Attorney Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted

So you think that divulging secrets should only be a crime if it's not to the press or public? Do you say the press is above the law?

Yes, I am saying that. We have found time and time again that the government breaks any law they please. There is a reason why having a free press is the cornerstone of a democracy.

Free press exists as much as free religion does. If the press has a right to divulge classified information, the people under free speech have a right as well.

But the press inherently don't have a right to divulge classified information, because if they did, God only know there would never be secrets under National Security. Thank goodness that we do have secrets; otherwise, everything would be open-sourced out and fighting would be damn near impossible.

The government's program to tap phones is one of those things where it's debatable if it's legal or not.

Knowingly divulging classified information is indeed illegal.

And we should trust the press to do what's good for the country?

The problem is, if a reporter can never report on something that is classified, then all the government has to do is classify everything to keep it secret and above reproach: something this administration has done all to often. I bet nowadays Woodward and Bernstein would be getting crucified over reporting on secret White House recordings, because god knows what could be in them that could be harmful to the nation if it got out. Nixon should have just classified everything and called it executive privilege, would have saved the country a ton of bad publicity. /sarcasm

I wonder if they will go after reorters that they leak to. This is scarey and has a very chilling effect. No reporters shouldnt be prosecuted but maybe the leakers if it has a chilling effect. And not all leaks are for national security, some are just embarrassing.
And right now i trust the press way more than the nsa or this administration or congress.
and lets see
we had leaks on illegal prisons and rendition... bad for nation secuirity because it can be concidered a war crime and is embarrassing.
we had leaks on torchure, which is a war crime and embarrassing.(and we have torchured the inoccent and rather than come clean we abandom him on a mountian.)
we had lekas on the nie and wilson, which were politically motivated
and we had a leak on the nsa which probably didnt hurt the program as much as the peole here would like you to believe.
So far i think over all the leaks have been good for america, as we cant let america turn into natzi germany.. the only one argueably harful is the wiretap one which most people assumed was being done anyway..
it seems to me that most of the noisssse over leaks is because they make the administration look bad and ARE not things that should be classified.

this government has argued for torchure, unlimited detention, rendition flights, warrentless wiretaping and you want me to trust them? the torchure thing really was my last straw, i respected the administartion, but didnt always agree with them, but when our president stands in front of the american people and makes a case for torchure i died inside. That is neither Christian or american.

The problem is, if a reporter can never report on something that is classified, then all the government has to do is classify everything to keep it secret and above reproach: something this administration has done all to often. I bet nowadays Woodward and Bernstein would be getting crucified over reporting on secret White House recordings, because god knows what could be in them that could be harmful to the nation if it got out.

Bloody brilliant, man. You've reached the crux of the Bush Administration's strategy here.

That along with "Accusing your opponents of aiding the terrorists". Fortunately Bush's dwindling poll numbers show that Americans aren't falling for it as much as they used to.

And how long do you think any government that 'classified everything' would last in our society.

Hopefully, not much longer.

it really does depend on what is being classified and why.. many things are classified for political reasons and criminal reasons and not security.
and without the nsa cover being blow we wouldnt have the increased oversite by congress which noone an really argue is bad.

also there was plenty of evidence that 9/11 was going to happen before we got all these draconian laws but noone listened, there was also a direct report that stated 9/11 was going to happen but it wasnt translated in time due to information overload, so what does this admin do, pile on more useless information. They had the tools, they just didnt use them.

and i personally am not going to live my life in fear or terrorists, deer still kill more americans each year than terrorist ever have.. thats why i have a whisler on my car and not machine gun.

yes that scared me, there is a reason the first amendment is first.
i really wouldnt mind as much if this administration didnt thumb it's nose at ovesight and honest debate.
if the president needsmore power, lets give it to him but first ask if it can be abused and make sure it cant be. But no reeason to turn on backs on 200 years over oversight and doing things right jsut for fear.
Did you know that ascroft was against this stuff, thats why we have gonzales. The pnacs are destroying the conservative movement.

Um, lets rework these for you.

That's not necessary, they're fine the way they are.

Step 1: The Government classifies information for the purpose of either national security or the security of its agents, soldiers, or public.

How do you know? We have numerous instances of improper classification on behalf of the government, for whatever reason. I've no doubt that some of the things they classify are for the things you claim, but all of them? The truth is - we just don't know, and we can't trust those doing the classifying to tell us the truth, and history bears that out (especially recent history).

Step 2: An employee of the government leaks information about it to the press, believing the public has the right to know due to an overwhelming sense of 'I Hate Bush'ism, or just because they are diss-allusionen for whatever reason.

So, now you're psychic? A whistleblower leaks info, claiming they believe the government is committing crimes, and your instant thought is "They hate Bush!" Oh, man, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid here. I don't agree with overclassification in ANY administration.

