Too Bad He Didn't

**Shek** · 25 Nov 05,, 04:18

Originally Posted by parihaka

I have no problem with the prosecution of those who leaked the document. They took an oath and broke it. The press on the other hand have IMO a responsibility to report everything they can on the actions of their Govt. Legislation passed by any Govts to supress information when that information is not going to endanger the lives of their citizens is just catch-all crap and should be flouted by any person valuing their liberty. Hence my 'f**k the law"
Agreed.

Parihaka,
While you and I can look at this and rationally evaluate its merits, the problem is that the majority of Arabs are force fed their news and either don't have the freedom to really evaluate the merits of this story or are too programmed to believe it without questioning. Thus, it feeds an anti-American bias and does potentially endanger the lives of American citizens. The fact that Hari posted this message in the manner he did demonstrates that for whatever reason, this won't be given the same rational treatment in the Middle East as you and I can give it. I agree that this could be a slippery slope if a government then wished to classify everything without having to justify itself, but I don't see this happening in the US, at least. While cumbersome due to bureaucracy, you do have a fully recognized and legitamized freedom of the press and you also have the Freedom of Information Act process to gain access to non-classified government documents (and in the process, have an opportunity to challenge classification or at least be provided the documents with the classified information redacted). I don't know the laws of Britain, but I'm willing to bet they have something similar.

**Leader** · 25 Nov 05,, 06:15

Originally Posted by shek

Leader,
The first battle of Fallujah was complicated, and it's true that we were hurt by the media effort there. However, I wouldn't put that ball totally in the Al Jazeera court. The US military failed to plan for this and we paid the price. We didn't make this mistake in November. Also, the fact that we were actually an occupation force at that time without the approval of a sovereign Iraqi government, a military victory wouldn't have consummated political success, the overarching factor in any counterinsurgency. Lastly, the huge surge in activity across all of Iraq severely complicated things as well.

Also, while it begs the question of terminology, I would argue that the media is never fair game. However, enemy propagandists are fair game. I guess the comparison would be our uniformed public affairs officials are military without a protected status (medics and chaplains would be examples of military members with a protected status) and thus military targets. Independent media members aren't military targets. Now, if you can prove a link between an "independent" media member and the opposition, then you can pursue the appropriate actions such as detention.

I agree completely.

**Parihaka** · 03 Dec 05,, 11:46

Originally Posted by shek

Parihaka,
While you and I can look at this and rationally evaluate its merits, the problem is that the majority of Arabs are force fed their news and either don't have the freedom to really evaluate the merits of this story or are too programmed to believe it without questioning.

Shek,
I have serious problems with the way large numbers of my countrymen interprete the news, that's if they pay attention at all, but that doesn't mean I would have the right to tailor the news to suit my agenda. Currently my countries news agencies have a distinct anti-American bias, should they be censored for this?
My or your opinion of the ability of Arabs or anyone elses ability to evaluate the merits of this story is irrelevant to the right to publish and access this story.

Originally Posted by shek

Thus, it feeds an anti-American bias and does potentially endanger the lives of American citizens.

The same can be said of the recent goings on in the Senate with the Democrats and some Republicans questioning the war. I don't believe you would make the same argument to supress their right to question or the media in America the right to report. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Originally Posted by shek

The fact that Hari posted this message in the manner he did demonstrates that for whatever reason, this won't be given the same rational treatment in the Middle East as you and I can give it. I agree that this could be a slippery slope if a government then wished to classify everything without having to justify itself, but I don't see this happening in the US, at least. While cumbersome due to bureaucracy, you do have a fully recognized and legitamized freedom of the press and you also have the Freedom of Information Act process to gain access to non-classified government documents (and in the process, have an opportunity to challenge classification or at least be provided the documents with the classified information redacted). I don't know the laws of Britain, but I'm willing to bet they have something similar.

I note with interest they changed the supression from the Official Secrets Act to sub judice, namely the two civil servants were on trial and therefore details of the case could not be reported, thus averting a showdown.

**TruthSeeker2** · 03 Dec 05,, 16:32

You know what I can't stand about my country these days. THe media can go and do whatever it bloody well pleases and when our troops get shot to hell, or our planes blown out of the sky because of it. The government gets blamed. You know Roosevelt became a shining example of a president by NOT telling everyone everything. The fact is the media is apparently to stupid to realize that when they tell Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer about the Stealth Fighter, they also jsut told Mr. S. Hussein how to blow us out oof the air.

Classified information is CLASSIFIED for a reason, and YES in the U.S. that is ILLEGAL to report, it's call TREASON, and is punishable by death.

For the safety of the nation, certain things should NOT become public knowledge, and when they do, someone needds to be held accountable.

**~~Gautam~~** · 03 Dec 05,, 17:44

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker2

You know what I can't stand about my country these days. THe media can go and do whatever it bloody well pleases and when our troops get shot to hell, or our planes blown out of the sky because of it. The government gets blamed. You know Roosevelt became a shining example of a president by NOT telling everyone everything. The fact is the media is apparently to stupid to realize that when they tell Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer about the Stealth Fighter, they also jsut told Mr. S. Hussein how to blow us out oof the air.

Classified information is CLASSIFIED for a reason, and YES in the U.S. that is ILLEGAL to report, it's call TREASON, and is punishable by death.

For the safety of the nation, certain things should NOT become public knowledge, and when they do, someone needds to be held accountable.

From all I have heard and read about I believe this was a personal remark made in humour now taken out of context

but on the other hand Al-Jazeera is pure propoganda.

**Leader** · 03 Dec 05,, 22:33

"Classified information is CLASSIFIED for a reason, and YES in the U.S. that is ILLEGAL to report, it's call TREASON, and is punishable by death."

I don't agree. It's not the legal responsibility of a reporter to keep classified material secret. This is well established in American law.

" someone needds to be held accountable."

Shall we hold you accountable? I mean someone needs to be.

**TruthSeeker2** · 03 Dec 05,, 23:41

Originally Posted by Leader

"Classified information is CLASSIFIED for a reason, and YES in the U.S. that is ILLEGAL to report, it's call TREASON, and is punishable by death."

I don't agree. It's not the legal responsibility of a reporter to keep classified material secret. This is well established in American law.

" someone needds to be held accountable."

Shall we hold you accountable? I mean someone needs to be.

Your right, the next time a spy gets killed, or a plane gets shot down, or Geraldo shows the world where troops are, we should just let it go. It wasn't thier responsibility to realize they are jeapordizing national security, and the lives of world civilians.

Reporters once upon a time had integrity, those days apparently are gone. Now it's all about the story, screw the people who will die because of it...

**Leader** · 03 Dec 05,, 23:48

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker2

Your right, the next time a spy gets killed, or a plane gets shot down, or Geraldo shows the world where troops are, we should just let it go. It wasn't thier responsibility to realize they are jeapordizing national security, and the lives of world civilians.

LAGAL responsibility.

**Shek** · 04 Dec 05,, 00:05

Originally Posted by Leader

"Classified information is CLASSIFIED for a reason, and YES in the U.S. that is ILLEGAL to report, it's call TREASON, and is punishable by death."

I don't agree. It's not the legal responsibility of a reporter to keep classified material secret. This is well established in American law.

It's not treason, but it is illegal for reporters to divulge classified information. They can be prosecuted; what I don't know is whether it has to be known to be classified information - but it is clear from case law that motive/intent has nothing to do with whether or not they can be prosecuted.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

The Espionage Act of 1917

The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak - to the horror of the news media. It was a case that was instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did just that in spades.

In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.

Although the photos compromised no national security secrets, and were not given to enemy agents, the Reagan Administration prosecuted the leak. That raised the question: Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted?

The Administration argued that the answer was no. As with Britain's Official Secrets Acts, the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.

The Espionage Act, though thrice amended since then, continues to criminalize leaks of classified information, regardless of the reason for the leak. Accordingly, the "two senior administration officials" who leaked the classified information of Mrs. Wilson's work at the CIA to Robert Novak (and, it seems, others) have committed a federal crime.

However, despite the above, it is a moot point since it was British citizens who leak classified British documents, and so the issue is what British law is. It appears that they could be prosecuted based on the charges, although Parihaka pointed out that they are using another legal tact to suppress the leakage.

**Parihaka** · 04 Dec 05,, 08:02

Originally Posted by Leader

" someone needds to be held accountable."

Shall we hold you accountable? I mean someone needs to be.

Tee Hee Giggle Snort. Ahhh thank you Leader, best laugh I've had all week

**Leader** · 04 Dec 05,, 10:47

Originally Posted by shek

It's not treason, but it is illegal for reporters to divulge classified information. They can be prosecuted; what I don't know is whether it has to be known to be classified information - but it is clear from case law that motive/intent has nothing to do with whether or not they can be prosecuted.

That's a...interesting article you selected there.

Anyway, the part you quoted doesn't prove that the government can prosecute the reporter for reporting it. It does come to that conclusion, but I don't get what they're basing it on. I assume Samuel Morrison is some sort of government official and not a reporter. I mean reporters don't leak things to their newspapers. The article doesn't say that anyone at Jane's Defense Weekly was charged.

**Leader** · 04 Dec 05,, 10:51

Originally Posted by parihaka

Tee Hee Giggle Snort. Ahhh thank you Leader, best laugh I've had all week

I find injustice is best served on a personal level. I mean the idea that a crime was committed therefore someone needs to pay is just a terrible idea. I'm sure if the OP thought about it some more they would agree.

**Parihaka** · 04 Dec 05,, 11:00

Originally Posted by Leader

I find injustice is best served on a personal level. I mean the idea that a crime was committed therefore someone needs to pay is just a terrible idea. I'm sure if the OP thought about it some more they would agree.

Couldn't agree more and the quickest, sharpest, funiest riposte to the argument I have yet seen. Infact I just know I'm going to plaigarize you, apologies in advance.

**Parihaka** · 04 Dec 05,, 11:17

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker2

Reporters once upon a time had integrity,,...

Okay, I was intending to ignore this but which reporters are you referring to, surely reporter and integrity are oxymoronic?

**Shek** · 04 Dec 05,, 20:08

Originally Posted by Leader

That's a...interesting article you selected there.

Anyway, the part you quoted doesn't prove that the government can prosecute the reporter for reporting it. It does come to that conclusion, but I don't get what they're basing it on. I assume Samuel Morrison is some sort of government official and not a reporter. I mean reporters don't leak things to their newspapers. The article doesn't say that anyone at Jane's Defense Weekly was charged.

Sorry, it was later and I posted the first thing I found. Hey, you posted from a San Fran paper the other week, so let's just call it even and move on!

Here's the text of the Espionage Act

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm

It is cleary directed at anybody ("whoever") and not just government officials. However, in the case of Samuel Morrison, he was an intel analyst.