Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Eugene Robinson of the WaPo on AP/Fox
27 views
Skip to first unread message
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 8:47:28 AM5/21/13
to
Good read
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administration-mistakes-news-for-espionage/2013/05/20/0cf398e8-c17e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html
In both instances, prosecutors were trying to build criminal cases
under the 1917 Espionage Act against federal employees suspected of
leaking classified information. Before President Obama took office,
the Espionage Act had been used to prosecute leakers a grand total of
three times, including the 1971 case of Daniel Ellsberg and the
Pentagon Papers. Obama’s Justice Department has used the act six
times. And counting.
Obviously, the government has a duty to protect genuine secrets. But
the problem is that every administration, without exception, tends to
misuse the “top secret” stamp — sometimes from an overabundance of
caution, sometimes to keep inconvenient or embarrassing information
from coming to light.
If this had been the view of prior administrations, surely Bob
Woodward would be a lifer in some federal prison. The cell next door
might be occupied by my Post colleague Dana Priest, who disclosed the
CIA’s network of secret prisons. Or by the New York Times’ James Risen
and Eric Lichtblau, who revealed the National Security Agency’s
eavesdropping program.
A federal “shield” law protecting reporters from having to divulge
their sources means nothing if it includes an exception for cases
involving national security, as Obama favors. The president needs to
understand that behavior commonly known as “whistleblowing” and
“journalism” must not be construed as espionage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administration-mistakes-news-for-espionage/2013/05/20/0cf398e8-c17e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html
In both instances, prosecutors were trying to build criminal cases
under the 1917 Espionage Act against federal employees suspected of
leaking classified information. Before President Obama took office,
the Espionage Act had been used to prosecute leakers a grand total of
three times, including the 1971 case of Daniel Ellsberg and the
Pentagon Papers. Obama’s Justice Department has used the act six
times. And counting.
Obviously, the government has a duty to protect genuine secrets. But
the problem is that every administration, without exception, tends to
misuse the “top secret” stamp — sometimes from an overabundance of
caution, sometimes to keep inconvenient or embarrassing information
from coming to light.
If this had been the view of prior administrations, surely Bob
Woodward would be a lifer in some federal prison. The cell next door
might be occupied by my Post colleague Dana Priest, who disclosed the
CIA’s network of secret prisons. Or by the New York Times’ James Risen
and Eric Lichtblau, who revealed the National Security Agency’s
eavesdropping program.
A federal “shield” law protecting reporters from having to divulge
their sources means nothing if it includes an exception for cases
involving national security, as Obama favors. The president needs to
understand that behavior commonly known as “whistleblowing” and
“journalism” must not be construed as espionage.
xyzzy
May 21, 2013, 10:05:06 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 8:47 am, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good read
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administ...
last five years. But I think I might have seen the tail of one
sticking up through the tall grass recently.
> Good read
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administ...
>
> In both instances, prosecutors were trying to build criminal cases
> under the 1917 Espionage Act against federal employees suspected of
> leaking classified information. Before President Obama took office,
> the Espionage Act had been used to prosecute leakers a grand total of
> three times, including the 1971 case of Daniel Ellsberg and the
> Pentagon Papers. Obama’s Justice Department has used the act six
> times. And counting.
>
> Obviously, the government has a duty to protect genuine secrets. But
> the problem is that every administration, without exception, tends to
> misuse the “top secret” stamp — sometimes from an overabundance of
> caution, sometimes to keep inconvenient or embarrassing information
> from coming to light.
>
> If this had been the view of prior administrations, surely Bob
> Woodward would be a lifer in some federal prison. The cell next door
> might be occupied by my Post colleague Dana Priest, who disclosed the
> CIA’s network of secret prisons. Or by the New York Times’ James Risen
> and Eric Lichtblau, who revealed the National Security Agency’s
> eavesdropping program.
>
> A federal “shield” law protecting reporters from having to divulge
> their sources means nothing if it includes an exception for cases
> involving national security, as Obama favors. The president needs to
> understand that behavior commonly known as “whistleblowing” and
> “journalism” must not be construed as espionage.
As mentioned before, there's been a lot of crying of "wolf" over the
> In both instances, prosecutors were trying to build criminal cases
> under the 1917 Espionage Act against federal employees suspected of
> leaking classified information. Before President Obama took office,
> the Espionage Act had been used to prosecute leakers a grand total of
> three times, including the 1971 case of Daniel Ellsberg and the
> Pentagon Papers. Obama’s Justice Department has used the act six
> times. And counting.
