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

[CrusaderFrank]

Spying on US citizens =\= Normandy Invasion

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[dblack]

Who would argue that if in 1944, a reporter obtained the classified (of course) detailed plans for the D-Day invasion, from someone inside the military with access, and then published them, that he would be immune from any sort of prosecution?

If you do believe that, why?

This is always the fallback, once you've been show to be promoting corrupt government, the excuse is "WE'RE AT WAR!!!"

Well, No. We're not.

Actually we are but what's the difference? And what's your answer?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe that the media has the right to publish classified material then you have to believe that the government does not the right to enforceable laws protecting classified information.

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

Oh yeah, no laws were broken.

It can't be both; they are mutually exclusive.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is always the fallback, once you've been show to be promoting corrupt government, the excuse is "WE'RE AT WAR!!!"

Well, No. We're not.

Actually we are but what's the difference? And what's your answer?

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.

 

[whitehall]

Did the statute of limitations expire for Woodward and Bernstein?

 

[dblack]

Actually we are but what's the difference? And what's your answer?

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?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on CNN's "AC 360" Tuesday night that reporters should be prosecuted for publishing stories with leaked classified information.

Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story of the NSA's phone record collecting practices last week, expressed his disbelief at King's remarks on Twitter.

It is not illegal to publish classified information in the United States, and no reporter has ever been prosecuted for doing so. But an affidavit to obtain a search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen's email account, surfaced by the Washington Post last month, invoked the possibility that he could be criminally liable for soliciting state secrets from a government source.

It is not illegal to publish classified information in the United States, and no reporter has ever been prosecuted for doing so. But an affidavit to obtain a search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen's email account, surfaced by the Washington Post last month, invoked the possibility that he could be criminally liable for soliciting state secrets from a government source.

More: Rep. Peter King: Reporters Should Be Prosecuted For Publishing Leaked Classified Information (VIDEO) - By Braden Goyette

I'm not a Peter King fan, but does he have a point?

No I think we ought to prosecute Peter King instead for perjuring himself when he took an oath to protect the constitution and the people he was elected to serve! For being complicit in assisting a tyrannical govt who is violating the Bill of Rights, The Constitution, the laws of this land! For calling a witch hunt on the one person that knows the truth about the corruption and over reach of this government and was willing to give up his own life ( as he knew it ) in order to warn the American People! Which is a darn sight more than Peter King is doing right now!

-Jeremiah

 

[Lakhota]

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not a Peter King fan, but does he have a point?

No, you actually are a Peter King fan, because he's a Totalitarian, just like every Communist and Fascist that you religiously support and believe will do no wrong. You don't' trust the people, and you don't desire the Rule of Law.


It's not LEFT vs RIGHT, It's Liberty vs Depostism, You're a Despot.

I completely agree this is not a left vs right issue. However, this is also not a liberty vs despotism issue. The is a balancing act between what is legal and what is illegal. Anyone who thinks the NSA, FBI, CIA, DOJ, DOD or any number of other government organizations have not been spying on us for at least the last 70 years has been fooling themselves. Of course they have and they will continue to do so. It doesn't matter who is in the white house.

Correct.

And until a Federal court determines otherwise, these policies are both legal and Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

What Greenwald may or may not do is not the issue, and of course King is wrong about ‘prosecuting’ Greenwald.

At issue is whether or not the government has a valid prior restraint claim, where the argument can be made that the intelligence gathered is exempt from First Amendment protections, where the government might indeed compel the press to refrain from publishing the intelligence information.

 

[Lakhota]

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

What Greenwald may or may not do is not the issue, and of course King is wrong about ‘prosecuting’ Greenwald.

At issue is whether or not the government has a valid prior restraint claim, where the argument can be made that the intelligence gathered is exempt from First Amendment protections, where the government might indeed compel the press to refrain from publishing the intelligence information.

1. Sure Greenwald is an issue since he has a shitload of leaked documents that he may or may not publish.

2. Peter King is a joke, so whatever he does will be nothing more than political theater. King isn't worried about little Constitutional conflicts when he's on a mission.

 

[Oddball]

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

What Greenwald may or may not do is not the issue, and of course King is wrong about ‘prosecuting’ Greenwald.

At issue is whether or not the government has a valid prior restraint claim, where the argument can be made that the intelligence gathered is exempt from First Amendment protections, where the government might indeed compel the press to refrain from publishing the intelligence information.

2. Peter King is a joke, so whatever he does will be nothing more than political theater. King isn't worried about little Constitutional conflicts when he's on a mission.

Irony, thy name is Spamahontas!

 

[Oddball]

If you believe that the media has the right to publish classified material then you have to believe that the government does not the right to enforceable laws protecting classified information.

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

Oh yeah, no laws were broken.

It can't be both; they are mutually exclusive.

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.

 

[Lakhota]

What Greenwald may or may not do is not the issue, and of course King is wrong about ‘prosecuting’ Greenwald.

At issue is whether or not the government has a valid prior restraint claim, where the argument can be made that the intelligence gathered is exempt from First Amendment protections, where the government might indeed compel the press to refrain from publishing the intelligence information.

2. Peter King is a joke, so whatever he does will be nothing more than political theater. King isn't worried about little Constitutional conflicts when he's on a mission.

Irony, thy name is Spamahontas!

Is being weird your sole purpose in life?

 

[Oddball]

Wow...Irony on top of irony!

 

[MikeK]

I'm not a Peter King fan, but does he have a point?

King is a blustering gasbag and a knee-jerk right-wing low-life.

The real problem, which is rarely if ever mentioned, is absence of exacting standards for classifying information. As it is these increasingly authoritarian government bureaucrats can classify anything -- including correspondence with lobbyists and other items which should not be hidden from public scrutiny.

As for items of a military nature, do you believe the video of the helicopter machine-gunning of those innocent Afghanis, including a two year-old girl, which was done in your name and mine, should not be revealed to us? How about the torture and sadistic mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib? These things are being done in our name by a corrupt government which has no right to hide them from us.

The past three decades has transformed our Nation from a respected and honorable democracy into something surpassing our worst impressions of the old Soviet Union. The U.S. has become a nation of militant, hegemonic baby-killers and we are universally despised. And much of that is because our government keeps everything it's doing a secret.

 

[Lakhota]

It's been more than "three" decades.

 

[auditor0007]

So it's justification in your lib/slant mind must be to do the wrong thing, especially against the constitution......

Well if Bush supposedly did it why can't Obama do and and take it to another level.

After all, he was able to spend more in less time than anyone President in our history. Why not make the spying every other president did look tame in comparison?

Bush never said that. Have you ever tried to research it? I did. It came from a liberal website called Capitol Hill Blue. There are thousands of references and links all ending up right back at Capitol Hill Blue.

It's a liberal lie that everyone now thinks is true because he has gone through the liberal echo chamber. They say it over and over to one another. Because liberals said it so many times, they heard it many times. Therefore it must be true.

Except it's not.

I highly doubt Bush ever said that. Of course I highly doubt much of the crap reported on conservative blogs also.

 

[Lakhota]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vB7i8LR5KhY]Peter King wants Greenwald taken down for NSA reporting - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Politico]

If they're writing a story on something that isalready out there then it makes no difference. It if it is not that's a different story.