The mainstream media seems to believe that they are above the law. they feel that anything that they do should be protected by law, no matter if they are engaging in actions that walk close to the line of treason. Today, Breitbart News is reporting that New York Times reporter James Risen, one of the two reporters who blew the whistle on the US government's use of overseas wire-tapping (a program, mind you that has not been declared illegal) is being subpoenaed over his source in a 2006 book on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
According to Breitbart,
Attorney David N. Kelley said the subpoena issued last week seeks the source of information for a chapter of James Risen's book "State of War" regarding CIA efforts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. Risen plans to fight the subpoena, Kelly said. The reporter has been ordered to appear before the grand jury in Alexandria, Va., on Feb. 7. "He has an agreement of confidentiality with his sources and he intends to stand by that in the highest degree of journalistic traditions," Kelley said. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the paper "strongly supports Mr. Risen and deplores what seems to be a growing trend of government leak investigations focusing on journalists, particularly in the national security area."
To me, this is simply more evidence that the Press needs to be reined in. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Press appointed to be the arbiter of what information can and should be released to the public. And there is no defense against publishing information, as the Times is so pleased to do, that helps America's enemies and causes the deaths of Americans.
In addition, the Press seems to think that they are a class above ordinary Americans. Where in the Constitution do they find a right to refuse to assist in grand jury investigations? The sourses of many of these reporters are in fact breaking the law, and the reporters are at the very least accomplices in this law-breaking. Especially if the law-breaking, as in the NSA and SWIFT cases hurts the ability of the US government to protect its citizens, then the Press should have absolutely no protection. Unfortunately, Risen and the Times have shown time and again that they would rather see their countrymen killed by Muslim extremists than lift a finger to help his government protect them. And since most of the press is virulently anti-American and anti-George W. Bush, they will try to wrap their actions in the cloak of the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does not give the press any exemption for the responsibilities of assisting in criminal cases, which is what this is.
Ultimately, I hope that the court sends Risen to jail for a good long time and fines both him and his employer for their disrespect for the law. And this should be more evidence that the Press needs to be taught a sharp lesson about where the First Amendment ends and their responsibilities as American citizens begin. I believe that while we desperately do need a free press, it is time Congress passes a law specifying that if classified information is released like this, then reporters must assist in the subsequent investigations or face trial as accomplices. In addition, they ought to face punitive fines and jail time until they release their sources. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
YES!!
February 1, 2008 - 16:21 ET by JimmybobI hope this all works. Because we (our country) have been hurt in ways that I can't tell you. (it would be a secret). In time of war, there are just some things that need to be KEPT secret. Find out where this info is coming from. Fix the leak and maybe a few newspapers might just think about our country more the next time info comes their way. Maybe by taking away their business licence like we should be doing to businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. If we only had a law for that, wait a minute....
Yes, again!
February 1, 2008 - 18:05 ET by ThalpyYes, again! We must never have another protracted "conflict." There should be a Declaration of War, and thereafter, any release of classified documents would be considered treasonous. Of course, we would have to keep an eye on what constitutes "classified."
Current law allows for
February 1, 2008 - 18:11 ET by BDCurrent law allows for punishment of those who release classified material in an unauthorized manner, but the political will has never been present to exercise it.
What a shame.
MSM Example of "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"
February 1, 2008 - 16:34 ET by PSPCplThe NYT and its ilk in the MSM realized their power to sway opinion before and during WWII: Stalin and Hitler taught them. When the next generation "brought down" Nixon, their egos reached gianormous (as my daughters say) proportions.
Exacerbating the situation is their liberal/Socialist/Communist ideology and the attendant sense of superiority that this brings. They are akin to the Catholic priests and bishops who took part in the Inquisition. They yell "McCarthyism" whenever anyone takes them to task for their views and their actions, yet they are true practioners of so-called "McCarthyism".
I have hoped and prayed that someone in the executive branch's law enforcement community would grow a pair of onions and start investigating and prosecuting these people the same way they would prosecute any other traitor. As Benjamin Rush said, "Where there is no Law, there is no Liberty; and nothing deserves the name of Law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community." There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that implies that the Press ins't part of the community.
Ironic
February 1, 2008 - 16:35 ET by KC MulvilleOn the one hand, there's a recent post about La Raza wanting to prevent us from criticizing lawbreakers. Here we have the New York Times demanding that we protect the intentional exposure of legal secret programs. How's that for a legal pretzel twist?
Want to hear another legal pretzel? If the surveillance program was legal, and the exposure of the program was also legal, then on what legal ground can you disobey the subpoena? The exposure of a government secret, without the justification of exposing wrongdoing, means that you can't use the excuse that you're protecting a whistleblower. Therefore, on what grounds can you refuse the subpoena?
When the Shoe Is On the Other Foot
February 1, 2008 - 16:44 ET by BeresfordJim Risen and his colleagues at the NY Times expend great effort to expose the sources and methods of the CIA and the U.S. intelligence community. These sources and methods, by the way, are intended to try to stop terrorists and weapons proliferators.
Yet when the government tries to find out Risen's sources -- individuals who may be putting the lives of Americans at risk -- the Times finds this deplorable. They assures us that Risen performs up to the highest standards of their industry. Hate to see what those at the low end of their profession might do.
