Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AquaShrimp on January 01, 2007, 03:13:02 PM
-
(http://www.f-16.net/modules/PNphpBB2/files/l2264451_923.jpg)
An F-16 went down under mysterious circumstances just a few weeks ago, now this image of an F-15 being trailed by a surface to air missle was taken by a journalist in Iraq. Notice how the missle is aiming for the flares.
-
:O :O :O kewl pixture:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
An F-16 went down under mysterious circumstances just a few weeks ago,
mysterious? ROFL its not mysterious its a flippin bloody great big war.
now this image of an F-15 being trailed by a surface to air missle was taken by a journalist in Iraq.
judging by the smoke trail, the 'journalist' was standing pretty close to the missle as it was launched. hmmmm.
Notice how the missle is aiming for the flares.
hmmm yes, now that is strange, i geuss those flare could be used for dual purposes if they can work out exactly why the missle aimed for them. imagine that, a random chance photo and it provides us with possibilities for new anti-surface-to-air missle systems.
yes, im being a arse.
cool pic :p
-
I bet the journalist paid an insurgent with a Stinger to shoot at an F-15 and see if he could damage it, get a picture, then say look what the terriost have now, and make America hate our troops more.
-
"ROFL its not mysterious its a flippin bloody great big war."
you have no idea what a "great big war" is.
-
This is a counter-insurgency. Congress didn't declare war on Iraq.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you have no idea what a "great big war" is.
it is a bloody great war. the enemies of the UK and the USA once managed to kill over 30,000 of our lifeforms in one day....nea...in one hour.
now thats a bloody great war statistic if you're our enemy, wouldnt you say.
im sorry though, youre right, next time i feel like talking about war i will make sure i revisit some of history's hotspots and try to get killed or mutilated or some such something that would make my words worthwhile.
-
Is there a large image available?
-
It's going after the flares because it's an IR seeker.......
DUH!
I wouldn't doubt that the journalist was near the missle when it was orriginally fired. This wouldn't be the first time that journalists where embeded with the enemy.
-
Where'd we have 30,000 killed in an hour?
Antietam was just under 23,000 men in one day...around 7000 in one hour in the cornfield.
As far as I know that still stands as the bloodiest day in American history.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki would be the only times I could come up with. Those weren't enemies of USA/UK doing it to us either.
-
Hmmm missle going after the flares. Yep makes sense to me since it was probably a shoulder fired missle like the stinger or more likely an SA-7 or variant there of.
As for the F-16 that went down a few weeks ago, I heard it was an electrical problem that brought that plane down, not enemy fire.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
(http://www.f-16.net/modules/PNphpBB2/files/l2264451_923.jpg)
Yep... that'll raise the pucker factor pretty quick
-
Shoot, I've seen videos of journalists actually riding around with the insurgents as they do their attacks. One in particular involved mortaring a US base.
-
Many times the journalists have been suckered in there with false pretenses and once they're riding somewhere with armed terrorists, they have no other option than to comply.
One such event was the DHL cargoplane shooting. The journalists had no idea they were going to shoot a missile on a civillian plane.
-
Yea, the insurgents were carrying around the missile just to look cool. :huh
-
Originally posted by eagl
Yea, the insurgents were carrying around the missile just to look cool. :huh
No kidding. "suckered" my ass.
-
Video of DHL Airbus incident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBGit6tJaBg
Isn't it poor design that a plane damaged at the outer part of a wing loses all hydraulic controls?
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Where'd we have 30,000 killed in an hour?
Antietam was just under 23,000 men in one day...around 7000 in one hour in the cornfield.
As far as I know that still stands as the bloodiest day in American history.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki would be the only times I could come up with. Those weren't enemies of USA/UK doing it to us either.
One assumes he's talking about the first day of the Somme, though I confess I don't know if the US was a belligerent at that point.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
No kidding. "suckered" my ass.
