Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site