Rep. Peter King: Prosecute Reporters For Publishing Leaked Classified Information

[TemplarKormac]

Dear Representative King,

Let's persecute you for lying to the American people to get your job! Not only should we persecute you, we should go after the other 534 others who did the same thing! NONE OF YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB.

If anyone needs to be persecuted, it's our congress.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we're genuinely at war, we operate under a different set of rules. War is a state of desperation where our survival as a nation is at stake. During such urgent circumstances we 'shoot first and ask questions later'. The War on Terror is not really a war. It's linguistic con to get us to give up our freedom permanently. No thanks.

So if it's, say, the Cold War, i.e., not a 'real' war, and someone in the CIA decides to turn over a list of undercover agents, working against the Soviets around the world, to someone in the press,

and that someone decides to publish it for all the world to see,

you're claiming freedom of the press is still trump?

jeezus.

Largely, yes. The Cold War was the same kind of conceit. The War on Terror was concocted largely as its functional replacement.

But let's be clear what we're talking about here. Greenwald didn't give up secret agents. He published the truth about widespread violations of our privacy rights. Can you comprehend the difference?

That is too subjective and baseless an assertion to be of any value in this conversation.

 

[Oddball]

So if it's, say, the Cold War, i.e., not a 'real' war, and someone in the CIA decides to turn over a list of undercover agents, working against the Soviets around the world, to someone in the press,

and that someone decides to publish it for all the world to see,

you're claiming freedom of the press is still trump?

jeezus.

Largely, yes. The Cold War was the same kind of conceit. The War on Terror was concocted largely as its functional replacement.

But let's be clear what we're talking about here. Greenwald didn't give up secret agents. He published the truth about widespread violations of our privacy rights. Can you comprehend the difference?

That is too subjective and baseless an assertion to be of any value in this conversation.

Baseless and subjective assertions never stopped you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which "enforceable laws" have been broken here, tovarch?

Oh yeah, no laws were broken.


Right....Hence your entire missive is the most circular of circular reasoning.

The person who turns the information over to the press can be convicted under the law, but once the press has its hands on it,

the government loses its right to enforce the law,

despite the fact that the whole point of the law is to allow the government to keep certain material secret.

So you have to pick a side. Freedom of the press to expose classified material to the public, or the right of the government to use the classifying of certain material as a security measure.

Pick one.

I picked a side...The side of the 1st Amendment.

Aren't you also one of those who says that one of the only legitimate functions of the federal government is national defense?

How do you defend those two conflicting stances, by rejecting the right of the government to protect classified material?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) called for the prosecution of Glenn Greenwald, a journalist for The Guardian whose stories based on interviews with National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden detailed the agency's phone and Internet spying programs.

Fox News' Megyn Kelly asked King on Wednesday whether he believed that Greenwald and Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, who also wrote about the program, should be prosecuted for publishing the leaks.

"I’m talking about Greenwald," King said. "Greenwald, not only did he disclose this information, he has said that he has names of CIA agents and assets around the world, and they're threatening to disclose that. The last time that was done in this country, we saw a CIA station chief murdered in Greece ... I think it should be very targeted, very selective and certainly a very rare exception. But, in this case, when you have someone who discloses secrets like this and threatens to release more, yes, there has to be -- legal action taken against him."

More: Peter King: Prosecute Glenn Greenwald

Who exactly is Glenn Greenwald with The Guardian. Can he be trusted not to release more of Snowden's leaks? I'm not so sure. The following link gives some interesting (or troubling) insights...

Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greenwald is one of those liberals the Right likes to claim don't exist, i.e., the ones who didn't flip flop on issues just because Obama was elected president.

 

[dblack]

So if it's, say, the Cold War, i.e., not a 'real' war, and someone in the CIA decides to turn over a list of undercover agents, working against the Soviets around the world, to someone in the press,

and that someone decides to publish it for all the world to see,

you're claiming freedom of the press is still trump?

jeezus.

Largely, yes. The Cold War was the same kind of conceit. The War on Terror was concocted largely as its functional replacement.

But let's be clear what we're talking about here. Greenwald didn't give up secret agents. He published the truth about widespread violations of our privacy rights. Can you comprehend the difference?

That is too subjective and baseless an assertion to be of any value in this conversation.

In other words "You called my bluff, let's talk about something else.... "