Uh uh. The press has NO constitutional rights not enjoyed by the citizenry at large. Go back upstream and re-read Section 798. NYT has no more “right” to violate that law than I do. They have the complete freedom of the press to print what they want–but they also have the civil and criminal liability that comes with such “speech” violating national security laws. The press is not above the law.

The government may defer to the press and not prosecute for many reasons, many explicitly political, but the legal principles are clear-cut. The 1st Amendment “freedom of the press” is an individual right of the people, and does NOT create some additional royalty class with greater rights than those enjoyed by the people at large, as many in the press would like to believe. You and I have all those same rights, and if you or I published classified signal intel info we could go to jail. NYT is not immune to that for any legal reason.

DosPeros asked for a legal argument against, and all you offer is false declarations of legality that contain that presumption of the press being a protected class with greater rights than the rest of us. That’s just not true.

“/shake head
/Pity ON”

OK, whatever that means. And this coming from the “pineapple comment” guy. Thanks for addressing any one of my points. Also, complete sentences never hurt anyone.

It should be painfully obvious (watch as I beat this dead horse over and over and over and over again) that some of us don’t like people suggesting that other people be tortured (like Brian in MA did) or raped (like you did). There is NO POINT to comments like that, except to be “edgy,” grotesquely exaggerative and rude. Go post that crap on another blog, where you can all just call people names, make references to violent acts and be creatively shocking!!!!

but NO ONE seems to want to defend NYT straight out.

Dos, come on…

I guess I’ll have to defend them “straight out” then. What the NY Times reported was right. Hands down. Legally it was completely within the press’ rights, and, as a lot of evidence suggests, it wasn’t a secret. What exactly is your legal argument again Dos?

By the way, thanks for the thoughtful comment John. Much appreciated.

Much like this place, it seems to me.

Only something happened one day on that website that gave me pause, and I had to step back and review my conclusions about my country and my countrymen.

It was in the latter-early days of the conflict in Iraq; the initial conventional war had been won for about a year, and the guerrilla war had begun in ernest.

There was a string on this website devoted to the topic of anti-war protesters protesting outside of cemetaries, particularly during the burial of dead American servicemen and women.

A young man decided to post something like the following: “They deserved it. They deserved to die. They had no business being there in the first place, so good riddance.”

Being a former Marine myself, I was so horrified and so maddened and so galled by the blackness of this statement that I promptly responded with something that went like this: “If I ever meet you, I will give you a black eye.”

They kicked me off the site. Were they right in doing so? I think so, now, years later and looking back… yes, they were right.

But the young man who said that black thing, the unspeakable, was not disciplined, nor even reprimanded for saying this thing, these words which have the fullest capability to hurt just as much as any black eye ever could.

And Americans seem to have completely lost sight of this fact, the fact that words can hurt.

The editor of NYT used words to hurt. I see him, however, as having reason, and I see his words as not having any specific victim. He used words to try and found a greater good, and for that, I give him a chance to prove his worth. He doesn’t have my support, yet, but neither do the hordes of politicians and masses of media descending on him like some pack of lying ravenous wolves.

The young man who instigated this string, however, also used words to hurt, and his hurt had a specific target. His words were hate, directed toward a single individual just because he disagreed with the politics of the thing. That is wrong. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it, and I support his leaving whole-heartedly.

I hope that Americans someday return to the idea/roots that made us who we are. We knew, once, the power of words. We knew, also, the power (and the lack of power!!) of a physical fight. We knew that it is fully possible to have a fist-fight and come out of it as brothers (lord knows, I beat the heck out of my brothers growing up, and they me). A punch of the fist can mean nothing, or it can mean everything, depending on the feeling evident behind it. And the feeling behind it is evidenced by words.

Sincerely:

John B. Shelton

/shake head
/Pity ON

And nowhere, to my knowledge, have I ever suggested that the press DID have “any greater right�.

So that, for a start, is a non-secquitur in discussing the NYT.