Step 3: The press reports it, because of the quaint notion that the press is supposed to be a watchdog on the government, and that the public has the right to know and of course they also hate Bush, or because they think it will increase their ratings or whatever. Point here is that they do KNOW it is classified information and they are CHOOSING to release it anyway.

Wow, so they report the NEWS because they hate Bush? They must have REALLY hated Clinton then, with all the reports of his many scandals.

And about it being classified, what about the Pentagon Papers? Would you have locked up the leakers of them, as well, and the publishers? Reading your words, it seems you would not only lock them up, but call them traitors to America. Let me guess - they just "hated Nixon"? Would your solution be to release plumbers to dig up dirt for smear campaigns against the journalists and leakers, a la Nixon?

Oh, wait - Bush doesn't have to do that. He can just leak classified information about their spouses. I guess the Bush administration policy on classification is "Whatever would be politically advantageous".

Thank God the Supreme Court has said (in the case of the Pentagon Papers) constitutional guarantees of a free press outweighed the so-called "national security" considerations, and undoubtedly would do the same thing again if Bush were to try to prosecute these journalists.

Why must you argue over the exceptions rather then the norm?

Again, how do you know it's the exception? It's classified. You just have to take their word for it - and they've been proven to have been dishonest in the past.

Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills.

Anyone who reaches a conclusion with which you disagree is illiterate? Nice.

the 'I hate Bush' reason was not presented as the only reason.

It was certainly one of them, and it's one of the ones I chose to address.

Again, work on your reading skills as again this was not the only reason given, merely one reason.

Again, stop being a smug little child. I answered one of your points, so your response is "That wasn't my ONLY point, can't you read?"

Actually if Bush decides to declassify information it is not a leak. Sorry.

It is if he says he WILL FIRE anyone that was leaking information, pretends to know absolutely nothing about it, and it turned out to be done under his and Cheney's authority. That's IS a leak meant to harm his political enemies, and it's a lie to the American people.

Try argueing based on facts and information rather then the appeals to emotion and sensationalism.

You mean like "We don't want the smoking bomb to be a mushroom cloud"? Or mentioning 9/11 in every other sentence as an excuse to do whatever you want? Oh, wait - "appeals to emotion and sensationalism" are okay, if it's Bush & Co doing them. Got it, thanks for clarifying.

In any case, I am basing my arguments on the FACT that the Bush administration has proven time and again to be either untrustworthy and/or flat-out wrong (I'm sure you don't need to be provided with a list, even Bush fans admit this fact), and the American public should be VERY suspicious of their secrecy, overclassification, and threats towards journalistic freedom. They don't have a track record of openness, accuracy, or forthrightness.

You will find it makes your thoughts much more coherent and readable.

Odd - Usually no one else complains about my posts being coherent or readable - everyone else understands my meaning. Maybe you should brush up on your reading skills? I've even tried not to use any big words or confusing concepts (in case Bush himself is reading in). If you still have a problem, I'll try to cut down to one syllable - would that help?

I have not called you names and yet you resort to calling me a smug little child.

You said that since I didn't agree with your points, or give the replies that you wanted, I should "brush up on my reading skills". I maintain that is smug and childish. I guess I could have gone without throwing the "little" in there. Sincerest apologies.

As to your skill at arguing or your claim that everyone else understands everything you write. Um, yeah. right.

I don't know about my "skill at arguing", but my ability to get my point across has seldom been questioned. You're the only one who has called me "incoherent" and "unreadable". I'm just saying that you're in the extreme minority on that one.

In any case, this isn't going anywhere, it's becoming tedious and the thread is just dragging further and further on. I'm not going to convince you that our government shouldn't threaten reporters and stifle the free press, and you're not going to convince me that journalists who publish leaks should be locked away in Gitmo. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

If the NSA telephone/surveillance program is so bloody legal than why did the government classify this thing as secret?

By this logic, anything classified is illegal.

Things become classified all the time because the knowledge contained therein is utilized actively for the security of the nation. Sometimes classification is used to hide illegal activities, but there is by no means a correlation.

This is your logic, not mine. That is not my words. Seems this type of logic (180 degree logic) was used to prove to the world that Iraq had WMD. If it's not here than it must be there.

they dont lie they have carefully worded loopholes..

"If the NSA telephone/surveillance program is so bloody legal than why did the government classify this thing as secret?"
the question is if it is so legal why did they bypass the fisa court and congress. (informing a select few that you deam appropiate is not oversight) and informing them seperately on the project is not oversight.

I meant to write We know that things are classified more and more to cover ones etc.

The thought being that the government has a bad habit that keeps growing. Classification should not be part of a cover-up process.