You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Atty Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted for Publishing Classified Info
2006-05-21
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.
Hello jailtime!
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.
heh heh
"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."
duty above pulitzers for false euro-prison stories...
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.
but they should
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 we can...yes, David Gregory, we can
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."

Posted by:Frank G

#16  can and will are 2 different things. I doubt any will the elites are lamers and will not go after their own.

That means it sucks to be us regular folks.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-05-21 19:57  

#15  my eyes!!!! Restraint is not for just the insane anymore!! LOL!
Posted by: RD   2006-05-21 19:48  

#14  What does that pic of a gargoyle have to do with the story ?
Posted by: wxjames   2006-05-21 18:42  

#13  Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-05-21 17:33  

#12  Jeez, Frank...
Posted by: Dave D.   2006-05-21 15:55  

#11  sorry (kinda) about the pic. I'll do penance in the O Club
Posted by: Frank G   2006-05-21 14:29  

#10  heh, heh.
Posted by: 2b   2006-05-21 14:27  

#9  Dammit! Can we get a NSFYE (Not Safe for You Eyes) in the headline at least! Damn that's a scary pic - I've seen better looking Orcs...

And its about frigging time we start prosecuting reporters (and their 'anonymous sources') for these leaks. And note that the 1st admendment specificly says 'press' - I don't know if I would classify the NYT as 'press' - more like 'propaganda outlet'.

Every right (including the 1st) comes with it a certain amount of 'responsibility' which the yellow journalism which consitutes most of the MSM these days do not stand up to. The right to bear arms does not extend to felons. The right to assemble does not extend to rioters (except in Seattle). The right to free press should not be extended to obvious 'propaganda engines' such as the NYT, LAT, CNN, ABC, etc...
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-05-21 14:15  

#8  Alaska Paul - spot on! Talk is cheap, send some MSM journo to jail.
Posted by: DMFD   2006-05-21 14:14  

#7  If I were the AG, I would not gab about it to some worthless journalist. I would build a strong case and nail someone with it. THAT would get the message across. When the indictment and arrest come down, then make a statement (bulletized, heh) stating facts and standards applied.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-05-21 14:12  

#6  See below at:
From Dr. Sanity -- Assymetrical Intelligence Gathering
Posted by: Sherry   2006-05-21 14:03  

#5  Hang 'em high.

Seditious bastards.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-05-21 13:58  

#4  The only thing Helen Thomas is capable of leaking is her trousers.

But wait, is the AG saying that the urinalists could face jail time, 'bout time.
Posted by: Captain America, esq   2006-05-21 13:49  

#3  Substitute "are being" for "can be" and note that the trials will be held in closed secure session, and we'll have something to talk about. It's a good first step to publicly opine, but it is nothing until you act.
Posted by: Spimp Greash3798   2006-05-21 13:27  

#2  Good. And after that, get them for treason and sedition. Then hang 'em.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-05-21 13:07  

#1  Aaaaaaaaghhhh! My eyes, my eyes!!!
Posted by: PBMcL   2006-05-21 13:03  

00:00