Say Anything Blog

Is that really a situation we want?  Is this really what the founders envisioned when they guaranteed a free and independent press in the Constitution?

Yes and yes.

With freedom comes responsibility, Lestat.  Why should the media be able to publish “leaks” of information with impunity?

Do you not care that the “leakers” may have an agenda of their own and may be manipulating the media, and thus us, by only selectively releasing information that is beneficial to them?

I hardly think that’s a situation the founders meant to endorse with the 1st amendment.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"leaking” classified military information is more than a crime.  It is not only unpatriotic, but sedition and is punishable by hanging in times of war, which is what we are in now, the same as against the JAPS in WW II.

Communism is evil

“leaking” classified military information is more than a crime.  It is not only unpatriotic, but sedition and is punishable by hanging in times of war, which is what we are in now, the same as against the JAPS in WW II.

It always depends on what the leak is.  Leaking information about an illegal classified military operation would be patriotoc.

Lesat.  The term illegal could not be proved before the fact.  If you go down that road, then anything could be admitted in court if the outcome was guilty.  Each Officer--NCO or commissioned has a moral obligation to refuse an illegal order.
There are enough unpatriotic people who think that any military operation is illegal, so, I disagree with you.  Leaking any classified documents is punishable by federal laws.  Period.

Communism is evil

The term illegal could not be proved before the fact.  If you go down that road, then anything could be admitted in court if the outcome was guilty.  Each Officer--NCO or commissioned has a moral obligation to refuse an illegal order.

Enlisted have the same obligation.  But how do they determine an illegal order?  At some level it has to be s judgement.  If you are right you are a hero, if you are wrong you go to jail.  That same judgement could be made when somebody leaks classified information.

Leaking information about an illegal classified military operation would be patriotoc.

Sure it would, but who gets to decide what is illegal and what isn’t?  Isn’t that a judge?

So why not let the judge also determine whether or not the leaker has to come forward?  Again, what this is is a blank check for the media not any sort of protection.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, would you “leak” us to the government for our opinions?

Sure it would, but who gets to decide what is illegal and what isn’t?  Isn’t that a judge?

No, it is the jury.

Actually, Lestat, your naivete is showing.  It would be a judge, perhaps within the scope of a larger legal battle, that would decide whether or not a reporter should be compelled to divulge his/her source.

Remember that it was a judge who put Judith Miller in jail for contempt.

Personally, I think a judge being able to compel and reporter in that way is a good thing.  That way someone making an illegal leak of information will think twice before doing so.  If their cause is just they can rest assured that they’ll be ok.

If their cause is something less than kosher, perhaps a political agenda or maybe the leak was totally erroneous, they’ll know that they may face the wrath of a judge or prosecutor.

Personally, like the idea of consequences especially for reporters who have proven, time and again, that they can’t be trusted any more than the politicians.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Only in a jury trial, lestupid.

e, fear not! I have taken the liberty of turning your anti-American ass into the FBI. Don’t thank me! It was my pleasure.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Actually, Lestat, your naivete is showing.  It would be a judge, perhaps within the scope of a larger legal battle, that would decide whether or not a reporter should be compelled to divulge his/her source.

My comment was about whether the leak would be illegal, not to who holds people in contempt.

That way someone making an illegal leak of information will think twice before doing so.  If their cause is just they can rest assured that they’ll be ok.

You love the government so much you want to stop all whistleblowing.

e, fear not! I have taken the liberty of turning your anti-American ass into the FBI. Don’t thank me! It was my pleasure.

2Hotel9 on March 15, 2008 at 05:49 pm

I allways thought of you as a rat.

2hotel9 now I know why that car is parked across the street from my house! Tommorow I shall offer them some freshly brewd cofee and a nice breakfast. I will also let them know that you the super patriot blew their cover.

The ironic thing is that this big push came after a CIA officer’s identity was leaked to the press.  Instead of being concerned about how to stop such leaks, in which the whistle-blowing doesn’t reveal any crime but is itself the crime, we decided to enable them —to make sure that if anybody else wants to reveal the identity of a CIA agent, they can do so without getting caught.  That made a lot of sense.

Your right. Richard Armitage should be in jail for telling people the name of a CIA employee.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem