Gonzales Says Publishing Leaks Is A Crime 889
loqi writes "The NY Times is reporting on a statement from US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declaring that journalists may be prosecuted by the federal government for publishing classified information. On the 1st amendment ramifications: "'But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity,' he said. 'And so those two principles have to be accommodated.'" So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?"
Chilling effects! (Score:5, Informative)
Now I've gotten my joke in, for those too lazy to install the firefox bugmenot extension [roachfiend.com] here's the article text:
Gonzales Says Prosecutions of Journalists Are Possible
The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales [nytimes.com] said yesterday.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."
"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
Asked whether he was open to the possibility that The New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Mr. Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."
"I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."
Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and "communications intelligence activities."
Those laws are the basis of a pending case against two lobbyists, but they have never been used to prosecute journalists.
Some legal scholars say that even if the plain language of the laws could be read to reach journalists, the laws were never intended to apply to the press. In any event, these scholars say, prosecuting reporters under the laws might violate the First Amendment.
Mr. Gonzales said that the administration promoted and respected the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment.
"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."
Mr. Gonzales sidestepped a question concerning whether the administration had been reviewing reporters' telephone records in an effort to identify their confidential sources.
"To the extent that we engage in electronic surveillance or surveillance of content, as the president says, we don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," he said. "And obviously if, in fact, there is a basis under the Constitution to go to a federal judge and satisfy the constitutional standards of probable cause and we get a court order, that will be pursued."
For those of you that don't read Digg... (Score:5, Informative)
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.
So much for the Pentagon Papers precedent. (Score:5, Informative)
The Introduction to the Court Opinion on the New York Times Co. v. United States Case [state.gov] (the Pentagon Papers case) opens with:
There are some other choice tidbits in there... such as (emphasis added):
Hmm....
--JoeRe:Gonzo needs to go back to law school. (Score:3, Informative)
No it isn't. It's illegal [cornell.edu] to threaten to kill the President of the United States. That's very different. You can talk about Wile E Coyote dropping anvils on the guy, and how hilarious that would be, until you're blue in the face.
I didn't know about this law [McCain-Feingold]. Sounds dumb if it really exists and is that specific. So, internet, radio, press, flyers, meetings are OK to criticize a political candidate, but TV is off limits for 60 days before an election? OK.
No, he just lied to you. What McCain-Feingold says [cornell.edu] is:
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
See the following link about undercover officers, as it was all i could find:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aMy58CMCA8AJ:
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:3, Informative)
How does that saying go? "The pen is mightier than the sword."
Well, I've never heard of a government being overthrown via a written document.
As we speak, people are loading up with ammunition. Its best to have between 20-30,000 rounds. Of course, its always better to have ammo and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't mean to brag about my country (although I enjoy it, it's such a rare occorance ;), but freedom is something we do really well. Infact of the four parts of the swedish constitution, the Freedom of the Press Act is the oldest one, dating back to 1766 (the three other parts are The Act of Succession, The Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression and The Instrument of Government). That act also includes whats known as "Offentlighetsprincipen", roughly translated as "The Publicity Principle", stating that all government documents (with certain exceptions, such as documents that would endanger national security and documents relating to matters under investigation, although no document may be withheld more than X number of years (I believe X=70, but I'm not sure)) should be readily available to the entire public. Basically, it's the same as The Freedom of Information Act. But Offentlighetsprincipen was included into the constitution in 1766! 1766! The US got it's in 1966, 200 years later.
I realise that I sound like a ridiculous patriot here, and I don't mean to offend anybody. It's just that while My Country might be lacking in many areas where other nations excel, there is one thing nobody can beat us in: Freedom, Civil Liberties, and a the most solid defence against a corrupt government in history.
Re:The plain fact of the matter... (Score:2, Informative)
Echelon complied with FISA [thinkprogress.org]. Bush's wiretapping program doesn't.
It's funny how the party that used to talk about "the rule of law" doesn't want to actually comply with the law...
Re:Perfectly sound reasoning (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit. The programs under the NSA do not solely tap the phones of terrorists. This administration has explicitly violated both Constitutional and federal law with regard to wiretaps, and they have no excuse; FISA even allows you to wiretap and then get a warrant 72 hours later. Nearly every "tip" in the administration's "terrorist surveillance program" had led to dead ends and innocent Americans [nytimes.com].
The government is legally required to get a warrant even to just check out what numbers people have been calling, without a wiretap, as mentioned in the previous linked article. The administration ignored that law and the judgements of the judges that held it up. Depending on what polls you subscribe to, anywhere from 30%-60% of Americans do have a problem with the NSA program collecting phone records. I definitely have a problem with it. Not everyone is a coward like you that would have complete safety from the Big Bad Terrorists in exchange for their privacy and their freedom.
Neither war nor terrorists give the government an excuse to trample on the law and the freedoms we are guaranteed.Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perfectly sound reasoning, unfettered by facts (Score:3, Informative)
You may think this is nuts, but this is what the law says. This is one reason why there a frequent clash between authorities and journalists is over revealing sources. The *source* of the classified info has committed a crime, so journalists who conceal their sources are concealing evidence in a criminal investigation.
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:3, Informative)
Bzzzt, thank you for playing.
The president has the authority to start the process to declassify things wherever he wants, like, actually, anyone who has access to classified material. If you know it exists, you can ask the right people to review the classification. He does not, however, have the authority to just say things outloud and magically declassify them.
Classification is a law, an ability granted under the law to the government. It's not something the president just invented. It is a legal process that the executive branch does, to classify and declassify information. This legal process is an external law, imposed by the legislative branch. (Because, duh, no one could be subject to criminal penalties for leaking otherwise.)
If anyone who is allowed to handle classifed information (That is, anyone who has signed the document they have to sign to do that.) leaks information that has not been though the procress and offically declassified, they are a criminal, as they have broken that law. Doesn't matter if they are the president, doesn't matter if they are the guy in charge of stamping 'Declassified' on the document and are five seconds away from doing so. The law requires the process, and the fact that the process is controlled by the executive branch doesn't mean people in the executive branch can ignore said process.(1)
Our president, of course, is rather confused about whether or not he has to follow laws passed by other branches of the government, but that's really hilarious when that logic tries to apply to classified data, as the concept of data being classified is, in fact, a concept that was invented by said laws.
This is all an aside to the question at hand here, which is whether or not someone who hasn't signed a documenting saying they won't leak classified info who receives and passes on said info can be punished, aka, an Official Secrets Acts. The US has not only never had one of those, there have been serious constitutional questions raised about such a thing in the past, back when we had a constitution.
1) OTOH, the president could probably alter the process to make it where he can get things declassified in minutes, by putting in people who would rubber-stamp his requests, or via all sorts of ways...but he didn't do that, so the issue is moot.
On the third hand, of course, the executive branch could just refuse to classify anything.
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
Magna Carta.
And why did King John sign the Magna Carta, again? Oh that's right, because if he didn't, all the nobles of England were threatening a civil war. So what was your point again?
Today's lesson in Hitler History. (Score:1, Informative)
Hitler did not have to invent a terrorist organisation called the Trust (or "the Base", or whatever) and did not blame it to be responsible for any act of violence against Nazi Germany.
That's a rather bold statement to claim that Bush invented Al Qaeda. I would point out that there are documents referring to the organization from the Clinton era at least, and one of the first briefings that Bush received was about the threat of "Al Qida" and Osama bin Laden. The organization has legitimately existed for well over a decade before 2000 and was behind several terrorist attacks before 9-11.
Also, Reichstag Fire. [wikipedia.org]
Hitler did not use of the phrase "Who is not with us, is against us" on a daily basis. He did not speak it with thick southern accent either.
