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.
Lestat - 12:03pm on 03/15/2008
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.
Rob - 12:03pm on 03/15/2008
"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.
Chief RZ - 02:03pm on 03/15/2008
“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.
Lestat - 02:03pm on 03/15/2008
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.
Chief RZ - 02:03pm on 03/15/2008
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.
Lestat - 04:03pm on 03/15/2008
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.
Rob - 04:03pm on 03/15/2008
Rob, would you “leak” us to the government for our opinions?
ellinas - 05:03pm on 03/15/2008
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.
Lestat - 05:03pm on 03/15/2008
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Rob, would you “leak” us to the government for our opinions?
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.