I LOVE this crap ...
February 1, 2008 - 16:56 ET by drillanwrNo ... I REALLY do.
These are the same damn people who, when something such a 9-11 happens, are out there demanding "what did so-and-so know, and when did so-and-so know it? ... Why DIDN'T we know this was going to happen before hand ... Why didn't the so-and-so White House administration `connect the dots"?"
In this case, and MANY since 9-11 and the surge of Homeland Security and national security in this country the MSM, and the NYTimes in particular WOULD be one hell of a big dot if/when the next American soil attack happens. They put themselves `in play' with crap such as these "leaks".
trust but verify
February 1, 2008 - 17:20 ET by"...one of the two reporters who blew the whistle on the US government's
use of overseas wire-tapping (a program, mind you that has not been
declared illegal) ..."
It's not only "overseas" and should be deemed illegal. There is a legal
procedure to listen in on suspected terrorists, why not do it by the
book?
Like Ronald Reagan said "trust but verify." The only reason you wouldn't go by the book is spelled out too well in "1984."
It's not only "overseas"
February 1, 2008 - 17:45 ET by BDIt's not only "overseas" and should be deemed illegal.
Please prove that it is being used against domestic targets.
Furthermore. Answer this question....If a division of Cuban paratroopers parachuted into South Florida, would the US government be foreced to gain a warrent to monitor their traffic and communications?
What if those paratroopers infiltrated the US coast?
"Please prove that it is
February 1, 2008 - 18:34 ET by"Please prove that it is being used against domestic targets."
You can't prove anything, there is no outside oversight. They listen in to whom they please.
I would listen in on Warren Buffet and become rich like him or maybe my hot neighbor, who would know?
The whole situation is like a complete trust in bank tellers with no tally at the end of the day, but much worse.
Do you have total trust in the nice bank tellers you deal with? What if
your favorite teller got a job at NSA, why would you hold them
accountable for their cash total at the bank, but let them listen in to
anyone they please?
Sentate Intelligence Oversight Committee
February 1, 2008 - 18:41 ET by DFLowerThere is oversight of all intelligence programs in the US. Don't blame the bank teller if your elected officials are to busy running for office to actually do their jobs.
As someone who has worked
February 1, 2008 - 18:44 ET by BDAs someone who has worked in the SIGINT field, and knows the people who actually do the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence data such you discuss, I would tell you I HAVE TOTAL TRUST IN THEM.
Something I have toyed with for the past year. Since the left DEMANDS a warrent from a judge in order to perform any form of SIGINT colletion on a US person, what if the US President simply took everyone who is a 35G (SIGINTer) over the rank of Captain and simply appointed them judges? it would be legal, and it would solve all problems.
Would that make you happy?
What if Hillary wins and
February 1, 2008 - 19:38 ET byWhat if Hillary wins and she puts her guys in charge of NSA?
Still trust them?
Kid, these the are same
February 2, 2008 - 18:56 ET by BDKid, these the are same guys who have served under the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and now Bush II administrations. I was there, and trust them.
There is no political influence in this, and while we were miserable under Clinton, it did not cause US to hunt US persons for no good reason.
Perhaps you should check with Hillery Clinton about the FBI files in her office, I hear THEY have a probelm , not my SIGINTERS.
Sport, the calls that they
February 1, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Ruths husband BenSport, the calls that they are listening in on are originating from overseas locations. They may be routed through the U.S., but since we are the undisputed leader in communications, virtually all international overseas phone calls are routed through the U.S. Hence the so-called Constitutional issue. At the time of the phone call (during the instant that it HAS TO BE INTERCEPTED), it is not clear whether or not the recieving end is located state side. Now since phone conversations don't sit around for any length of time (try saving light in a jar) they have to intercepted in process.
For any lib to think that the U.S. Intellegence service has time and resources, much less the inclination to listen in on them sweet talking their boyfriend/girlfriend is idiotic and unnecessarily paranoid. On the other hand, for them to think that to ensure the evil Intellegence Sevice doesn't hear them offering a quickie to their significant other it is worth losing valuable data on the war against people who not only want to, but have shown the ability to kill us is suicidal.
I thought there were
February 1, 2008 - 19:24 ET by balboaI thought there were processes in place wherein they didn't have to get the warrant before listening in? Seems like that would take care of the time issue. So what's the problem with that?
You miss the point. The
February 2, 2008 - 18:58 ET by BDYou miss the point. The traffic must be monitored to determine WHAT is of value.
As has been suggested
February 1, 2008 - 17:44 ET by ThalpyAs has been suggested, our first mistake is to expect anything of substance or honor from the New York Times. The quality of news reported and the blatant dishonesty of news omitted, speak volumes about what has become of the NYT. The NYT's anti-American behavior is reprehensible.
For 6+ years the Bush
February 2, 2008 - 03:38 ET by Intellectual HonestyFor 6+ years the Bush administration has been fighting a tagteam of liberal media outlets in tandem with the Dems in fighting for the best intelligence techniques, programs etc. It's been doubly difficult because the media can cry foul and the intelligence community and the Bush administration is severly handicapped by the fact that their very evidence to refute a charge is classified. The media and Dems have essentially been able to suckerpunch with ease because no real defense can be made.