Reporter is Enemy of the State for Reporting

[livendive 8]

Kennedy

I don't like the idea of criminalizing the press sharing information. It's their job. I like things as they stand. Sharing classified information is a crime if you are sworn to protect it. It's not for anyone else. If you hack in and copy it, you're guilty of the hack, but not do sharing it. If you break in and steal it, that's burglary. If someone hands or to you, you're not.

That's the way it should be. I see no need to make it any more insane about classified material.

My gut instinct is that divulging classified information is a criminal act, and solicitation, coercion, or publication of classified material should make one at least an accessory to the crime. That said, this article mostly disagrees with my opinion. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to speak with any conviction, but if CNN published war plans, or the location of vulnerable American forces, or an in-depth analysis of Secret Service procedures, and any of these resulted in the loss of American life, I'd want to see reporters and management convicted and imprisoned.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

This is from Eugene Robinson. The President is now losing THIS guy.

[Url]http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administration-mistakes-news-for-espionage/2013/05/20/0cf398e8-c17e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html?hpid=z2[/url]

From the article:
[Quote]The Justice Department is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, then an analyst working for the State Department, for allegedly leaking to Fox News reporter Rosen a report about what North Korea was thought likely to do.

Prosecutors examined Rosen’s phone records, read his e-mails and, using the electronic record left by his security badge, even tracked when he entered and left the State Department building. How did officials justify such snooping? By asserting in an FBI affidavit, according to The Post, that Rosen broke the law “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”

In other words, since there is no law that makes publishing this classified information illegal, the Justice Department claims that obtaining the information was a violation of the Espionage Act.

Rosen has not been charged. [B]Every investigative reporter, however, has been put on notice.

If this had been the view of prior administrations, surely Bob Woodward would be a lifer in some federal prison. The cell next door might be occupied by my Post colleague Dana Priest, who disclosed the CIA’s network of secret prisons. Or by the New York Times’ James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, who revealed the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program.

A federal “shield” law protecting reporters from having to divulge their sources means nothing if it includes an exception for cases involving national security, as Obama favors. The president needs to understand that behavior commonly known as “whistleblowing” and “journalism” must not be construed as espionage.

I added emphasis. This is a journalist that said the point: you do not want to be in Rosen's position, do you? If you don't want to be there then I'd suggest you don't put anything out there that the admin doesn't endorse.

"[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know." - Judge Murray Gurfein

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

livendive

. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to speak with any conviction, but if CNN published war plans, or the location of vulnerable American forces, or an in-depth analysis of Secret Service procedures, and any of these resulted in the loss of American life, I'd want to see reporters and management convicted and imprisoned.

Blues,
Dave

I wouldn't. I value the freedom of the press far too much.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[livendive 8]

Southern_Man

***. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to speak with any conviction, but if CNN published war plans, or the location of vulnerable American forces, or an in-depth analysis of Secret Service procedures, and any of these resulted in the loss of American life, I'd want to see reporters and management convicted and imprisoned.

I wouldn't. I value the freedom of the press far too much.

You are free to shake your fist at the world, but that freedom stops where someone else's nose begins. Likewise, the press is free to report what they wish, but there should be consequences if they abuse that freedom in a manner that costs others their lives.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[champu 1]

From the letter that quade posted...

Quote

...there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed or is committing a violation of [18 U.S.C.] section 793(d), as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator...

Here is a link to 18 U.S.C. section 793 for reference

And I've attached an excerpt from page 20 which is an e-mail they recovered on the receiving end prior to obtaining/executing the warrant against the reporter.

The litmus test is not exactly the same, but you can kinda draw a parallel to trying to figure out if a law enforcement officer on a sting operation entrapped the suspect. It's walking a fine line when you're trying to get someone to break the law for you, whether it's so you can arrest them or if it's for your own personal/career benefit.

[Southern_Man 0]

livendive

******. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to speak with any conviction, but if CNN published war plans, or the location of vulnerable American forces, or an in-depth analysis of Secret Service procedures, and any of these resulted in the loss of American life, I'd want to see reporters and management convicted and imprisoned.

I wouldn't. I value the freedom of the press far too much.

You are free to shake your fist at the world, but that freedom stops where someone else's nose begins. Likewise, the press is free to report what they wish, but there should be consequences if they abuse that freedom in a manner that costs others their lives.

Blues,
Dave

We will have to agree to disagree. Generally the right to shake my fist ends at somebody else's nose. The press is not inflicting damage on other people, they are just printing information. Their right to do so without government intervention is protected by the constitution and acts as a powerful restraint on tyranny. Like all freedoms it may have downsides as well.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DanG 1]

I think the government has the obligation to investigate security leaks. Both sides of the aisle agree. The fact that someone is a reporter should not make them immune from investigation. What if a reporter were working for Fox during the day, and China at night? Should the government be barred from investigating him because he has a press badge? The fact that Rosen hasn't been prosecuted indicates that the system worked as it should.

I agree that there could be a chilling effect on national security reporting, but I don't see a way around it.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

livendive

******. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to speak with any conviction, but if CNN published war plans, or the location of vulnerable American forces, or an in-depth analysis of Secret Service procedures, and any of these resulted in the loss of American life, I'd want to see reporters and management convicted and imprisoned.

I wouldn't. I value the freedom of the press far too much.

You are free to shake your fist at the world, but that freedom stops where someone else's nose begins. Likewise, the press is free to report what they wish, but there should be consequences if they abuse that freedom in a manner that costs others their lives.

Blues,
Dave

The problem is we will have the government deciding where that abuse starts and ends

No
I am with the rest of them
This is bs
The leaker is fair game
The reporter should not be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

I am with the rest of them
This is bs
The leaker is fair game
The reporter should not be

How do you prove an evidence trail of leaking from top secret source to the press, if you don't include the press receiving the document?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

quade

Quote

I am with the rest of them
This is bs
The leaker is fair game
The reporter should not be

How do you prove an evidence trail of leaking from top secret source to the press, if you don't include the press receiving the document?

I guess I am talking about listing someone in the press as a co-conspiritor

Under this he can be charged at any time

And we would know the trail went to the press because they published it

Look
I dont like all leaks
I dont think you do either

But, to have a free press we have to live with it at some level

And as lawrocket says, if the adim (any admin) is pissed off about a leak and they have this power, all they then need do is call the info classified

Then they are free to go after them

I dont think you or I want that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Except in this case he was a co-conspirator. The guy who leaked the documents didn't just give them to the reporter. The reporter asked for them. There's a difference.

If a leaker gives documents to a reporter, like in a whistle blower case, then the reporter is simply receiving. However, if a reporter is asking for documents, then at some level, he's acting exactly the same way a spy would and how does anybody know the difference unless it's investigated?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,618]

normiss

Speaking of which, how's Mr. Assange doing these days?

BUMP

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,114]

Quote

Obama if he started WWIII

Bush tried , and plenty of outlets praised him

Yes, folks, that was a BDIF post

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[OHCHUTE 0]

lawrocket

It's the new black. Take someone or some organization that you don't like. Call that person or organization a "threat to national security." [I]Carte blanche means that arbitrary and capricious are expected.

Uh oh...

And linking to Al Quaeda is classic when smearing. Providing geographic location to AQ is also helpful.... i.e. Al Quaeda of Tampa Fl etc.

[toolbox 0]

I wonder how long it will be before citizens will be charged with treason for bad mouthing the government.
When do we start calling each other "Comrade".

[normiss 619]

Thank you Mr. McCarthy.

[quade 3]

toolbox

I wonder how long it will be before citizens will be charged with treason for bad mouthing the government.

We have a LONG way to go before that. A really, really, fucking long way. Like a trip to the Andromeda Galaxy kinda long.

Take a look around at various web sites dedicated to bashing politics; both sides.

Do you see -any- sign of restraint let alone action?

Trust me. Things said off the cuff and without a thought or care in this country could easily get you killed in other "civilized" countries.

A LONG fucking way to go.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

DanG

I think the government has the obligation to investigate security leaks. Both sides of the aisle agree. The fact that someone is a reporter should not make them immune from investigation. What if a reporter were working for Fox during the day, and China at night? Should the government be barred from investigating him because he has a press badge? The fact that Rosen hasn't been prosecuted indicates that the system worked as it should.

I agree that there could be a chilling effect on national security reporting, but I don't see a way around it.

This is a question of how much will we let the Feds get away with. Not being charged is not an indicator that all is well. If police out trackers on your cars, cameras to watch your house, surveillance details on your family, and searched your home and work, and talked to everyone you know asking about you, but you were never charged, would that be cool just because you were never indicted? Especially when you haven't committed a crime and the best they can do is threaten you with conspirator charges that will never pass judicial review?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[normiss 619]

If you've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?
Just be nice and help the friendly officers.

Have you not been paying attention in this forum???

[Kennedy 0]

DanG

Previously the Republicans, including many vocally on this site, were constantly harping on the Obama Administration for being soft on classified leaks. Now that it comes to light that they have been aggressively investigating leaks, some of the same people are up in arms about that.

This administration has never been soft on leaks, unless it was an approved leak. They've gone after more alleged leakers than all previous administrations put together! But when it looks good for POTUS, he's more than willing to turn a blind eye, or even participate himself.

DanG

I've said all along, there are some people, and some "news" outlets, that would find a way to criticize Obama if he cured cancer.

And some would find a way to idolize him if he murdered babies with a Bushmaster and painted the Oval Office with their blood.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

If you've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?
Just be nice and help the friendly officers.

Have you not been paying attention in this forum???

not me, I'm going to call myself a reporter and then file as a tax exempt entity, that should protect me from anything

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

Maybe this finally explains "The Christian Science Monitor."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 619]

[rehmwa 2]

quade

Maybe this finally explains "The Christian Science Monitor."

three of those words don't seem to belong to each other.......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

rehmwa

***Maybe this finally explains "The Christian Science Monitor."

three of those words don't seem to belong to each other.......

Weird, huh? Yet they actually have done good reporting.

The Washington Times however....

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver