The Be Careful What You Wish For Department
I suspect there was an awful lot being said to the media today by the Attorney General. In an interview on ABC's This Week, Alberto Gonzales very carefully let out that reporters could very well be prosecuted for printing national security information.
The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
In the blind zeal to "get someone" in the administration over the Plame leak, the media cheerfully deconstructed it's own carefully built up image of immunity from prosecution. They cooperated in setting themselves up for this. Now it remains to be seen if they are going to be able to understand exactly how exposed they are in this matter. Take a careful look at what is being said here:
Gonzales said he would not comment specifically on whether The New York Times should be prosecuted for disclosing the NSA program last year based on classified information.
He also denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources.
"We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said, under a "probable cause" legal standard.
But he added that the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an "obligation to enforce the law." (emphasis added).
Want to bet they have warrants already?
By Blackhawk, Sunday, 21 May , 2006 @ 7:24 pm
In other words, you can’t cloak yourself in the 1st Amendment while destroying it at the same time. Freedom of speech is a responsibility. It is not the right to say anything to anyone…that’s anarchy.
By Gaius, Sunday, 21 May , 2006 @ 7:26 pm
That pretty well describes it. Freedom of speech - an absolute right. Freedom from responsibilty - nope. You have to know when to use it and why.
By Blackhawk, Sunday, 21 May , 2006 @ 11:36 pm
The group DEVO had a song about it that was appropriate:
From the title track to their 1980 album ‘Freedom of Choice’:
Freeedom of choice…is what you’ve got,
Freedom from choice…is what you want.