Maybe not specifically, but his propoganda minister famously declared that all you need to get a country to go to war is to say that they are under attack and to denounce the pacifists for their "lack of patriotism." That's very clearly a "with us or against us" attitude.
Also, HItler was from southern Germany, FYI. He was originally from Austria but grew up in a variety of southern German cities.
Are you sure (Score:2, Informative)
Furthermore (Score:5, Informative)
Title 18, Sec 798 anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
title 18, sec 798 [cornell.edu]
And for the 90% of slashdot that's too lazy to look, here's the meat of this code: and according to this [washingtonwatchdog.org], its been around since 1998... so before you jump on the ever-popular bush+cronies bash wagon, why don't you take a look to see *when* it was you lost your civil rights... you'll find they've been slowly chopped away at for a long time, by democrats and republicans alike.
Press Code of Ethics (Score:3, Informative)
Associated Press Managing Editors. Code of Ethics. 1995
http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/apme.htm [asne.org]
Associated Press Managing Editors
Code of Ethics
Revised and Adopted 1995
These principles are a model against which news and editorial staff members can measure their performance.
They have been formulated in the belief that newspapers and the people who produce them should adhere to the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct.
The public's right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests.
No statement of principles can prescribe decisions governing every situation. Common sense and good judgment are required in applying ethical principles to newspaper realities. As new technologies evolve, these principles can help guide editors to insure the credibility of the news and information they provide. Individual newspapers are encouraged to augment these APME guidelines more specifically to their own situations.
RESPONSIBILITY
The good newspaper is fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent.
Truth is its guiding principle.
It avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner.
The newspaper should serve as a constructive critic of all segments of society. It should reasonably reflect, in staffing and coverage, its diverse constituencies.
It should vigorously expose wrongdoing, duplicity or misuse of power, public or private. Editorially, it should advocate needed reform and innovation in the public interest. News sources should be disclosed unless there is a clear reason not to do so. When it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of a source, the reason should be explained.
The newspaper should uphold the right of free speech and freedom of the press and should respect the individual's right to privacy. The newspaper should fight vigorously for public access to news of government through open meetings and records.
ACCURACY
The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.
It should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently.
INTEGRITY
The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects. It should provide a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, especially when such comment is opposed to its editorial positions. Editorials and expressions of personal opinion by reporters and editors should be clearly labeled. Advertising should be differentiated from news.
The newspaper should report the news laws without regard for its own interests, mindful of the need to disclose potential conflicts. It should not give favored news treatment to advertisers or special-interest groups.
It should report matters regarding itself or its personnel with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals. Concern for community, business or personal interests should not cause the newspaper to distort or misrepresent the facts.
The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises.
The newspaper should not plagiarize words or images.
INDEPENDENCE
The newspaper and its staff should be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers. Even the appearance of obligation or conflict of interest should be avoided.
Newspapers should accept nothing of value from news sources or others outside the profession. Gifts and free or reduced-rate travel, entertainment, products and lodging should not be accepted. Expenses in connection with news reporting should be paid by the newspaper. Special favors and special tr
Why no attacks on US soil since 9-11? (Score:3, Informative)
If you remember some of the goals spelled out by Osama. First Osama wanted the US military out of Saudi Arabia. Bush pulled our military out.
He wanted to goad us into war on their turf. The bombings of US interests were unsuccessful, Clinton didn't take the bait. He used law enforcement instead of the military. Out of frustration the planned a big attack that would get our attention. Bush took the bait and invaded Afghanistan. A limited war in Afghanistan is not quite what he wanted, but it seemed to keep him satisfied.
Where bush went wrong was his invasion of Iraq. bush has delivered beyond Osama's wildest wet dream. The longer we are there, the better for Osama's agenda (drain our treasury, weakening our military, and weakening us world wide). As long as bush delivers what Osama wants, we will not be invaded.
