Comments on: Reporters Could be Prosecuted Under Espionage Law, DoJ Says http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_.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: Stephen Craft http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_.html/comment-page-1#comment-858 Stephen Craft Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:11:39 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_under_espionage_law_doj_says.html#comment-858 The DoJ has the right to uphold the law as it is stated...doing their job in other words. The underlying issue here is a matter of securing certain information from being accessed by the wrong people via espionage or the media. Maybe we should all step back and take a look at how insecure our national security can be with 'confidential' documents. The media has a right to access information that is accessible so...why not declare such information 'secret' or 'top secret' and further secure the value of such information from the wrong parties. The real issue here sheds light on the cracks within our nation's means to actually secure information. The DoJ has the right to uphold the law as it is stated…doing their job in other words. The underlying issue here is a matter of securing certain information from being accessed by the wrong people via espionage or the media. Maybe we should all step back and take a look at how insecure our national security can be with ‘confidential’ documents. The media has a right to access information that is accessible so…why not declare such information ’secret’ or ‘top secret’ and further secure the value of such information from the wrong parties. The real issue here sheds light on the cracks within our nation’s means to actually secure information.

]]> By: LarryD http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_.html/comment-page-1#comment-857 LarryD Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:40:07 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_under_espionage_law_doj_says.html#comment-857 The Supreme Court has consistently held that the First Amendment prohibits <i>preventing publication</i>. In the Pentagon Papers case, several liberal members of the court held in their written opinions, that news organizations could be prosecuted <i>after</i> they had published. Otherwise they could never be charged with Libel, eh. By the way, the press has no First Amendment rights that you don't have. They get no special privileges or rights just because they work for a company that buys ink by the drum. Sherri, it was <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/" rel="nofollow">Richard Armitage who outed Plame</a>. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the First Amendment prohibits preventing publication.

In the Pentagon Papers case, several liberal members of the court held in their written opinions, that news organizations could be prosecuted after they had published.

Otherwise they could never be charged with Libel, eh. By the way, the press has no First Amendment rights that you don’t have. They get no special privileges or rights just because they work for a company that buys ink by the drum.

Sherri, it was Richard Armitage who outed Plame.

]]> By: Sherri Kasow http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_.html/comment-page-1#comment-856 Sherri Kasow Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:14:15 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_under_espionage_law_doj_says.html#comment-856 <i>"Those statutes, on their face, do not provide an exemption for any particular profession or class of persons, including journalists," wrote Matthew W. Friedrich, DoJ Criminal Division Chief of Staff, in a March 2007 response to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee that has been newly published."</i> Unless your name is Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby? I am still devastated the Administration had the audacity to out a CIA agent and walk away from it with a smirk on their faces. I need a shower. “Those statutes, on their face, do not provide an exemption for any particular profession or class of persons, including journalists,” wrote Matthew W. Friedrich, DoJ Criminal Division Chief of Staff, in a March 2007 response to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee that has been newly published.”

Unless your name is Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby? I am still devastated the Administration had the audacity to out a CIA agent and walk away from it with a smirk on their faces. I need a shower.

]]> By: John http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_.html/comment-page-1#comment-855 John Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:37:22 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_under_espionage_law_doj_says.html#comment-855 I find the DoJ's contention strange. It ignores the hierarchy of law, with the Constitution at the top. The First Amendment prohibits any law restricting freedom of the press. So yes, the Espionage Act does not exempt the press. It doesn't need to since the press is exempted by the 1st. Friedrich has got to be kidding. I find the DoJ’s contention strange. It ignores the hierarchy of law, with the Constitution at the top. The First Amendment prohibits any law restricting freedom of the press.

So yes, the Espionage Act does not exempt the press. It doesn’t need to since the press is exempted by the 1st.

Friedrich has got to be kidding.

]]> By: Matthew Saroff http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_.html/comment-page-1#comment-854 Matthew Saroff Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:23:30 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_under_espionage_law_doj_says.html#comment-854 This admin wants a UK-style Official Secrets Act. This is a bad thing. The Official Secrets Act is most often used to suppress embarrassing information, not sensitive information. This admin wants a UK-style Official Secrets Act.

This is a bad thing. The Official Secrets Act is most often used to suppress embarrassing information, not sensitive information.

]]> By: Sims http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_.html/comment-page-1#comment-853 Sims Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:09:43 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/08/reporters_could_be_prosecuted_under_espionage_law_doj_says.html#comment-853 The media helped to cut their own necks. The media helped this administration to get in office and now they may pay the price with the loss of their own freedom. What goes around comes around. The media helped to cut their own necks. The media helped this administration to get in office and now they may pay the price with the loss of their own freedom. What goes around comes around.

]]>