Bwahah it's so easy to be an internet tough guy. You don't have what it takes to do a reporter job in Iraq and yet you're ready to blame the reporters who got pressured by armed insurgents. :rolleyes:
-
30,000 was a drunken typo after 48 hours awake at NYE parties.
i meant 3,000 and i was talking about the tragic WTC attacks.
-
Originally posted by Sombra
Video of DHL Airbus incident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBGit6tJaBg
Isn't it poor design that a plane damaged at the outer part of a wing loses all hydraulic controls?
All the hydraulic systems have to reach all the control surfaces. How do you propose to do that without making them vulnerable to damage near control surfaces?
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Shoot, I've seen videos of journalists actually riding around with the insurgents as they do their attacks. One in particular involved mortaring a US base.
Yes CNN is bad about that.... maybe the Victims family can start picking off CNN employees in response. Sickening to know we do not kill traitors in this country any more.
-
Shrimp,
Where did you find that photo?
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
Yes CNN is bad about that.... maybe the Victims family can start picking off CNN employees in response. Sickening to know we do not kill traitors in this country any more.
A reporters job is to remain neutral and report the events. If they'd take sides they couldn't report anything but biased reports.
Riding with an enemy en route to fight your own countrymen is of course pretty harsh. But not traitorship unless they gave away the troops position to the enemy.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Bwahah it's so easy to be an internet tough guy. You don't have what it takes to do a reporter job in Iraq and yet you're ready to blame the reporters who got pressured by armed insurgents. :rolleyes:
Internet tough guy? How the hell does that even apply to what I said? Funny comment from a guy who knows nothing about me yet makes an assumption about me "having what it takes" to do something. Who the hell are you?
-
Originally posted by eagl
Shrimp,
Where did you find that photo?
http://www.f-16.net in the general forums.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Shrimp,
Where did you find that photo?
Yes, it shows the F-15's flare pattern quite nicely don't you think?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
A reporters job is to remain neutral and report the events. If they'd take sides they couldn't report anything but biased reports.
Riding with an enemy en route to fight your own countrymen is of course pretty harsh. But not traitorship unless they gave away the troops position to the enemy.
Really? Where does it say that? Where do these pompous Ahole press "reporters" find this definition of a "reporter's" roll? Where does the Constitution provide for "reporter's neutrality" when the country is at war? How many Allied "reporters" ran around with Axis forces during WWII? How about in WWI? How many Northern "reporters" ran around with the Southern forces during the Civil War? How many "reporters" see as their job the broadcasting of enemy propaganda? Are you aware of the meaning of the words "traitor" and "sedition"?
trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME tre(i)so(u)n < AF; OF traïson < L trāditiōn- (s. of trāditiō) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition]
—Synonyms 1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.
The key words here are in bold. Where do citizens of the US and/or the coalition countries waging war in Afghanistan or Iraq lose their allegiance to the countries they are citizens of? I don't see anything in the US Constitution that allows "reporters" to participate in, or accompany enemy actions against the US, nor does it provide the right to broadcast enemy propaganda just so long as they don't provide the enemy with our troop positions. Also, as far as "unbiased reporting" is concerned how about press reports from the recent Israel/Hizballah conflict? They allowed Hizballah to escort them to see specifically the things only Hizballah wanted them to see which were damaged homes, schools, mosques, etc., yet they sure didn't show (or most of the time even mention) Hizballah launching thousands of rockets into Isralie towns from these very homes. How about CNN admitting a few years ago that they did not broadcast "unbiased" information from within Saddam's Iraq. They never warned anyone that the information CNN provided was filtered and manipulated by the Iraqi government and they continued to broadcast this propaganda for the express purpose of maintaining "access". Access to do what exactly? They were effectively members of the Iraqi propaganda machine. Let's not forget this either, how many news reels in WWII showed Axis snipers shooting American or British troops from the sniper's position?
Oh, I get your point. The press should only be "unbiased" when it's reporting negative things about the US or coalition. "Biased" reporting and broadcasting of propaganda is only acceptable when it damages the US or coalition and members of the Press get a free pass when it comes to loyalty and allegance to their own country. Got it.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
One assumes he's talking about the first day of the Somme, though I confess I don't know if the US was a belligerent at that point.
