Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
That top secret FoxNews leak thingy ...
19 views
Skip to first unread message
PrinceGunter
May 20, 2013, 4:46:26 PM5/20/13
to
I just read a white-paper by a law professor stating that there has never been a prosecution of a member of the press for disseminating state secrets.
Is that true?
As a civil war buff, I just assumed there had been a few cases here and there ... when reporters compromised his security, Sherman used to arrest them on the spot and ship them back to the city from which they came. I suppose none of these incidents ever rose to the level of a legal prosecution, just a summary dismissal from the department by a surly military commander.
Is that true?
As a civil war buff, I just assumed there had been a few cases here and there ... when reporters compromised his security, Sherman used to arrest them on the spot and ship them back to the city from which they came. I suppose none of these incidents ever rose to the level of a legal prosecution, just a summary dismissal from the department by a surly military commander.
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 20, 2013, 5:07:46 PM5/20/13
to
"PrinceGunter" <slippymi...@yahoo.com> wrote
-----
Wars are different. The prof prolly is excluding said situation.
--Tedward
Wars are different. The prof prolly is excluding said situation.
--Tedward
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
PrinceGunter
May 20, 2013, 6:49:36 PM5/20/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:07:46 PM UTC-5, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> "PrinceGunter" wrote
No, the paper specifically mentioned that there are no exceptions for war. However, in the following URL, it's mentioned that in New York Times vs. United States a 6-3 majority rules that the government could not prevent the publication of secrets that harmed national security, but could prosecute the press for publishing such secrets. Given that ruling, the government has every right to file legal subpoenas against the press until such time as the ruling is tested by the Supreme Court.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/Silver.pdf
Interesting stuff ...
> "PrinceGunter" wrote
https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/Silver.pdf
Interesting stuff ...
CheeseHusker dos
May 20, 2013, 10:25:31 PM5/20/13
to
>
> Interesting stuff ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wasn't there a huge kerfuffle about the Pentagon Papers and the NYT
back in the 70s?
Interesting line in the sand for the above case - you can print, but
we can prosecute your for it.
PrinceGunter
May 21, 2013, 6:00:14 AM5/21/13
to
If the press REALLY wanted to answer this question, wouldn't they would sue the Obama administration for filing the subpoena? The irony is that the risk is probably too great with Roberts as chief justice ... they may not get the answer they want.
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 21, 2013, 10:34:40 AM5/21/13
to
"PrinceGunter" <slippymi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6ff262f8-994d-49a2...@googlegroups.com...
I should have said *civil* wars are different, as relevant to Sherman:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it." That means they can detain you for WTF. I did not say
I like it.
As to war in general, martial law can apply, but it does not necessarily
apply to everyone/everywhere.
--Tedward
0 new messages