Yesterday the AG went on record with some interesting comments. Not only has he set the stage for criminal prosecution and wire tapping of reporters, he has informed the American people the First Amendment has certain limitations when it comes to matters of National Security. That's right, the agency recently accused of spying on Americans is now going to interpret the US Constitution for us. If you need a moment to calm down I understand. (5-minute intermission)
Here are some of the excerpts from the interview yesterday.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday that he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.
There are two problems with this opinion the way I see it. The first is a major chill this will place on investigative reporting. The words "confidential sources" just went right out the window. And the second is the justification or legal president that this will set. Free speech and the right for American citizens to know what the government is doing with our money is under attack.
''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 of prosecutions. ''We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
When asked about this curious statement 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. Once again we have Alberto manipulating long-standing documents to fit his warped view of the American dream. I think we all remember his desecration of the Geneva Conventions and the humane treatment of prisoners of war.
Alberto also denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic telephone calls to find confidential sources. ''We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order" under a ''probable-cause" legal standard, Gonzales said...
Anyone else buying what he is trying to sell here? But wait here comes the real kicker...
Gonzales also added that the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an "obligation to enforce the law."
And the closing statement says it all.
"It can't be the case that that right (First Amendment) trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity,"
Boston Globe
Anybody else feel weird about letting the NSA interpret the US Constitution?
"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." The Founding Fathers