On the first day of the Somme, British casualties were closer to 60,000. I've no idea what German losses were, but that stands as the worst day ever for the British Army.
That was in 1916 and - no - America had not at that time joined the war.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Really? Where does it say that? Where do these pompous Ahole press "reporters" find this definition of a "reporter's" roll?
Journalism 101.
Nice neocon rant tho.
-
Journalists do not have a free hand to do whatever they want under freedom of the press. However, just because a reporter happened to be there when the missile was fired (if it even was a reporter who took that picture) doesn't make him or her a guilty of any crime. #1, if it was an American reporter (citizen of the United States of) they may have had no way of knowing about the missile & no way to warn the jet. #2 If it was a foreign reporter (al jazeera?) they aren't bound by our laws anyway.
I'm just glad my plane & my pilot was well equipped for the task & didn't go down. Way to go air force. I hope the eagle driver turned guns hot on that position & smoked those fools & the film was recovered by a U.S. ground damage assessment team. :aok
-
Originally posted by rpm
Journalism 101.
Nice neocon rant tho.
Jeeze, I had no idea Journalism 101 took precidence over the Constitution, ethics and morals. I think you prove my point since you apparently believe the press reports to the higher authority of truth (as they wish to portray it) and profit (which is of course the driving motivator behind news organizations). As far as a rant is concerned, I don't consider a short recitation of facts to be a rant but then perhaps I'm biased.
-
I notice there's a bad case of the Armchair General syndrome on here, the picture shows something aimed at a plane, so what ? doesn't change anything, life goes on, guy probably landed and told his friends about it then went and checked his email before heading of to write up a report, no big deal.
-
Originally posted by Viking
All the hydraulic systems have to reach all the control surfaces. How do you propose to do that without making them vulnerable to damage near control surfaces?
I was thinking:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_37_17/ai_108283297
The Centurion accident recalls the 1989 crash of a United Airlines [OTC: UALQ] DC-10 at Sioux City, Iowa. In that tragedy, the titanium disc in the tail-mounted engine shattered, and the resulting spray of shrapnel severed all three hydraulic lines, causing a complete loss of hydraulic power. Hydraulic fuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fuse) have since been installed in the tail portion of the No. 3 system to retain at least a minimum control capability should such an uncontained engine failure occur again. However, the NTSB noted that these fuses have only been installed in the tail area. "No hydraulic fuses are installed in any other area of the aircraft," the NTSB said.
The NTSB's recommendation included various protective actions: Installing stronger wing access panels to prevent burst tires from severing hydraulic lines, shielding the hydraulic lines, installing fuses in the wing area, and rerouting the lines to provide greater separation between systems.
Maybe later Airbuses have them?
-
A couple of questions:
1. Is the USA actually in a state of war (legaly)?
2. Isn't freedom of the press part of the US Constitution which contains the following: "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." ? (rhetorical question I guess)
3. Was the photographer/journalist a US citizen? I would think the majority of freelance journalists in Iraq are not Americans for obvious reasons.
4. Final question: Why would you deny yourselves such an abundant source of intelligence?
-
Originally posted by Sombra
I was thinking:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_37_17/ai_108283297
The Centurion accident recalls the 1989 crash of a United Airlines [OTC: UALQ] DC-10 at Sioux City, Iowa. In that tragedy, the titanium disc in the tail-mounted engine shattered, and the resulting spray of shrapnel severed all three hydraulic lines, causing a complete loss of hydraulic power. Hydraulic fuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fuse) have since been installed in the tail portion of the No. 3 system to retain at least a minimum control capability should such an uncontained engine failure occur again. However, the NTSB noted that these fuses have only been installed in the tail area. "No hydraulic fuses are installed in any other area of the aircraft," the NTSB said.
