Gonzales Says Prosecutions of Journalists Are Possible

[BBond]

Here they go again. Just how many of your "freedoms" are you people willing to allow these fascists to take away before you do something about it? And when you finally wake up and do something about it, if in fact you ever do, will it be too late?

Gonzales Says Prosecutions of Journalists Are Possible

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: May 22, 2006

The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."

"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

Asked whether he was open to the possibility that The New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Mr. Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."

"I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."

Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and "communications intelligence activities."

Those laws are the basis of a pending case against two lobbyists, but they have never been used to prosecute journalists.

Some legal scholars say that even if the plain language of the laws could be read to reach journalists, the laws were never intended to apply to the press. In any event, these scholars say, prosecuting reporters under the laws might violate the First Amendment.

Mr. Gonzales said that the administration promoted and respected the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment.

"But 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," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."

Mr. Gonzales sidestepped a question concerning whether the administration had been reviewing reporters' telephone records in an effort to identify their confidential sources.

"To the extent that we engage in electronic surveillance or surveillance of content, as the president says, we don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," he said. "And obviously if, in fact, there is a basis under the Constitution to go to a federal judge and satisfy the constitutional standards of probable cause and we get a court order, that will be pursued."

A president who considers himself above the law and therefore considers it OK to leak classified information himself now has an AG who wants to lock up journalists for doing the same by perverting a law that was never meant to be applied to journalists. This is just nuts.

If alberto "Dr. Mengele" gonzalez wants to lock up leakers, he should start in the White House instead of destroying our Constitutionally mandated FREE PRESS.

In an administration that claims everything is classified just what do the American people think they will ever be told? If bush continues down his fascist road we'll wind up with a democracy that looks surprisingly like the former Soviet Union or German "Democratic" Republic.

 

[techs]

Fascism and Communism. Pure and simple.
The Bushies want to control the media.
Just think what the news would be like if they get away with this.
We would be seeing news stories every day about how great things were going in Iraq.
All you have to do is say that reporting things are bad is a state secret.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This is just sickening, and not surprising at all. I heard about this on the way to work this morning, and was disgusted. Why would you go after the focus of the story? Nah, much easier to go after the person who wrote it, after all, it's all in the name of god and for fighting them over here so we don't have to write them over there and hear them here so we don't see them there.
This administration is sickening. And I truly hope they all stand trial for desecration of the constitution, and some even for treason.

 

[dullard]

While I don't like our rights or perceived rights removed, I think journalists need to get over it. They are not free to do whatever they want whenever they want and just claim 1st amendment protections. Journalists can and do break laws and they can and should be prosecuted for that.

Journalists are usually free to print what they want. They are not free to break laws before or after printing it. In fact, if you print copyrighted material, you could be sued. So in reality, you aren't even free to print everything.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: dullard
While I don't like our rights or perceived rights removed, I think journalists need to get over it. They are not free to do whatever they want whenever they want and just claim 1st ammendment protections. Journalists can and do break laws and they can and should be prosecuted for that.

Oh please.

ANYTHING can be claimed to be protected under "national security". If someone should be prosecuted for divulging secrets, it's the people to dislose them, not the journalists who publish them.

And unless these stories have to do with concrete intelligence or military planning, the fickers can kiss my arse.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
ANYTHING can be claimed to be protected under "national security". If someone should be prosecuted for divulging secrets, it's the people to dislose them, not the journalists who publish them.

The national security excuse is lame and shouldn't be used. But my point stands, journalists think they have more rights than they do have. It is time for them to learn the reality of their rights.

You cannot murder someone, publish it, and then claim 1st amendment protection from the murder. It is that simple.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: dullard
While I don't like our rights or perceived rights removed, I think journalists need to get over it. They are not free to do whatever they want whenever they want and just claim 1st amendment protections. Journalists can and do break laws and they can and should be prosecuted for that.

Journalists are usually free to print what they want. They are not free to break laws before or after printing it. In fact, if you print copyrighted material, you could be sued. So in reality, you aren't even free to print everything.

Using your line of reasoning, nixon would still be president.

:roll:

If a journalist, or ANY AMERICAN for that matter, has knowledge of abuses of power, corruption, incompetence, any illegal or unethical activity in government whatsoever, that person has a duty as a PATRIOT to divulge that information.

This further attack against our Consitituion is just another attempt to protect bush and his entire administration from being prosecuted themselves. bush has to prosecute the press because if the truth ever gets out he'll be prosecuted himself.

