@ UtahBlueDevil: Prior to the election there were all kinds of top secret leaks
showing up in the liberal Obama favoring press. Of course these leaks were all
favorable to the Obama campaign for re-election. There were so many that both
congress and Romney questioned the risk to national security. So i guess as long
as the leaks are flattering to Obama and reported in that light by the liberal
press it's OK, but if the leaks are detrimental to the Obama image and
reported by the conservative press they are criminal. How convenient.
@Cougsndawgs - nice tag teaming. Exactly the response I would have made, only
you made it better. And if potential whistleblowers were fearful of approaching
a journalist in the future, people like UtahBlueDevil would be unable to make
the connection to the heavy-handedness of our current DOJ in fostering that
climate of fear.
@mike richardsYes, by all means, investigate all misdeeds. In the case of
the AP and IRS scandals, how about also investigating those who are demanding
that the president be removed from office? What is their agenda? What do they
have to gain? Who benefits most when the waters around the president’s
office is muddy? Who benefits most when he cannot do his duty? Somebody does not
want him to be able to do his job? Who is that person or persons? consistency
Mike thats all anyone is asking for.
@utebluedevilIf a newspaper wanted to publish the names of those with
concealed weapons permits, and received that information without solicitation,
yes...they would have the right to publish it under the first amendment. Of
course there will be outcry and they will have to deal with it. Our first
amendment rights don't include immunity to the natural consequences of our
actions. The press has to realize that there will be an outcry and fallout from
certain stories they publish. What you're insinuating is an argument
between what's ethical and what's legal. I don't believe
it's ethical to report classified information, especially pertaining to
national security. But it is legal under the first amendment, and taking that
right away from the press is tantamount to suppressing and oppressing the
publics ability to hold a powerful and corrupt government accountable,
regardless of who holds office.
We may believe that the first amendment or any amendment isn't important
but they are vital for an open and transparent government. We know Presidents
Nixon and Johnson had problems and Nixon got impeached and departed. However,
Daniel Ellsberg was an important part in helping the Vietnam war to close down
along with helping security become more realigned during Nixon's time.
Maybe it even started the Nixon process becoming history, also.Anyway, in late 1969—with the assistance of his former RAND Corporation
colleague Anthony Russo and the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy—Daniel
Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of classified documents to
which he had access and became known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed that
the Democrat government had knowledge, early on the Vietnam war could most
likely not be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many more
casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, as a New York Times editor, he
wrote much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, the
Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also
to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and
significance". Integrity is vital or no trust exists.
DSB - '@Craig Clark and UtahBlueDevil - you know not of what you write. The
press certainly does have rights to collect and report information that you and
I would not have the right to do. It is well established precedent"So. if the press were to gather the names of all those who had conceal and
carry permits - and publish those in a news paper.... that's ok? right....
shoe fits on both feet? I do recall a national outcry when a Northeaster
paper did so... and legislation by a republican was pushed to ban such a
practice. So where is the line for you...?@Redshirt - I am pretty
sure you would classify me as a liberal - and yet I didn't cheer at any of
those events you mentioned. So I don't know which liberals you are
referring to. No more so than I have seen Klan like characterizations of Obama
- and seen people cheer those - do I subscribe those peoples behavior to all
conservatives.There are always people who are outliers to any group
who do things that don't represent the populous as a whole. That is no
less true for liberals or conservatives.
Hillary won't stand for this when she's President.
@Craig Clark and UtahBlueDevil - you know not of what you write. The press
certainly does have rights to collect and report information that you and I
would not have the right to do. It is well established precedent. While they
cannot solicit classified information, they have every right under a
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press to receive it unsolicited from
anyone, including and especially whistleblowers.The well established
practice by which our government ferrets out inappropriate leaking of classified
information is by subpoena, and they have to make a case that the journalist
should be legally required to divulge the source. Journalists then often have
to make a choice between their journalistic integrity or their loyalty to a
sometimes heavy-handed government. The actions of the DOJ to
characterize James Rosen as engaging in illegal activity to a judge has a
chilling effect on investigative journalism and whistleblowing activity, and is
probably illegal, even if he was never officially charged with anything. These
actions are being roundly pilloried by nearly all major news organizations.Giving up critical rights to a powerful government seems a small matter
to many of our citizens today.
To "UtahBlueDevil" it is funny that you are so concerned now about
putting lives at risk by what news organizations publish. The fact is that
liberals cheered when the lives of soldiers were put at risk by publishing
pictures of the Iraq prisons. Then again they cheered when the Wiki leaks came
out. Why is it now that your ilk cares about protecting lives? Where were you
when soldiers were being killed because of the actions of the press?
