Author Topic: NYT better get Lawered up... (Read 2188 times)

weaselsan · « **on:** December 30, 2005, 07:11:25 PM »

Department of justice is opening an investigation into leaks. I hope they lock them so far back up in jail they'll have to pump air to em'.

leaks probed

midnight Target · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2005, 07:16:38 PM »

Funny, but I think the people who leaked the info are the ones who are in deep doo doo. The NYT can still print the truth whenever it wants to. Unfortunately (for this administration) freedom of the press is right up there with speech and assembly.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2005, 07:23:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The NYT can still print the truth whenever it wants to.

When was the last time it wanted to?

midnight Target · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2005, 07:32:35 PM »

bout time, I left that curveball hanging right in the sweet spot.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2005, 07:34:34 PM »

If you don't swing at 'em they count against you for a strike.

Hangtime · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2005, 07:36:01 PM »

New York Times?

Wonder what their motivation is?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #6 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:09:00 PM »

I hope they find the person and prosicute them. Here's what I find funny. Even with all the sensationalist the sky is falling journalism, this is what they end up with.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #7 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:13:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Funny, but I think the people who leaked the info are the ones who are in deep doo doo. The NYT can still print the truth whenever it wants to. Unfortunately (for this administration) freedom of the press is right up there with speech and assembly.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is despicable, but not illegal, for the news media to publish vital national secrets leaked to them. But the leakers have committed a felony.
Those who have demanded severe punishment for whoever it was who told reporters that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA have been remarkably forgiving about who leaked the existence of the NSA intercept program, which - like the earlier leak of secret CIA prisons for al-Qaeda bigwigs and unlike the Plame kerfuffle - has done serious harm to our national security.

But fortunately, by clapping New York Times reporter Judith Miller in irons until she talked, overzealous special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has set a valuable precedent.

Attorney General Gonzales should subpoena Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau, and have them cited for contempt of court if they do not disclose their source or sources. Maybe they could share Judy Miller's old cell -Jack Kelly

john9001 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:45:02 PM »

don't forget about the media telling ben laden that the US govt was listening to his cell phone calls, he don't use his cell phone anymore, thanks "freedom o' da press"

Dago · « **Reply #9 on:** December 30, 2005, 09:31:35 PM »

The NYT better remember what Bush thought about doing to Al Jeezera cause he didnt like what they were saying.

Dowding · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2005, 01:33:49 AM »

Quote

It is despicable, but not illegal, for the news media to publish vital national secrets leaked to them.

But when the government uses leaks for their own purposes, that's ok? It's a well known tactic in the Western democracies to use leaks for all kinds of purposes - from rubbishing party rebels within party ranks to gauging public reaction.

But then again the government is above that sort of thing, of course.

Thrawn · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2005, 03:29:45 AM »

I am constantly amazed by some of the people on this board.

Bush pisses all over your Constitutional rights (vis a vis the fouth amendment), tries to break the balance of powers regarding the judicial branch. And you guys want to see the NYT times get charged for exercising thier first amendment rights.

WTF?

Amazing how fast the investigation into this leak got started compared to the Plame leak eh?

Cripes, Al Qaeda might be able to take some lives, but they can't take your freedom. Bush sure is trying to do that though. I am amazed that the people are willing to accept a more risk prone environment regarding having the freedom to bear arms aren't willing to do so over other issues. Freedom, security and all that.

Dago · « **Reply #12 on:** December 31, 2005, 08:02:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
I am constantly amazed by some of the people on this board.

Bush pisses all over your Constitutional rights (vis a vis the fouth amendment), tries to break the balance of powers regarding the judicial branch. And you guys want to see the NYT times get charged for exercising thier first amendment rights.

WTF?

Amazing how fast the investigation into this leak got started compared to the Plame leak eh?

Cripes, Al Qaeda might be able to take some lives, but they can't take your freedom. Bush sure is trying to do that though. I am amazed that the people are willing to accept a more risk prone environment regarding having the freedom to bear arms aren't willing to do so over other issues. Freedom, security and all that.

Well lets see, if my choice is they listen to some phone calls, or terrorists kill thousands of innocent civilians, maybe someone I know or love, I'll go with listen to the phone calls of people calling overseas to known Islamic extremists lands.

Maybe if they had killed a few thousand Canadiens in Toronto and wanted to kill thousands more in the future, you might have a slightly differant tolerance level. Kinda puts things like an emotional dislike of Bush and a juvenile agenda against him in second place on your priority scale.

Sixpence · « **Reply #13 on:** December 31, 2005, 09:09:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
Well lets see, if my choice is they listen to some phone calls, or terrorists kill thousands of innocent civilians, maybe someone I know or love, I'll go with listen to the phone calls of people calling overseas to known Islamic extremists lands.

Maybe if they had killed a few thousand Canadiens in Toronto and wanted to kill thousands more in the future, you might have a slightly differant tolerance level. Kinda puts things like an emotional dislike of Bush and a juvenile agenda against him in second place on your priority scale.

What a bunch of BS, they can still do that doing through the court, and quickly. The reason they don't want to go through the court is they don't want a paper trail. There is no record of who they listened to or why they were listening to them. Nixon is having a good laugh somewhere.

Dago · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2005, 09:38:50 AM »

To go to the courts, you have to already have evidence. Like it or not, this allows them to figure out who to keep an eye on, and who to gather evidence on. It's not pretty, but it is casting a wide net to capture the right fish. Extreme actions to stop extremists.

Your version basically would require them to wait until after a tragedy to figure out who did and and then gather the evidence. Bushs idea is to catch them before they commit the act. It may not sound as pretty, listening in to the overseas calls without court permission, but I feel in this situation the ends justify the means.

Do you really feel anyone is suffering a great harm that exceeds that of innocent people killed?