 

[waggy]

hmm i think this is like number 2 on the list of how to become a dictator aint it? or is it 3?

someone post a link to the list hehe seen it posted here afew times..



this is really scary. first the supreme court rules its legal for the goverment to take private property to give to rich people, we come up with a BS war on terror, and they start takeing away rights. now they are attempting to silince and control the news. great.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BBond
If a journalist, or ANY AMERICAN for that matter, has knowledge of abuses of power, corruption, incompetence, any illegal or unethical activity in government whatsoever, that person has a duty as a PATRIOT to divulge that information.

This further attack against our Consitituion is just another attempt to protect bush and his entire administration from being prosecuted themselves. bush has to prosecute the press because if the truth ever gets out he'll be prosecuted himself.

I'm an avid Bush hater. I hope he gets prosecuted himself. And you are correct about the printing part - I never argued with you there. They are free to print what they want (in most cases). But they are not free to break the law in obtaining that information. They are not free to break the law after printing that information.

There are 3 steps:
1) Obtain info.
2) Print info.
3) Discuss info.

Step #2 is protected, and you are 100% correct there. If they have the info, they should print it and should not be prosecuted FOR THE PRINTING. But I say #1 and #3 are not protected if laws are broken in those steps and should be prosecuted for laws broken then.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: BBond
If a journalist, or ANY AMERICAN for that matter, has knowledge of abuses of power, corruption, incompetence, any illegal or unethical activity in government whatsoever, that person has a duty as a PATRIOT to divulge that information.

This further attack against our Consitituion is just another attempt to protect bush and his entire administration from being prosecuted themselves. bush has to prosecute the press because if the truth ever gets out he'll be prosecuted himself.

I'm an avid Bush hater. I hope he gets prosecuted himself. And you are correct about the printing part - I never argued with you there. They are free to print what they want (in most cases). But they are not free to break the law in obtaining that information. They are not free to break the law after printing that information.

There are 3 steps:
1) Obtain info.
2) Print info.
3) Discuss info.

Step #2 is protected, and you are 100% correct there. If they have the info, they should print it and should not be prosecuted FOR THE PRINTING. But I say #1 and #3 are not protected if laws are broken in those steps and should be prosecuted for laws broken then.

And exactly how do you propose our "free press" gets information to print? Should they ask bush's press secretary of the moment?

bush's press secretaries havent' answered a single question in over five years. When government acts illegally it's the right and duty of the press to expose and publish that illegal activity. Period.

Your logic completely negates the role of the "free press" in a "democratic" society.

 

[DealMonkey]

If there's something worse than judicial "activists" it's an AG activist. Gonzales seems pretty fond of redefining our nation's laws on the fly as needed by the current administration.

 

[dmcowen674]

Can't wait till there is no more News, it's all bad anyway.

 

[Thump553]

I strongly suspect that catching terrorists may have only a pretext for the government's wholescale grabbing of telephone records. Those records are a whole lot more useful in tracking down which sources called which reporters and when-a very powerful tool for an administration obsessed with secrecy (except when it doesn't help them, ala Plame) and punishing the leakers.

 

[1prophet]

I fear this country will need another waco texas before it wakes up

 

[Lemon law]

We must understand that Gonzales is only the attorney General---and in US history more than one AG has gone to jail.
The proper place to address these questions is and remains courts of law--especially the supreme court.

Part of the Bush power grab is that Bush&Co. has been very sucessful is keeping these types of questions away from being tried in any court of law---all they do is scream national security or terrorist and the courts fold.

Sooner or later the courts will weigh in---and even as stacked as they are---I am still betting Bush&co. will finally get their commuppance. Or alternately congress will finally have to step in and shut the President down---with an election six months away, re-election panic is setting in.

 

[Fern]

Did the press bring this upon themselves? Are they at least partially responsible for this development?

A while ago when segments of the press called for just this kind of "heavy-handedness" in the Valery Plame case many news organizations editoralized/predicted this was gonna happen.

Now that it's come full circle and gonna bite 'em in the arse the irony is rich (and sad).

Fern

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fern
Did the press bring this upon themselves? Are they at least partially responsible for this development?

A while ago when segments of the press called for just this kind of "heavy-handedness" in the Valery Plame case many news organizations editoralized/predicted this was gonna happen.

Now that it's come full circle and gonna bite 'em in the arse the irony is rich (and sad).

Fern

blame them for uncovering the truth?

 

[chowderhead]

maybe Gonzales needs to investigate his grandparents and their legal status first.
Gonzales on CNN

GONZALES: Well, the president made it clear that there is no automatic path to citizenship, that certain things -- people will have to pay a penalty. They'll have to suffer consequences for their action in coming into this country illegally.