As usual, too many rush to defend Obama before they even read the article. The article states: "Under U.S. law, it is not illegal to publish
classified information," Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Guardian. "That
fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what
has prevented the U.S. government from ever prosecuting journalists for
reporting on what the U.S. government does in secret. This newfound theory of
the Obama DOJ — that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for
'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information — is a
means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of
investigative journalism itself."Did you get that? It is NOT
illegal to for a newspaper to publish classified information.If it
were illegal, when the New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers" in
1971, that entire news organization would have been indicted. According to
Wikipedia, the Times house council, "James Goodale prevailed with his
argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information
significant to the people's understanding of their government's
policy."By the way, it wasn't until 2011 that that report
was de-classifed and released to the public.
to all those saying that the reporters are not above the law, and should have
there records sought out, well, THATS why we have subpoenas.....makes sense
huh...and lets not be giving a pass to obama here....lets try to be
subjective...it always amazes me how we can turn a blind eye when its
"our" guy in office...there seems to be a pattern here.......eh?????
@Mikeand yet another day of you making claims you have no proff to
support while crying about the unfair treatment of swallow.
And thus we see the absolute willingness to look the other way by our fellow
countrymen such as 'pragatist' and 'twocents' that will
defend the Dear Leader to the death. I wonder what they will be
saying when it all falls apart and chaos reigns? When our rights are a distant
memory and we are living in fear to speak our minds? Because that is exactly
where this is going, and if you can't see that, then there is no real hope
for you. Luckily, there are enough that are vigilant that will create a place of
refuge when it all hits the fan...
Having lived in Germany after WWII, there was still a significant feeling in
that country at how Hitler was able to take over their country and isolate
through their system a certain class of people through a governmental process of
registering and tracking. The impact of that act is known for the 6 million
plus besides their families and friends. How Hitler got to power and how he
maintained power through his tactics and schemes is also known. We relive
history but a lot of the history that is available is not taught anymore. We
get into our own little world of media devices and don't even talk to
people anymore. We don't read books with thoughts and ideas from others as
to why a certain civilization came into power and then went out of power. There
are people with evil designs. President Bush mentioned the evil axis and then
got into a war that took his eyesight off of those targets. This President said
he would do a lot of things in 2008 that haven't happened as he had an
agenda that is different from what he proposed. We need his real agenda to
prevent history reliving.
Here comes the newest in manufactured scandals.Fox News....isn't it
the station that is sanctioned by only the wonderful of the wonderfulist?Now they would not do this sort of thing, would they? They have never filled
their newscasts with disingenuous news concerning ourPresident!Has our
world ever noticed that whenever people are trying to vilify our President, a
higher power, along with mother nature, seem to get in their way, and the true
colors and love of our country comes through?Other issues, naturally, are
put on the back burner during these times of disaster. Politicians and
other groups tend to appear extremely silly and dishonest in the light of what
is really important.Just ask Chris Christie about this sometime.
UtahBlueDevil,"Freedom of the Press does not include breaking
and entering, violating others privacy, or putting the public in danger. They
are subject to the same laws everyone else is...."______________________________Well said, UtahBlueDevil.There have always been news reporters who test the limits of the First
Amendment as it pertains to a free press. Some have claimed legal privileges
that the courts do not recognize such as the legal right to keep news sources
confidential, even when certain documents obtained by a reporter have been
subpoenaed. Some reporters have gone to jail screaming about their rights. The
fact is, it’s illegal to withhold evidence in a criminal investigation or
court proceeding. I couldn’t get away with it myself.Freedom,
in our country, has never meant unrestricted license. The First Amendment right
of freedom of the press was never meant to grant the press a special
dispensation from the rule of law.
Sorry, folks, but I don’t see the press as the victim here. Publishing
classified documents obtained by means of questionable legality is not just
“doing their job” as some are trying to make it sound. If any
private citizen tried to pull something like that, you can bet that Federal law
enforcement would be all over them.
It is ironic. If Obama is successful in muting the press, then how will he
learn what is happening in the World? He only sees it on the news.
Obama and his administration have made a lot of mistakes as all presidents have.
I don't like Obama and I think he has the wrong vision for America. That
being said, the real problem is big government. The government is too big and
too powerful. We are losing our freedoms.
No journalist has been prosecuted for reporting and the Justice Dept. will not
prosecute Rosen. They had a search warrant not a subpoena. There was a criminal
investigation going on and the DOJ was going after a potential traitor (not
Rosen). A judge signed off on the warrant.Hypothetically, what
should you think be done if there was a mole in the government who was sneaking
out nuclear bomb info to a reporter who reported the details with the agenda of
reporting it because they were both anti war? What if that reporter were aligned
with a middle eastern radical group? Would you be this angry at the FBI and DOJ
(and therefore Obama) for using a search warrant?Where is the line?
So Blue Devil, have you ever been to or seen film of a Pentecostal church
service where one individual starts to celebrate and worship by shouting,
dancing, and crying and then pretty soon someone else starts, then another, and
then another until the whole congregation is eventually jumping, shouting, and
singing? Well that's exactly what the Republican party and the
contributors to this blog remind me of. It started with the screams
about talking points, moved on to low level bureaucrats, now it's circling
the press and it's secrets about national security. This from the party
who created the patriot act. But I guess what else do they have. The posters
here keep using the phrase "an administration completely out of
control". What's evident here is a segment of society that has lost
the control they thought they had and are fighting like a drowning cat to try
and gain back what they think they have lost.What's ironic is
in modern Republicanism we can lie, invade countries, crush the constitution,
and oh yea, leak national security secrets including citizens names, but all the
Democratic Presidents need to be impeached.