Maybe you haven’t posited this particular position, but this is the essence of the argument I’ve heard from every hyperventilating left-winger trying desperately to defuse the treacherous actions of their comrades. “The press is special, how dare you even suggest they could do wrong by publishing vitually anything?!”

But thanks for qualifying your position for me. You are obviously a reasonable and rational person, who understands that the press “industry” does not have extra-constitutional rights to defy the Espionage Act, either during a time of peace or when the Nation is at War and peoples lives are at stake. It is good to know that you don’t consider a cabal of leftist, American-hating elitist privy to special-legal status at the cost of all other citizens during a time of War.

You might like to examine the SCOTUS decisions on “treason� and then consider why the Administration has not directly challenged NYT’s right to publish.

Speak your mind Probligo, what cases would like me to examine, least anyone think you’re…being disingenuous? You seem mighty certain of the legality of NYT’s actions, so please educate me. I can point to federal statute,

§798. Disclosure of Classified Information.

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information�

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes�

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in this subsection (a) of this section�
The term “classified information� means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution

SO PLEASE PROGLIGO, LETS HEAR YOUR LEGAL ARGUMENT. JG makes excerabated platitudes about us dumb-bastards calling the NYT traitors (I won’t listen to you and neither should anyone else & you should just be thankful your not banned…blah, blah, blah), but NO ONE seems to want to defend NYT straight out. Vageries about the 1st Amendment aren’t going to cut it. It is well settled law that freedom of speech is not absolute and nor should it be if you don’t want to get trampled to death when someone yells fire in a crowded theatre. Please explain to me why the NYT has NOT violated federal law.

Here’s my favorite argument, “Well, the terrorist knew we were monitoring them anyways, so no harm, no foul.” But then, in the same hypocritical, idiotic breathe, “Americans have a right to know what there government is doing.” Well, thanks for valuing the intelligence of the terrorist over the intelligence of the American people. Nice.

But yeah, Probligo, here’s a suggestion: Follow Justin’s lead, because all you have to defend NYT is science fiction literature (1984) and vague, unsupported constitutional platitudes.

I’m a civil libertarian & a pragmatist. The people supporting the NYT are doing the cause of their own liberty violence and they don’t even know it. Pathetic. The 1st Amendment is there to preserve a market place of ideas, not a market place of strategic intelligence during wartime.

That is nothing more than common sense.

So that, for a start, is a non-secquitur in discussing the NYT.

You might like to examine the SCOTUS decisions on “treason” and then consider why the Administration has not directly challenged NYT’s right to publish.

You might like to consider why it is that the earliest accusation (that I was able to trace) of NYT’s “treason” came from John Snow. If you can find something earlier than his statement please let me know. Why is it that FoxNews, and its various op-eders, spent the next 24 hours hammering the message to the faithful.

And you might like to tell us why, now that the Right-Hounds of the Blogskervilles have been released, the White House is doing nothing more about the NYT. Is it because they know the Blogskervilles are doing the work for them?

It really does put the intelligence of the Right-Hounds in question, though, when you consider that the whole raruraru is based upon the premise that terrorists needed to be told, could not work out for themselves, that there would be risks associated with the use of the international finance systems.

That is nothing more than an intellectual arrogance.

The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn’t give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the “freedom of the press” the Framers described was also called “freedom in the use of the press.” It’s the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.

The editors of Donklephant, myself & you should be happy to know that the NYT has no greater freedom to publish what it wants than us. Any belief to the contrary needs to come with some supporting historic and legal basis.

Be afraid, America.

I am absolutely sick of the common accusation of “treason� that has been going on the last few years.

Agreed. The moment Coulter used it as a book title a few years back, it started to lose all meaning. Now it’s some blanket word that people on the right like to use when they don’t approve of somebody’s actions. Completely ridiculous stuff, and I hate how they’ve so cheapened it. But then again, they’ve cheapened quite a few things in the last 6 years…

“It is a shame that you don’t understand the difference between partisan rancor and heated discussion.” – Sometimes there’s a difference and sometimes there’s not. In the case of Brian’s comment, I don’t really care what it was.