>
> Obviously, the government has a duty to protect genuine secrets. But
> the problem is that every administration, without exception, tends to
> misuse the “top secret” stamp — sometimes from an overabundance of
> caution, sometimes to keep inconvenient or embarrassing information
> from coming to light.
>
> If this had been the view of prior administrations, surely Bob
> Woodward would be a lifer in some federal prison. The cell next door
> might be occupied by my Post colleague Dana Priest, who disclosed the
> CIA’s network of secret prisons. Or by the New York Times’ James Risen
> and Eric Lichtblau, who revealed the National Security Agency’s
> eavesdropping program.
>
> A federal “shield” law protecting reporters from having to divulge
> their sources means nothing if it includes an exception for cases
> involving national security, as Obama favors. The president needs to
> understand that behavior commonly known as “whistleblowing” and
> “journalism” must not be construed as espionage.
last five years. But I think I might have seen the tail of one
sticking up through the tall grass recently.
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
May 21, 2013, 10:05:40 AM5/21/13
to
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 10:21:23 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 9:05 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Canis lupus!
I'm vulpes vulpes
the_andr...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 10:32:09 AM5/21/13
to
PrinceGunter
May 21, 2013, 10:39:57 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:47:28 AM UTC-5, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> A federal “shield” law protecting reporters from having to divulge
>
> their sources means nothing if it includes an exception for cases
>
> involving national security, as Obama favors. The president needs to
>
> understand that behavior commonly known as “whistleblowing” and
>
> “journalism” must not be construed as espionage.
In a 6-3 ruling in New York Times vs. United States, the court said that government secrets that compromise national security could not be subjected to prior restraint, but upheld the right of the government to prosecute for their publication.
> A federal “shield” law protecting reporters from having to divulge
>
> their sources means nothing if it includes an exception for cases
>
> involving national security, as Obama favors. The president needs to
>
> understand that behavior commonly known as “whistleblowing” and
>
> “journalism” must not be construed as espionage.
Until this issue is re-examined, there's no legal barrier to filing these types of subpoenas, nor any barrier for approval by a judge. So the only recourse available to the press is to sue the administration and get a more definitive answer on the question of how much freedom do they have to publish this type of information without government scrutiny. The problem? The press may not get the answer they want. The irony? Obama's authority would probably be upheld by the votes of uber-conservative appointees Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.
Michael Press
May 21, 2013, 3:47:34 PM5/21/13
to
In article
<5f09ab83-acc0-47af...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Meanwhile somebody in the government blabbed the
existence and identity of a deep cover agent in a
hot zone.
--
Michael Press
<5f09ab83-acc0-47af...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
existence and identity of a deep cover agent in a
hot zone.
--
Michael Press
Wolfie
May 21, 2013, 5:24:40 PM5/21/13
to
"PrinceGunter" wrote
> In a 6-3 ruling in New York Times vs. United States, the
> court said that government secrets that compromise
> national security could not be subjected to prior restraint,
> but upheld the right of the government to prosecute for
> their publication.
government hadn't met its burden of proof for prior
restraint in that case.
PrinceGunter
May 21, 2013, 5:44:42 PM5/21/13
to
PrinceGunter
May 21, 2013, 5:47:42 PM5/21/13
to
Wolfie
May 21, 2013, 6:08:08 PM5/21/13
to
"PrinceGunter" wrote
Look up there at the "almost impossible" quote of yours.
"Almost impossible" is NOT "impossible." There is NOTHING
in Federal case law which rules out prior restraint of the press,
including NY TImes vs US, and plenty of case law which says
it's allowed in certain cases.
"Almost impossible" is NOT "impossible." There is NOTHING
in Federal case law which rules out prior restraint of the press,
including NY TImes vs US, and plenty of case law which says
it's allowed in certain cases.
PrinceGunter
May 21, 2013, 7:10:03 PM5/21/13
to
True, but the NYT decision seemed to indicate the court would only exercise prior restraint in the case of congressionally declared war. We haven't had one of those in 80 years.
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 7:17:18 PM5/21/13
to
couldn't remember how it played out
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 22, 2013, 12:04:56 PM5/22/13
to
"PrinceGunter" <slippymi...@yahoo.com> wrote
> True, but the NYT decision seemed to indicate the court would only exercise prior restraint in the case of congressionally
> declared war. We haven't had one of those in 80 years.
It would be so cool if the weaseling "authorizing use of force" came back
to bite their ass because it was not a formal declarization.
--Tedward
> True, but the NYT decision seemed to indicate the court would only exercise prior restraint in the case of congressionally
> declared war. We haven't had one of those in 80 years.
to bite their ass because it was not a formal declarization.
--Tedward
0 new messages