We had a chance for something better. We didn't make the right choice.
Now we are living with the consequences. Will we learn our lesson? I
don't know.Oh, but I forgot. The President only learned about
all this stuff from news reports.
Let's focus on the law that has been broken. It's called the Supreme
Law of the Land. It's also called the Constitution.1st
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Obama
does not believe that he is bound by the Constitution. He believes that his
authority supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land.Article 2, Section
4 requires that the President be removed from office for "high Crimes and
Misdemeanors". Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 describe the process to be used.
Can restricting the "freedom of the press" be considered
anything but high Crimes and Misdemeanors? That Amendment protects us from a
President who would keep us from knowing what he is doing as President and how
he is doing it.It's time that Congress did its job and started
impeachment hearings. No man is above the law, especially the man who swore an
oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
I just have to ask the question of why we are still putting up with this
administration? We have Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS targeting
conservative groups, and the wiretapping of journalists. Add the coming story of
gunrunning to Syria thru Turkey via Libya, and you have an overwhelming case of
a government and administration completely out of control. And the excuse by the
Dear Leader? 'I didn't know about ANY of this'. That is
disturbing no matter how you slice it. Either 1) he's lying (my personal
opinion) or 2) he is so incompetent that he lets anyone and everyone run wild
doing whatever they want.And yet 47& think he's doing a
bang up job and will support him against the 'racists' that dare
criticize him. The real problem isn't Obama--it is a complicit press and
apathetic voters or those with their hands out wanting whatever they can get
that are the real problem....
How does this differ from the "Patriot Act" law?Classified
info is being fed to a newspaper. Don't you want to find the spy? Just
how many violations of our privacy has occured since 2000, or is it we want it
both ways? I will enjoy it when the mean old white guys are voted out, then we
can have a discussion in Washington.
This is just another example of how the media feels it can report on items of
national security, that they can put peoples lives in danger, so that they can
have a by-line. I wish we had more facts about what the top secret materials
were that had been passed to this journalist.... it may be nothing. Or it may
have been information that could have put us anti-terroist operations in danger.
We just don't know yet.What I do know though is this was a
breach by a news organization that was forced to close its paper in England for
hacking into peoples personal email and voicemail accounts - in one case hacking
the phone number of an abducted young girl - deleting the saved messages - and
monitoring the families communications.Freedom of the Press does not
include breaking and entering, violating others privacy, or putting the public
in danger. They are subject to the same laws everyone else is. It is amazing
the outrage from the NRA types about the publishing of public documents about
gun owners, yet if top secret government documents are published - it is the
governments fault for trying to stop the leaks.
To Conservative Scientist, Coach B, Chris B, Hemlock, BrentBot, Ute Alumni,
4601, Cougsndawgs, and Uncle Rico: I couldn't have said it better
myself.Similar to Uncle Rico, I also say, I also voted for Mitt. Many of
us did not allow Obama to pull the wool over our eyes. We knew his "hope and
change" were really hopeless and bad change. But I honor those such as 4601
who show us that repentance is possible.
Obama does seem to operate like a dictator of third world country. This is his
mindset. This is what he knows. Use government to bully and intimidate. I think we are going to start seeing "I Voted For Mitt" bumper
@4601Those who actually expected change didn't bother looking
at the label. He's from Chicago. It is the dirtiest political scene in
America. Intimidation and corruption are legendary there. I am not surprised
by this at all.
Does anyone now doubt that Obama's administration has "intimigate"
in full force? Are we a Third World country now, with no people with any
scruples in charge?
4601I hate to tell you this but we did get change, a banana republic.
Mr. Obama is inspirational, but so were many politicians who have gone awry. As
the truth emerges about Mr. Obama and his administration, slick rhetoric has
given way to stylistic changes, opacity, deception and stone walling. Having
voted for Mr. Obama four years ago I am the most betrayed. His supporters are
defensive, his enemies are delighted and those of us who actually expected a
change are very disappointed.
Don't blame me, I voted for Mitt
It would appear that investigative journalism by perceived administration
enemies is becoming criminal. That's not a good sign for liberalism. They
are joining several past Republican administrations in having an enemy list.
First attack the second amendment and soften people's ideals about the
constitution, then target the first amendment while they believe the rhetoric
about how antiquated constitutional ideals are. Looks like this administration
is running things by the liberal playbook, and losing in the process...maybe
they aren't so "progressive" and "forward-thinking" after
This administration is completely unhinged. We get what we elected.
More evidence of liberals thinking they can bully anyone who disagrees with
them.And it all represents the leader of their party, barack obama
This is definitely the most open and transparent administration of all time!