The NTSB's recommendation included various protective actions: Installing stronger wing access panels to prevent burst tires from severing hydraulic lines, shielding the hydraulic lines, installing fuses in the wing area, and rerouting the lines to provide greater separation between systems.
Maybe later Airbuses have them?
I have no idea. Seems you would have to seed the whole hydraulic circuit with fuses to protect it against random damage though. The missile could have hit just about everywhere on the plane. If it is simple I think Boeing and Airbus would have done so a long time ago.
-
Originally posted by Viking
A couple of questions:
1. Is the USA actually in a state of war (legaly)?
2. Isn't freedom of the press part of the US Constitution which contains the following: "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." ? (rhetorical question I guess)
3. Was the photographer/journalist a US citizen? I would think the majority of freelance journalists in Iraq are not Americans for obvious reasons.
4. Final question: Why would you deny yourselves such an abundant source of intelligence?
Yes, of course the US is in a state of war, or conflict if you wish; however, we were not in a "legal" state of war with the USSR yet people were still convicted of espionage. The actual status of Iraq as a hostile country still existed from Desert Storm, the conflict was never "legally" ended, it was only a cease fire. Even so, the bottom line is there is no requirement for the country to have declared war for an act, or acts, to constitute either treason or sedition.
There are limits to freedom of speech and the press. The classic "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", libel, and slander are all restrictions on Constititional rights that are freely accepted by the courts and have centuries of legal precidence.
Don't know the photographer's background in this case. I was responding to comments some others made regarding the roll of the press in general when questions are raised as to the source and purpose of published material. In addition, you're right, much of what the press will broadcast does not originate from it's own emploees which actually further brings into question the legitimacy of their broadcasts. Recently, there was a freelance photographer who produced hundreds of pictures of the Israel/Hizballah conflict that were reproduced around the world. Many of his pictures were later found to be doctored by him to put the Israelies in a bad light. This happens all the time and for the press to unquestionly and even enthusiastically publish such material is unethical at least.
Even if the product is not doctored after the fact the very choice of material recorded, published and/or broadcast can be a huge source of bias. I was in Perth Austrailia back when there were protests about American nuclear weapons on ships. During the port call some demonstrators showed up at the pier to protest. I was there and saw them, there were maybe 50 total. I was with a group of Aussie friends that were there to visit the CV. There were over 2,000 in line to do that. Over 20,000 visited during that day, all friendly and all embarassed by the leftest protesters. I later got a letter from home and my family was asking about the demonstration because it appeared to be very bad, they had recorded the US news broadcast of it and sent it along. Turns out the press photographers had taken pictures from above the crowd and zoomed in so you couldn't see the limits of the small group. Could have been 50, could have been thousands. Guess how the press chose to portray it? They used words like "huge, massive, untold hundreds", etc. If they had simply zoomed out everyone would have seen that there was no story. If they had simply turned their cameras around they could have seen literally thousands that wanted to visit the ship, not protest it but that didn't fit their pre-conceived (read prejudiced) story line.
The press is not a great source of intelligence but it can be useful. When it comes to their broadcasting of enemy propaganda, they are showing what the enemy wants us to see for strategic or tactical reasons. This is the problem with our supposedly unbiased press, they have agendas of their own. These agendas may vary and be driven by ideology (BBC) or profit (CNN) but they exist none the less.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
There are limits to freedom of speech and the press. The classic "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", libel, and slander are all restrictions on Constititional rights that are freely accepted by the courts and have centuries of legal precidence.
Libel and slander are not restrictions on Constitutional right of freedom of the press. You can print what ever you want, but if someone can prove you have printed a lie they can sue you for libel or slander. Very different thing. As long as you report the truth there is nothing the US legal system can do about it, nor does the US have secrecy laws.
In fact if a journalist had gotten a copy of the US plans to invade Iraq prior to the event (without committing a crime in the process), said journalist could have published it causing untold problems for the US forces, perhaps even lives lost. However the journalist would not have committed a crime according to US law, and according to the US Constitution Congress cannot make a law making it a crime.
