Attorney Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Attorney Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/21/D8HO7PM80.html

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

The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.

"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.

Gonzales said he would not comment specifically on whether The New York Times should be prosecuted for disclosing the NSA program last year based on classified information.

He also denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources.

"We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said, under a "probable cause" legal standard.

But he added that the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an "obligation to enforce the law."

"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," Gonzales told ABC's "This Week."
 
Depends on the doublespeak definition of "national security" they keep changing. National security as in NATIONAL SECURITY, perhaps, yes. National security as in "interfering with the plans/agenda/we-hoped-they-wouldn't-notice/etc of the executive branch", no.

It would be unfortunate if they slapped the National Security label on some reporters who were just being good checks-and-balances whistleblowers. That's what they're for.

And Gonzales is very good at blathering paragraphs without saying a thing.
 
But he added that the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an "obligation to enforce the law."

My memory must be slipping. I don't recall any exception in the 1st Amendment for "national security."

Amendment I
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.
Nope, the memory doesn't seem to be playing any tricks on me. It clearly says that the Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of the press. Somebody send that man a copy of Dolly Parton's song, "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"
 
"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."

since when has the federal government been concerned with enforcing laws that are on the books? i'd like to assert that enforcing immigration laws that are currently on the books would have a greater effect on our national security. who appointed this guy anyway?
 
Well, when I mentioned national security in all caps, I'd meant obvious and clear-cut cases. Someone getting hold of troop movement orders and publishing that would in the wrong, of course.

But no, for things that just happen to be embarassing to the administration, using the National Security card to scare and punish reporters into being quiet is not okay, and goes AGAINST the 1st amendment, I feel.
 
Reporters can't be prosecuted even for being traitors.

It's my opinion dontcha know :)
 
Well, there are two very different issues here. Trying to look at them as one issue won't lead to intelligent discussion.

1. Does the 1st Amendment protect us from prosecution for what we say or write in "national security" cases?

2. Do newspaper reporters enjoy special rights that do not belong to all of us?

So, for issue #1: this is a matter of much debate and precedent. "Obscenity," military secrets, etc., even "sedition" in wartime, have sometimes been "interpreted out" of the First Amendment. I tend to be an "all of the Bill of Rights, all of the time" person, myself. But this is subject to discussion and worth discussing. I won't try to give some definitive answer.

For issue #2, I would say that the answer is an emphatic NO! Reporters have the same rights as computer programmers, day laborers, and real estate agents. No more, no less. If the answer to #1 is that you or I can be prosecuted for something, then so can reporters.
 
ArmedBear hit the nail on the head.

1. I believe folks can and ought to be prosecuted for leaking classified data.

2. Reporters are citizens, not super-citizens.

I do believe all those calls for investigation/prosecution in the Wilson/Plame deal are coming home to bite the journos in the a$$.

Couldn't happen to a better bunch of weasels.
 
Prosecute reporters for leaking information? NO.

Prosecute reporters for intentionally deceiving the public with lies and communist-slanted propaganda/implications built into news articles? Absolutely.

There's your perfect world.
 
I'll add to agreement that reporters should be prosecuted for revealing classified material an additional charge.

If the reporter does it not to report the "news", but to further a political agenda, they should be doubly prosecuted.

When the President of the US asks you personally NOT to publish a story for national security reasons, a story you have sat on for months, and you go ahead and do so, you should be shown in cuffs and leg irons doing the perp walk to court, and then to prison.

(hey, "Punch" Sulzberger, I hope you like your new roommate, Bubba...)

The press are elitist scum and should be held to the same standards as the rest of our citizens.
 
When the President of the US asks you personally NOT to publish a story for national security reasons, a story you have sat on for months, and you go ahead and do so, you should be shown in cuffs and leg irons doing the perp walk to court, and then to prison.

And what if what they're asking you not to report is something that's an absolute and complete violation of the Constitution?

At that point, I think you'd have to decide what your loyalty is. To a politician, or to that document. And as of now, they could be prosecuted if they make the RIGHT choice.
 
And what if what they're asking you not to report is something that's an absolute and complete violation of the Constitution?
Then they should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that it is against the Constitution. But until it is proven, they may be better off not to report it, as they may wind up in jail.
 
When the President of the US asks you personally NOT to publish a story for national security reasons

It's about as legally binding as some bum off the street asking you to do something. Since he's not a dictator... Being empowered to see to it that the laws of the nation are faithfully executed isn't the same thing as your word BEING law.

Now, if there's a law on the subject, you might get prosecuted, but you'd be prosecuted for violating that law, not for violating the President's request.
 
"TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 37 § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" is the section of US Code that makes it punishable for any citizen to divulge classified information (aka commit espionage). Divulging information that I know to be classified per Executive Order #12958 will result in my being sanctioned by the .gov in accordance with the remnants of The Espionage Act of 1917 noted above in USC Title 18. The 'Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982" further extended the legal definition of protected data to include the identifies of those .gov employees working in a covert status.

This means that If I am in possession of classified information (classified data or covert operator identity) that I believe needs to be leaked because of its implications, I have several choices:

  • fuggetaboutit
  • actively work to get the data downgraded/unclassified/out of a protected status
  • wait until the data is no longer in a protected status (unclassified or not a covert operator anymore)
  • leak it and face the music
None of those choices involve ' breaking the law and not being punished for that', and none of the above provides legal exemptions for journalists. Whatever you may think of the AG, he didn't tell us anything new here and he certainly isn't making this stuff up.
 
OK, let's say I, as a government employee, gain legitimate access to the following classified statement:

(S) The moon is made of cream cheese.

I just have to wet my pants when I discover this startling government knowledge, so I run to my favorite reporter and whisper: "Hey, Sid. Off the record, of course, because the info is Secret, but the Federal Science Service just concluded that the moon is, in fact, made of cream cheese. Did you know that?" He publishes a story the next day under the headline "Moon made of Cream Cheese, Federal Study Concludes."

The NSA, who are protecting us all from terrists, overhears that conversation, alerts the speech cops, and they come to get me. Fair enough; I broke a law and suffer the consequences.

What about the reporter who published the known classified information? Any culpability, legal or moral?

TC
 
rbernie,

you left one option out: report it to the office in your organization specifically dedicated to 'whistleblower' protection and investigation of whistleblower allegations. Oh, wait-you're Mary McCarthy, and you WORK in that department, so you already know all about that. Nah, better tell the NYT. That way you can embarrass the President. The other way, you might just get the problem quietly addressed, or even worse, find out that there isn't any problem. Can't have that, now, can we?
 
so I run to my favorite reporter and whisper: "Hey, Sid. Off the record, of course, because the info is Secret, but the Federal Science Service just concluded that the moon is, in fact, made of cream cheese. Did you know that?"
What about the reporter who published the known classified information? Any culpability, legal or moral?
Unauthorized possession of classified data is defined as A Very Bad Thing in Title 18 Section 793, as is consipiracy to divulge classified data. The minute that you told Sid, 'the info is Secret', Sid became criminally implicated.

The only way that Sid would have a defensible position would be if you never told him that the data was classified *and* if he was smart enough to not ask.

By the way, Leatherneck - you get bonus points for proper use of portion markings. :D

you left one option out: report it to the office in your organization specifically dedicated to 'whistleblower' protection and investigation of whistleblower allegations.
Yes, that is always an option if you're a .gov employee. It's not likely to get you joy, but it is technically available. If you're in industry, the path is a little more indirect but DSS does provide an IG function.
 
Unauthorized possession of classified data is defined as A Very Bad Thing in Title 18 Section 793, as is consipiracy to divulge classified data. The minute that you told Sid, 'the info is Secret', Sid became criminally implicated.

Hmm. I did not know that. Pity about old Sid.

I wonder why we haven't seen more reporters prosecuted? Lord knows there has been a LOT of classified stuff openly published. I remember one trade journal (I think it was Defense Daily) some years back that even forgot to remove the portion markings--(S), (C) and so forth-- when they rushed to publish a leaked paper. We got a big yuk out of that.

But I don't remember any reporter or journal ever being prosecuted for compromising classified info. Scared of the press maybe?

TC
 
Leatherneck said:
...I wonder why we haven't seen more reporters prosecuted? Lord knows there has been a LOT of classified stuff openly published....

Who would prosecute? Only politicians or those influenced by politicians. I imagine the thought process goes something like this, "Yes exposing classified stuff by the press might hurt my political party but since I use the same tactics I'd better not make a fuss". It is of course my contention that most politicians don't care that much about anything but getting reelected.
 
By the way, Leatherneck - you get bonus points for proper use of portion markings.
Do I get bonus points for the fact that I saw the portion marking, didn't even read the paragraph so marked, and started to get serious willies about what the heck Leatherneck was up to? :eek:

Gods, I need a vacation.
-BP
 
seeker_two:
As a fellow believer in jury nullification, I would not practice it in these cases. I actually do believe that some classified data's release can do harm to America, not just political weenies.

Also, the leakers have signed numerous documents attesting that they will not do such things. So much for honesty, integrity, & honor.

There was a gentlemen's agreement (or would "mutually beneficial dishonest arrangement" be closer to the mark?) that journos would not be prosecuted for such. Well, since the Plame/Wilson brouhaha, that agreement has been flushed.

Folks best be careful what they wish for and what precedents for behavior they set.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top