.

 

[scott1]

So, even though the Pentagon Papers basically revealed that the entire premise of the Vietnam War was a sham, you're still for prosecuting Ellsberg?

I never said to presucate Ellsberg.

 

[Rach3]

Yes, why don't we start prosecuting people who break laws by leaking classified information? Mr. Rove, what do you think? How about you, Dick?

 

[Rach3]

In fact, let's prosecute everyone who commmited a crime in some way involving the secret NSA programs and their leak! What's keeping us?

 

[SOS2008]

Some of the posts in this thread take the cake. Those who argue a crime is a crime are the same members who argue it's okay that Bush fixed the intelligence to invade Iraq because it was right to remove Saddam. I have a suggestion to those who want to live in a police state (e.g., where everything is classified): Move elsewhere and let the rest of us enjoy the freedoms we are supposed to be able to enjoy in our so-called democratic republic.

Yes, why don't we start prosecuting people who break laws by leaking classified information? Mr. Rove, what do you think? How about you, Dick?

In fact, let's prosecute everyone who commmited a crime in some way involving the secret NSA programs and their leak! What's keeping us?

Hear! Hear!

 

[Gokul43201]

Anyone who actively helped compromise classified information should be prosecuted no matter what its eventual effect on national security was.

How about first establishing whether or not the programs leaked about were in fact legal ? Or do you believe that's irrelevant ?

 

[edward]

It is apparent that the majority of Americans are against both the secret prisons, and the domestic spying.

So why is it that the administration is only now starting to threaten to prosecute the two incidents that happened months ago??

This administration seems to have had an ulterior motive for most everything thing they have done. (Plame Game ect.) What are they up to now?

Are they trying to intimidate the press? Or is it all just an attempt to distract from their lies, miserable failure, and poor judgement concerning Iraq?

 

[Gokul43201]

Is anyone going to prosecute Bob Novak ? Or does the DoJ believe there's no double-standard there ?

 

[edward]

Is anyone going to prosecute Bob Novak ? Or does the DoJ believe there's no double-standard there ?

This incident is typical of what I meant by the ulterior motives of this administration. They spent nearly three years threatening to deal severely with the leaker and the leaker turned out to be Bush himself. er According to Cheney that is.

 

[turbo]

I think everone who is involed in leaking of national security secerts should all be presecuted. The poltican who leaked should be presecuted because he should know not to leak information and the media for reporting it they should not to report about classifed government secerts.

But I think it should be more of the polticans fault then the reporter since the reporter might of thaught that it was declassifed because he told him.

Wasn't there another case about a reporter being found guilty for reporting the name of a covert CIA agent?

This administration leaks continuously, yet decries any "unauthorized" leaks as being violations of national security. How can our national security be compromised if we US citizens become aware of the existence of secret foreign prisons, or of CIA-run torture programs in known prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can our national security be compromised if we are told that the vice president leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent in order to punish her husband? These are matters of honesty and public decency, and the administration wants to keep them covered up. They only scream about "national security" when their lies are being uncovered, not when the real national security is being threatened - they jeapordize our national security in the sake of corporate profits every single day. (Long live Halliburton...)

 

[ray b]

far tooo much info is classified by the goverment
I think miss use of the system should be a CRIME
and any citizen should have a right to know
what is done by his government in his name

facts that are imbareising to the goverment
like illegal prisons should never be state secrects
and the crime is not the newspapers telling us about them
but the CRIME is government hideing them in the first place

only exceptions should be agents names
or other info that could get people killed
any attempt to hide screwups or other illegal actions
is what needs to be investigated and people jailed for
never for telling us of the government bad acts
in fact there should be major rewards for disclosing such info

this is exactly why neo-conned sheep are a clear and present
danger to our freedoms

 

[SOS2008]

This administration leaks continuously, yet decries any "unauthorized" leaks as being violations of national security. How can our national security be compromised if we US citizens become aware of the existence of secret foreign prisons, or of CIA-run torture programs in known prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can our national security be compromised if we are told that the vice president leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent in order to punish her husband? These are matters of honesty and public decency, and the administration wants to keep them covered up. They only scream about "national security" when their lies are being uncovered, not when the real national security is being threatened - they jeapordize our national security in the sake of corporate profits every single day. (Long live Halliburton...)

Yes but look at how effective it is. There are too many stupid people and nothing to eat them anymore.

ABC's Brian Ross appeared on "Reliable Sources," and said "It made me feel as if I were a drug dealer or terrorist"

And for your general enjoyment - http://santacruzcomicnews.com/cartoons/-weekly/2006/0517/phones/01.shtml#maintop

 

[Astronuc]

And for your general enjoyment - http://santacruzcomicnews.com/cartoons/-weekly/2006/0517/phones/01.shtml#maintop

Good one.

 

[Polly]

I think the scariest thing about the political development (or scandals) of the Bush administration is that if they could have done all these vindictive and heinous things to cement their rule, what extraordinary length will they go to cover their tracks and prevent these scandals from being exposed and they themselves free from the long arms of the law ever? Remember, there are three more years to go and whatever they do, the Americans will be on their own, because the rest of the world cannot (and may not want to) help them.

 

[Gokul43201]

And for your general enjoyment - http://santacruzcomicnews.com/cartoons/-weekly/2006/0517/phones/01.shtml#maintop

For pure comedic value, #8 was the best !

FDR : There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

JFK : Ask not what your country can do for you...

GWB : Your call may be monitored for quality assurance.

Priceless !