Author Topic: Insurgents fire missle at F-15 (Read 1508 times)

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #45 on:** January 02, 2007, 11:17:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Working for a foreign government is an act of treason according to US law. The Rosenbergs were KGB agents. What this has to do with journalism and the freedom of the press only Brenjen knows.

The terrorist probaly had the journalist at gun point......

Viking · « **Reply #46 on:** January 02, 2007, 11:18:25 PM »

And ... ?

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #47 on:** January 02, 2007, 11:54:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
And ... ?

the journalist wouldn't care about any treason laws if they have a gun pointed at them

Viking · « **Reply #48 on:** January 02, 2007, 11:56:42 PM »

I think you misunderstand. You should read this thread one more time.

Brenjen · « **Reply #49 on:** January 03, 2007, 07:34:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Working for a foreign government is an act of treason according to US law. The Rosenbergs were KGB agents. What this has to do with journalism and the freedom of the press only Brenjen knows.

Apparently all the other rambling you did about subjects that had nothing to do with journalism escaped your attention even though you wrote it. Maybe it's you who should go back & read it again.

Or move to the U.S. & try out your theories of what is legal & what is not.

Viking · « **Reply #50 on:** January 03, 2007, 08:33:27 AM »

Care to quote some of my "rambling", or is this just your last desperate ad hominem attack?

Brenjen · « **Reply #51 on:** January 03, 2007, 01:30:38 PM »

"I'm afraid they are not. Plans are classified by government employees who are sworn to secrecy. There are no laws protecting the documents themselves. If you think there are, you wouldn't mind quoting such a law?"

That's one & the specific one I was talking about, no need to sling insults. I haven't & since when is replying to an open discussion an "attack"?

I think you need to get a visa & come here, test the laws & see what is legal & what is not. If you access secret information & disseminate that information you will be arrested, tried & jailed if not executed regardless of your nationality as long as you aren't protected by diplomatic immunity; in that case you would be shown the door...even though the U.S. can revoke said immunity & prosecute even those individuals who enjoy that protection.

It doesn't matter who gave it to you or where you are from or what your job description is, it's illegal to give out those secrets under our sabotage, espionage & treason laws. If you want to delve into hundreds of thousands of pages to find the specific law, be my guest but I think historical precedent speaks quite clearly on the matter.

*Disclaimer: No aggressive posture intended - for discussion purposes only

Viking · « **Reply #52 on:** January 03, 2007, 07:48:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Brenjen
That's one & the specific one I was talking about, no need to sling insults. I haven't & since when is replying to an open discussion an "attack"?

When you direct your argumentation toward the person rather than his argument it is called an ad hominem attack, or personal attack.

Quote

Originally posted by Brenjen
I think you need to get a visa & come here, test the laws & see what is legal & what is not. If you access secret information & disseminate that information you will be arrested, tried & jailed if not executed regardless of your nationality as long as you aren't protected by diplomatic immunity; in that case you would be shown the door...even though the U.S. can revoke said immunity & prosecute even those individuals who enjoy that protection.

It doesn't matter who gave it to you or where you are from or what your job description is, it's illegal to give out those secrets under our sabotage, espionage & treason laws. If you want to delve into hundreds of thousands of pages to find the specific law, be my guest but I think historical precedent speaks quite clearly on the matter.

Please don't ask me again to come to the USA and steal secrets; that's just retarded.

Quote

No recent Supreme Court case better illustrates the potential conflict between the imperatives of press freedom and national security than that of the Pentagon Papers.

In 1971, the Pentagon Papers -- the Defense Department's top-secret study of the growth of United States military involvement in Vietnam -- were leaked by a government official to The New York Times. On June 13 of that year, the newspaper began publishing articles based on the documents. When the government learned of this, the Department of Justice asked for a temporary restraining order, which was granted.

In its petition to the court, the executive branch of the government asserted that it should be the sole judge of national security needs and should be granted a court order to enforce that viewpoint. The newspaper countered that this would violate First Amendment press freedoms provided for under the U.S. Constitution. It also argued that the real government motive was political censorship rather than protection of national security.

On June 30, the Supreme Court -- in New York Times v. the United States -- ruled in favor of the newspaper, and the documents were subsequently published. The Constitution, the justices asserted, has a "heavy presumption," in favor of press freedom. The Court left open the possibility that dire consequences could result from publication of classified documents by newspapers, but said that the government had failed to prove that result in this instance.

The publication of the Pentagon Papers helped fuel the debate over the wisdom of U.S. involvement in Vietnam; however, most observers agree that the publication of the papers did not do injury to the national security of the United States.

The Pentagon Papers case proves the value of the First Amendment, says Jim Goodale, general counsel to The New York Times during the time of this landmark decision. "It serves as a shield against an overzealous government."

Goodale points out that the government has sought to stop publication of classified documents in other cases. Although it has won temporary restraining orders in some instances, he says he knows of no case where a court order to prevent publication has been "permanently granted."

Isn't it embarrassing that a foreigner knows more about your legal system than yourself?

john9001 · « **Reply #53 on:** January 03, 2007, 11:48:02 PM »

<>

dire consequences.

Brenjen · « **Reply #54 on:** January 04, 2007, 12:05:13 AM »

Whatever dude, you have to resort to personal attacks to rescue your hopeless position I never directed my argumentation toward the person rather than his argument; you did. You're just plain out flat wrong lol

Also I suggested you come to the U.S. to test our laws, it's you that's talking about stealing secrets, I was thinking something a little less ominous & fatal for you.

porkfrog · « **Reply #55 on:** January 04, 2007, 12:08:15 AM »

has anyone mentioned that the reporter (edit: who took the photograph) was probably French?

(snicker snicker, hehehehe=)

Viking · « **Reply #56 on:** January 04, 2007, 01:38:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
<>

dire consequences.

Read it right: "Dire consequences" for the country, not the newspaper. The only thing the government can hope to achieve is a permanent restraining order against the newspaper publishing leaked secret documents. IF the government can prove that such a publication would be a threat to national security (read "dire consequences"). No criminal charges have or will be filed against journalists or publishers.

---

Brenjen, you're just not worth the effort. Give my regards to ByeBye and the other simpletons.