The president does not believe in amnesty. The steps that he outlined yesterday do not constitute amnesty in his judgment. And in my judgment they do not constitute amnesty. People will have to suffer consequences, adverse consequences...

GONZALES: Well, three of my grandparents were born in Mexico. They came to Texas. My parents -- both my parents were born in Texas extremely poor. My mother...

BLITZER: When they came to Texas, were they legally documented, were they un-legally documented?

GONZALES: You know what? It's unclear. It's unclear.

And I've looked at this issue, I've talked to my parents about it and it's just not clear.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: BBond

A president who considers himself above the law and therefore considers it OK to leak classified information himself now has an AG who wants to lock up journalists for doing the same by perverting a law that was never meant to be applied to journalists. This is just nuts.

If alberto "Dr. Mengele" gonzalez wants to lock up leakers, he should start in the White House instead of destroying our Constitutionally mandated FREE PRESS.

In an administration that claims everything is classified just what do the American people think they will ever be told? If bush continues down his fascist road we'll wind up with a democracy that looks surprisingly like the former Soviet Union or German "Democratic" Republic.

A) There is no proof that Bush leaked classified information. If you are referring to the Plame case, there is a grand jury working on that as we speak. (That means AG Gonzalez's justice department is investigating what you're crying about him not investigating)

B) There is no such thing as a "spirit of a law" there is only the language in that law. If congress wrote a bad law full of unintended consequences (gee, like that never happens) then they need to reexamine the language in that law and correct it. Nobody is perverting anything here. The law says what it says.

C) Your hyperbole is getting old. This country is not facist and so long as we continue to hold elections we will have the government we want. We are not in danger of turning into the old USSR.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
(That means AG Gonzalez's justice department is investigating what you're crying about him not investigating)

Wrong, the AG has zero to do with this.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
...
C) Your hyperbole is getting old. This country is not facist and so long as we continue to hold elections we will have the government we want. We are not in danger of turning into the old USSR.

Not true at all. Elections are a chance to make decisions about our government, but unless we have good information to base those decisions on, we have little chance of making a GOOD decision. A democracy where the elected government controls the media won't be free for very long. People who see no problem with the government slapping down the media don't seem to have thought things all the way through. There is a big reason freedom of speech and the press is the FIRST right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: BBond

A president who considers himself above the law and therefore considers it OK to leak classified information himself now has an AG who wants to lock up journalists for doing the same by perverting a law that was never meant to be applied to journalists. This is just nuts.

If alberto "Dr. Mengele" gonzalez wants to lock up leakers, he should start in the White House instead of destroying our Constitutionally mandated FREE PRESS.

In an administration that claims everything is classified just what do the American people think they will ever be told? If bush continues down his fascist road we'll wind up with a democracy that looks surprisingly like the former Soviet Union or German "Democratic" Republic.

A) There is no proof that Bush leaked classified information. If you are referring to the Plame case, there is a grand jury working on that as we speak. (That means AG Gonzalez's justice department is investigating what you're crying about him not investigating)

B) There is no such thing as a "spirit of a law" there is only the language in that law. If congress wrote a bad law full of unintended consequences (gee, like that never happens) then they need to reexamine the language in that law and correct it. Nobody is perverting anything here. The law says what it says.

C) Your hyperbole is getting old. This country is not facist and so long as we continue to hold elections we will have the government we want. We are not in danger of turning into the old USSR.

Isn't it funny that this punk ignores the actual topic of this thread? You know.. the fact that our freedoms are slowly eroding? Then he goes and tries to argue semantics about something else...

Your "B" is completely off base.. there definitely is a spirit of the law. That is why we have judges instead of machines determining sentences, minutiae of law, etc etc etc. That is why people don't always get prosecuted for "breaking laws"... because sometimes, there are extenuating circumstances, and the law is never clear, cut, and dry... but keep living in fantasy land!

"C" is ignorant, because it ignores the HUGE voting discrepancies persistent in multiple major elections in a row(no standard voting countrywide, no paper trail on electronic voting machines, major political affiliates controlling the production of said machines, etc etc etc).

"A" is simply a personal opinion. That is why there are juries.. EACH PERSON DETERMINES CONCLUSIONS DIFFERENTLY, EVEN BASED ON THE SAME FACTS. I, along with many, completely disagree with your opinion. Trying to shoot down someone else's opinion with your opinion(masquerading as a "fact") is pathetic.