“You want tolerance but only if it doesn’t offend you.” – The point of tolerance is not to offend people, isn’t it? Don’t confuse tolerance with the right to free speech.

“Brian made a harsh statement and because he is conservative then his statement must be politically motivated?” – His statement was inappropriate, and I would call anyone out on such a statement, whether they were conservative, liberal, independent, whatever.

Who are those other quotes from? What is your point? Why are you defending Brian anyway? What is the soccer mom mentality?

I, personally, do not get offended by much. In fact, I’m usually the one who makes offensive statements. However, suggesting violence (and possibly extreme violence) befall someone is too far over the line for me. I suspect most people would agree. I guess I’m just a big baby. I’m not offended by that.

Now you’re getting it. The Soccer Mom mentality doesn’t have to apply to everything. Ever hear of ‘water off a duck’s back”? Perhaps it is my military service that allows me to dismiss rude and insensitive comments for what they are and not go off like a sensitivity training coach. You want tolerance but only if it doesn’t offend you.

I’m offended that you’re offended.

It is a shame that you don’t understand the difference between partisan rancor and heated discussion. Why is it that people like you try to make everything politically motivated? Brian made a harsh statement and because he is conservative then his statement must be politically motivated?

“Jeez, those kids really piss me off drag racing up my freakin street. I hope they slide into a telephone pole and go into a coma for 5 or 6 years.”

“Why must you always turn things into a political rant?! That talk is unacceptable. I’m so distraught… you’ll have to excuse me while I watch my recorded shows of Oprah.”

Please, spare us your Lilipution categorizations.

…It’s merely people getting angry at the perception of giving up information that could aid the terrorists.

As one commenter pointed out, if terrorists didn’t realize we were monitoring their financial transactions, they either haven’t been paying attention, stupid or a heavy combination of both.

Even though you can’t possibly know what was gained from this, you feel it’s safe to assume it was a complete waste of time? Of course the “higher ups” in Al-Qaeda knew about the tracking, but I’m sure there were plenty of people that weren’t aware and were funneling money in this way. If we weren’t gathering useful intelligence from it,
we wouldn’t have continued to do it.

On the subject of this post…
I read this blog every day. One of the main reasons I read is that I can
see some good debate in the comments, with both sides represented.
I’ve seen several debates between Justin in Brian_in_MA. For some reason, I think that if this had been Brian’s first post, Justin would not have taken the action. Just my opinion.

Seriously, if there is a valid argument, I would like to hear it.

There is no valid argument. It’s merely people getting angry at the perception of giving up information that could aid the terrorists.

As one commenter pointed out, if terrorists didn’t realize we were monitoring their financial transactions, they either haven’t been paying attention, stupid or a heavy combination of both.

Whenever I see things like this happen I can’t help but to flash to Colmes flailing over a comment from one of his guests- a comment that only has significance in that would fail a member of a hyper-sensitivity training seminar.

Are you perhaps referring to things that Coulter says? Like the Murtha comment? Please explain an example of this hyper-sensitivity.

And if it that’s hyper-sensitivity, isn’t what Brian said supreme hypersensitivity?

Also, explain to me why it’s hyper-sensitive to strongly question somebody when they say something like that?

To me, hyper-sensitivity is something completely different. And I think you’re really cheapening what it means.

Find another way to work political motivations into this drama? I think they’re already in. I’m confused as to what you mean by that comment. As far as sensitivity and hyper-sensitivity, I guess you’re arguing that we should all toughen up and stop being babies when someone says something we don’t like. Well, to me, being a baby would be getting really upset about it, dwelling on it and maybe crying about it. Being tough means stepping up to say “this is unacceptable, and I am not going to tolerate it.” Otherwise, maybe our whole country should just stop being so hyper-sensitive about all this terrorist stuff.

We’re not talking about a case of someone not using the correct PC term of the week.