-
Originally posted by Viking
In fact if a journalist had gotten a copy of the US plans to invade Iraq prior to the event (without committing a crime in the process), said journalist could have published it causing untold problems for the US forces, perhaps even lives lost. However the journalist would not have committed a crime according to US law, and according to the US Constitution Congress cannot make a law making it a crime.
i am so glad viking lives in norway.
-
Thank you! I'm glad I live here too! :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Libel and slander are not restrictions on Constitutional right of freedom of the press. You can print what ever you want, but if someone can prove you have printed a lie they can sue you for libel or slander. Very different thing. As long as you report the truth there is nothing the US legal system can do about it, nor does the US have secrecy laws.
In fact if a journalist had gotten a copy of the US plans to invade Iraq prior to the event (without committing a crime in the process), said journalist could have published it causing untold problems for the US forces, perhaps even lives lost. However the journalist would not have committed a crime according to US law, and according to the US Constitution Congress cannot make a law making it a crime.
Libel and slander are in fact very real restrictions as you state. In these cases the legal questions are actually much more than are they "true" but also the motivation for doing so (including malicious intent) and damages. The fact that there are restrictions and rules regarding what can be legally published are limits to the freedom of the press.
Regarding publishing of secret US plans there most certainly would be a law broken and the journalists are at the very least accomplices and guilty of aiding and abetting. Plans are classifed and restricted by law. The only way for journalists to get ahold of them are if they are legally declassified or if they are stollen. As the press knows this they are participating in a crime by receiving and publishing them. This is precisely the point of several cases now pending in US courts, the fact that the press has been allowed to get away with this in the past does not make it legal.
-
Freedom of the Press is very important. However it has overlapped military security in some instances.
If you need to have absolute secrecy, don't embed reporters in military units. Remember when Geraldo started drawing in the sand the location of the unit he was in?
For the most part, people who try to censor the media are not working for your benefit. Knowledge is power.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Libel and slander are in fact very real restrictions as you state. In these cases the legal questions are actually much more than are they "true" but also the motivation for doing so (including malicious intent) and damages.
Please show me a case where a journalist or media company has been successfully prosecuted for libel or slander (or anything) when they have reported the truth.
Originally posted by Mace2004
The fact that there are restrictions and rules regarding what can be legally published are limits to the freedom of the press.
To my knowledge there are no such rules or limitations. Please provide a source for these rules and limits?
Originally posted by Mace2004
Regarding publishing of secret US plans there most certainly would be a law broken and the journalists are at the very least accomplices and guilty of aiding and abetting
US secrets have been published on numerous occasions, but no one has been successfully prosecuted. Companies like Jane's could probably not have existed if what you say is correct.
Can you provide a case where someone has been successfully prosecuted for publishing secret information?
Originally posted by Mace2004
Plans are classifed and restricted by law
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?
Originally posted by Mace2004
The only way for journalists to get ahold of them are if they are legally declassified or if they are stollen
Or if a third party releases the documents by mistake (or criminal intent). The journalist does not have to commit a crime in the process. Possession of classified documents is not a crime. If you think it is please quote the relevant law?
Originally posted by Mace2004
This is precisely the point of several cases now pending in US courts, the fact that the press has been allowed to get away with this in the past does not make it legal.
I'm sure many will be prosecuted, but I doubt they will be convicted. Time will tell.
-
You might want to check with julius and ethel rosenberg about what is legal & what isn't in the U.S. when it pertains to secrecy
-
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.
-
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......
-
And ... ?
-
Originally posted by Viking
And ... ?
the journalist wouldn't care about any treason laws if they have a gun pointed at them
-
I think you misunderstand. You should read this thread one more time.
-
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.
-
Care to quote some of my "rambling", or is this just your last desperate ad hominem attack?
-
"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
-
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.
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.
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?
-
<>
dire consequences.
-
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. :rofl
-
has anyone mentioned that the reporter (edit: who took the photograph) was probably French?
(snicker snicker, hehehehe=)
-
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.