Article

2006-08-11 Fifth Column

Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-08-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Thank God. Rational thought at last.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2006-08-11 00:21|| 2006-08-11 00:21|| Front Page Top

#2 What hath Valerie Plame wrought?

Posted by Mike 2006-08-11 00:40|| 2006-08-11 00:40|| Front Page Top

#3 Since we lay-folks have seen the actual language of applicable laws posted here on a few occasions, the only response that comes to my mind is, "Well Fuck Yeah!"

It's no "momentous expansion" - that's idiocy. It was there in black and white. Only ruling the Espionage Act and other laws which apply are unconstitutional could blunt the will of the people as expressed in those statutes.

I'm "happy" with this "decision", of course, but sheesh. Any two-bit punk can tell you all about receiving stolen goods...

Posted by flyover 2006-08-11 02:08|| 2006-08-11 02:08|| Front Page Top

#4 Ok now will someone with balls start arresting people.

Posted by djohn66 2006-08-11 02:09|| 2006-08-11 02:09|| Front Page Top

#5 'Pinch' Sulzberger comes immediately to mind...

Posted by DanNY 2006-08-11 07:31|| 2006-08-11 07:31|| Front Page Top

#6 I still hope the people who were authorized to have the material, that swore the oath and broke it, are prosecuted, too. And harder.

Posted by eLarson 2006-08-11 09:32|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-08-11 09:32|| Front Page Top

#7 I protest ! This is an attack on the democrat party. This is politically motivated and the judge should be impeached and removed.
Sarc off.
It would also be great if a judge ruled that anyone participating in a cover-up be jailed as well.
Then, it would be great if we elected a republican with the balls to investigate the Clinton administration. ie. Deaths of Vincent Foster, Ron Brown, the old CIA leader, William something, and all of those witnesses who were run off the road and killed on their way back from church. Not to mention all the suicides of people with a Clinton connection.

Posted by wxjames 2006-08-11 10:00|| 2006-08-11 10:00|| Front Page Top

#8 Anybody want the name of my lawyer? He's good, believe me...

Posted by Sandy Berger 2006-08-11 10:03|| 2006-08-11 10:03|| Front Page Top

#9 The only proviso I have is that the recipient must know (or reasonably assume) that the material is classified. I worked with classified stuff and unclassified stuff. I can show the latter to y'all. What if I slipped something classified in? Would you necessarily know the difference?

I'm not saying that's the case here. Just that it may be the case sometime in the future.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-08-11 10:31|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-08-11 10:31|| Front Page Top

#10 J, I may not know the difference, but I'm sure the prosecutors will be showing you what the difference is, even if you knew already. I believe that is the point. Now if I share that information with someone else, the same prosecutors will be explaining the difference to me in short order.

Posted by john">john 2006-08-11 11:57|| 2006-08-11 11:57|| Front Page Top

00:16 Phil
00:13 Jan
23:59 ex-lib
23:52 FOTSGreg
23:51 Thoth
23:47 ex-lib
23:39 ex-lib
23:39 Phil
23:35 Frank G
23:35 ex-lib
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:29 ex-lib
23:23 djohn66
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:18 ex-lib
23:17 Thoth
23:15 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 Angomoting Shong7365
23:13 Thoth
23:13 Frank G
23:04 Thoth
22:59 Frank G
22:58 Remoteman
22:56 Zhang Fei