Comments on: Recipients of “Leaks” May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:03:51 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Patriot in Dissent http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-624 Patriot in Dissent Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:11:12 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-624 You know, CB, life isn't always black and white. This is an interpretation of the vagaries of the law in regard to Constitutionality and to what extent that law reaches and may be enforced. Therefore, your oversimplification is symptomatic of the misunderstanding of most Amerians about what is slowly being done to dismantle Constitutional protections. These things don't happen in one fell swoop. The foundation is picked at little by little until the structure simply falls. Those who are perpetrating this atrocity are counting on the naivete', lack of education, and non-chalance of the masses to facilitate the completion of it.You are playing right into their hands.... You know, CB, life isn’t always black and white. This is an interpretation of the vagaries of the law in regard to Constitutionality and to what extent that law reaches and may be enforced. Therefore, your oversimplification is symptomatic of the misunderstanding of most Amerians about what is slowly being done to dismantle Constitutional protections. These things don’t happen in one fell swoop. The foundation is picked at little by little until the structure simply falls. Those who are perpetrating this atrocity are counting on the naivete’, lack of education, and non-chalance of the masses to facilitate the completion of it.You are playing right into their hands….

]]> By: Clarified Butter http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-623 Clarified Butter Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:37:04 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-623 There is no expansion here, the Judge is reaffirming the government's authority to enforce laws already on the books. Sheesh! CB There is no expansion here, the Judge is reaffirming the government’s authority to enforce laws already on the books. Sheesh!

CB

]]> By: Jaycie Ingersoll http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-622 Jaycie Ingersoll Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:51:09 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-622 The publication of Valerie Plames's name in Who's Who was part of her cover, I believe. And she WAS covered by the relevant statutes. Think about it; if a covert agent's cover has an expiration date, then all of her contacts during her time as a covert agent would be exposed and put in danger. The publication of Valerie Plames’s name in Who’s Who was part of her cover, I believe. And she WAS covered by the relevant statutes. Think about it; if a covert agent’s cover has an expiration date, then all of her contacts during her time as a covert agent would be exposed and put in danger.

]]> By: Mark Richards http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-621 Mark Richards Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:51:11 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-621 I guess this isn't so bad. It could be much worse: no trial. Just the door banging in at midnight, and it's all over. This is now possible if some hack administratively decides it. So we ought to be thankful that none have been set up yet: receiving sensitive information by email, in our post box, left in an envelope at our door, or through a phone call which are all monitored. Forget the newspapers in America. Truth now has to seep in from outside. A government system, so afraid its illegal actions will come to light that is must supresses the very means through which they may be exposed, is one best described as one rooted in tyranny. And this decision sort of puts a cherry on top of our sad cake. Now we can screw the rest of the amendments. Search and seizure. Property rights. Distinction between military and civilian authority. How dense Americans must be not to have finally figured out what's happening. I guess this isn’t so bad.

It could be much worse: no trial. Just the door banging in at midnight, and it’s all over. This is now possible if some hack administratively decides it.

So we ought to be thankful that none have been set up yet: receiving sensitive information by email, in our post box, left in an envelope at our door, or through a phone call which are all monitored. Forget the newspapers in America. Truth now has to seep in from outside.

A government system, so afraid its illegal actions will come to light that is must supresses the very means through which they may be exposed, is one best described as one rooted in tyranny.

And this decision sort of puts a cherry on top of our sad cake.

Now we can screw the rest of the amendments. Search and seizure. Property rights. Distinction between military and civilian authority.

How dense Americans must be not to have finally figured out what’s happening.

]]> By: RickD http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-620 RickD Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:02:47 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-620 Who's Who did not publish "covert operative" next to Valerie Plame's name. Don't you get tired of these silly talking points? They are so banal and stupid it seems that the intent is to frustrate any debating opposition with inanity. Who’s Who did not publish “covert operative” next to Valerie Plame’s name.

Don’t you get tired of these silly talking points? They are so banal and stupid it seems that the intent is to frustrate any debating opposition with inanity.

]]> By: Dean Esmay http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-619 Dean Esmay Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:00:16 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-619 Novak can't be prosecuted because Plame's name and identity are published in Who's Who, for anyone to look up, and because the only person to ever reveal that she may have been a covert operative at one time was her husband Joe Wilson. Now possibly Joe Wilson could be prosecuted, but it doesn't look like it because it doesn't look like Plame was covered by the relevant statute anyway. By the way, I see no encroachment on free speech in the court's determination. The relevant statute is almost a hundred years old and somehow America survived. By publishing classified info knowingly and willfully, they violated all our rights. I hope to see the prosecutions carried out to the fullest extent of the law. Novak can’t be prosecuted because Plame’s name and identity are published in Who’s Who, for anyone to look up, and because the only person to ever reveal that she may have been a covert operative at one time was her husband Joe Wilson. Now possibly Joe Wilson could be prosecuted, but it doesn’t look like it because it doesn’t look like Plame was covered by the relevant statute anyway.

By the way, I see no encroachment on free speech in the court’s determination. The relevant statute is almost a hundred years old and somehow America survived. By publishing classified info knowingly and willfully, they violated all our rights. I hope to see the prosecutions carried out to the fullest extent of the law.

]]> By: Charles T. http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-618 Charles T. Fri, 11 Aug 2006 03:59:08 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-618 I believe that this will be decided by SCOTUS because it goes far in curbing freedoms of speech that in previous rulings have been upheld and judgment postponed until after the fact. Historically, the court has been strongly reluctant of imposing a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights of speech. It is difficult to ascertain without reading the filings in the case just what legal arguments were presented, but the result reported is yet another peal of the death knell of the Constitution and the freedoms of the United States that have been sorely compromised under the oligarchy in power. I believe that this will be decided by SCOTUS because it goes far in curbing freedoms of speech that in previous rulings have been upheld and judgment postponed until after the fact. Historically, the court has been strongly reluctant of imposing a “chilling effect” on First Amendment rights of speech. It is difficult to ascertain without reading the filings in the case just what legal arguments were presented, but the result reported is yet another peal of the death knell of the Constitution and the freedoms of the United States that have been sorely compromised under the oligarchy in power.

]]> By: Prissy Patriot http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-617 Prissy Patriot Fri, 11 Aug 2006 03:13:42 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-617 Shadow Monkey- Not if he has immunity...personally I don't think he's stupid enough not to. He's shilled for this crowd before. Shadow Monkey-

Not if he has immunity…personally I don’t think he’s stupid enough not to.

He’s shilled for this crowd before.

]]> By: Tim F http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-616 Tim F Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:37:43 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-616 Question: I assumed that this is important enough to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Since I'm not a lawyer I cannot say whether that is true or not. Opinions? Question: I assumed that this is important enough to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Since I’m not a lawyer I cannot say whether that is true or not. Opinions?

]]> By: Timothy Burchfield http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html/comment-page-1#comment-615 Timothy Burchfield Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:40:58 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/recipients_of_leaks_may_be_prosecuted_court_rules.html#comment-615 So I guess Robert Novak can be prosecuted for releasing Valerie Plame's name and idenity!? So I guess Robert Novak can be prosecuted for releasing Valerie Plame’s name and idenity!?

]]>