Skip to main content

View Diary: Report: Holder approved search warrant labeling reporter as a co-conspirator (356 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah sure. Do you have a problem with the so (5+ / 0-)

    called free press whose reporting secret information that could cause the death of out troops, agents and other people? You have a problem with Holder investigating that?

    •  That's not the press' problem. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, MrJayTee, PDiddie, TJ, Dallasdoc, 3goldens

      If it was a well kept secret, the press wouldn't know.

      •  Isn't that what this prosecution is about? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade

        Shutting leaks, so the secrets stay well-kept?  

        It's hardly fair to say it isn't the press's fault if the government can't keep its secrets, and then complain that the government takes measures to keep its secrets.  Especially when the revelation of the secrets served no public purpose, and the journalist was explicit that his goal was merely to scoop his competition.  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:01:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Prosecuting the leaker is absolutely appropriate. (9+ / 0-)

          You don't have a first amendment right to leak. But you can't in the process of prosecuting a leaker run roughshod over the 1st amendment in pursuit of a internal management policy. Once you hit up against the press, you're just going to have to stop. You're just going to have to fire the person and perhaps seek some other civil penalty. In other words, too fucking bad.

          •  Wow! Who knew that the First Amendment (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wadingo, ccyd, KayCeSF, edwardssl

            was the only ABSOLUTE amendment; no restrictions whatsoever.  (This is the same argument the GOP has for the Second Amendment, ironically.)

            Please, someone tell me where is the line for the press?  Do they have an absolute right to obtain government secrets and to print them, without restriction?  

            Is your statement true in all instances:  

            Once you hit up against the press, you're just going to have to stop.
            Should the government always assume that journalists are NOT spies?  Has a spy ever "posed" as a journalist to get classified information and then passed that information on to other countries?

            Does it matter in the least whether a judge signs off on warrants to obtain records from the press?  

            The media makes this seem so cut and dry, but I have many reservations.  

            •  Yes, they do have the right to try to obtain (5+ / 0-)

              and print government secrets. It's an absolutely critical right, because otherwise the government can do whatever the fuck it wants and then just classify it.

              Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
              Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
              Code Monkey like you!

              Formerly known as Jyrinx.

              by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:49:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, they do have a right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens

              to print anything.  You may not like it, but they do have that right.

              Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

              by Indiana Bob on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:54:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Actually they do NOT (0+ / 0-)

              have an absolute right to print "anything".

              18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

              They don't have the right to print anything about munitions (including the storage of), or about anything that could negatively impact national defense.

              This story was about the fact that the U.S. had intercepted  and was storing a bomb, with the added benefit of exposing both an operation and operatives who were in danger of being murdered for their participation.

              Specific application of this law in this case differentiates from the Pentagon Papers and other leaks that weren't about munitions during a time of war and stories that would harm national defense.

              If all they claimed was "national defense", it might be a stretch, but it exposed the infiltration of terrorist groups being done in furtherance of our defense.  And it involved munitions.  

              And it basically states that if Kim is guilty of leaking under this law, then the person he leaked to is also guilty.

              Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

              by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:06:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The Supreme Court is clear: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KayCeSF

            that you don't have the right to publish just anything you want concerning classified documents.

            And the Espionage Act itself has no press exception--- in any legal sense, soliciting classified information is like having someone steal jewels for you, and Mr Rosen was violating the law.  By any letter of the law, Mr Rosen is a co-conspirator in a crime.

            Now, the government goes easy on reporters, mindful of the public interest in protecting a free press (and mindful of the bad PR of doing something like this).  Indeed, in this case, you'll notice that they didn't actually charge Mr Rosen in the end, despite his flagrant violations of the Espionage Act.  And they publicly asked for a warrant, which, with FISA, they didn't really need to do.  If that's not going easy on journalists, what is?  

            Compare that to what's going on with Julian Assange, who, as a webhost, is not given the privileges of the press.  And even then, Assange isn't on record as saying his primary motivation was to scoop his competition.

            There is the balance between security and free speech.  Just like there's one between security and the right to bear arms.  And the same for the rest of our Constitutional rights. The balance is never at one far end or the other, but somewhere in the middle, and from what I've seen, it's pretty close to the middle.  

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:59:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Though you could say the same thing about (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc

              the Pentagon Papers as well.  Shouldn't the NYT have been prosecuted for publishing those as well?  Either you support cracking down on leaks including prosecuting the press or you don't.

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:23:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's a straw man question (0+ / 0-)

                What you propose is putting the fulcrum all the way over on the security side, which is something no one here is arguing for.  And something that I explicitly argued against one paragraph ago.  

                As for the Pentagon Papers, the choice to prosecute Neil Sheehan (the journalist) would, like this case, depend on the content and the danger it posed.  In neither case did that danger rise to the level of charging the journalist.   But, as the SCOTUS has routinely pointed out, there are situations where it would (see Near v Minnesota for instance)  

                Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:36:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The danger level doesn't matter. Either Neil (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dallasdoc, 3goldens

                  should have been prosecuted for publishing classified information or he shouldn't, the same with Rosen.  You don't get to have it both ways.

                  You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                  by Throw The Bums Out on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:40:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not true. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    edwardssl, Tony Situ

                    Sometimes the evidence obtained by the search warrant results in no charges being brought.  It would seem that in this case, the evidence wasn't as clear-cut as the DOJ needed to bring charges against Rosen.  A search warrant is a device to collect evidence, not an indictment.

                    I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

                    by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:47:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Not a FISA situation (0+ / 0-)

              FISA applies only when you have communications originating or terminating outside the United States.

              I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

              by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:45:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly what is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      the "so called free press"?

      Is that the press that's being intimidated and investigated by the government?

      If so - we agree....there's no free press when the government acts like this.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site