Back on topic
What is going on is a power grab. Cheney is a big believer in an imperial president (Read up on Leo Strauss and the neo conservatives). Cheney and his fellow neo cons believe in a society far different from what is spelled out in our constitution. They want a dictatorship. The term "decider" is a newspeak word for dictator. People should have taken note when bush openly stated his support of a dictatorship back in Dec 18 2000.
Gonzo's pronouncement is not a surprise to us in the trenches. We have been watching the neo cons working toward a Straussian inspired police state. They didn't need the threats when they had control of the media. His threats are a sign they are losing control.
We all need to get informed and get involved. Time is running out. Maybe leaks should not hit the media first, they should be spread to tens of thousands first, then published. That way there will be too many people to imprison.
When they threatened legal action against the people of Blackbox Voting, we spread the data all over the world. They couldn't stop us, there were too many of us. Rep Dennis Kucinich went as far as publishing the data on his website and dared the junta to come after him.
Resist and stay free
Re:I'm noticing a trend (Score:3, Informative)
Supreme Court Justice Goldberg mentioned the 9th Amendment quite pointedly in the majority opinion of a case that hinged on the 9th Amendment: "...Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government."
The Supreme Court has historically viewed the 9th Amendment as sort of a backstop to the fundamental concept of due process. Typically, a draconian law or order that might otherwise have a legal standing, can be ruled unconstitutional based on the 9th amendment - it's sort of the judicial equivalent of saying "that's not a very good idea". Maybe the PATRIOT Act should have been challenged on that basis.
-h-
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
whistleblower laws and signing statements (Score:2, Informative)
This includes whistleblower laws. He's basically ignoring them.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/0
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Informative)
We have a radically different view here in Sweden on welfare, and we pay for it. I'm fine with paying higher taxes, as long as the government will take care of me,and my fellow citizens, when we need it. It's called a social contract. That makes us no less free (it's not communism), and alot more safe. I can understand the economic argument for lowering taxes, but what I don't get is how having a strong welfare state makes the government bad.
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:4, Informative)
Ireland is currently the gateway into the EU for software developers as your job description results in an expedited work visa application, which is an effective pathway to EU residency. Once you have EU residency, you have a great deal of freedom to move around from there.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Congress shall make no law... (Score:2, Informative)
Information shall be declassified or downgraded by the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position; the originator's successor; a supervisory official of either; or officials delegated such authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official designated pursuant to Section 5.3(a)(1).
Do you notice that it says 'shall be' instead of 'can be', like you said it did? That's right. Information is owned by various agencies, and they 'shall be' the ones to declassify it, or anyone over them. (The procedures for transfering 'ownership' are also in that EO.)
It doesn't say they can declassify it whenever they want without any procedures, as you are implying it does for the president. If that were so, than anyone could declassify information they 'owned', haphardardly, and there would be no need for the actual process.
If the law says the person taking a car from an impound lot 'shall be' the owner, by your logic, the owner can break into the impound lot and take the car back however he wants. That's not how 'shall be' works...it's not authority to do anything, it's a restriction. It means the CIA can't declassify the Department of Defense's info, and stuff like that. It doesn't mean the Department of Defense can do whatever they want.
And I cited the same damn law as you, except I cited the procedures, like I said, and you cited the definations for some strange reason. My point was that classified information doesn't exist just with an executive order...it exists within an executive order which was created within the framework of a law, and, if the law says breaking the EO is illegal, breaking the EO is illegal, even if someone who has the authority to change the EO does it, because he doesn't have the authority to change the law.
Let's say a company hires someone to impliment an accounting policy, let's call them a comptroller. They do so, and then they are found to have been breaking their own policy, or the policy of their predecessors...do they get in trouble? Of course. It doesn't matter they could have, in theory, issued new accounting policies.
Both this comptroller and the president could have issued a policy that said 'Except when I do it, then it's authorized.'. Both of them didn't for the same reason: They were delibrately operating in secret.