|
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'scotus issues'.
Found 1 result
-
FOX FLASH NEWS this morning reported the indictment of a former military and later civilian employee for leaking top secret documents, complete with security markings, directly to a lefty on-line "news blog" using direct and encrypted online two way communications repeated over more than two years. They contained detailed information on then current and planned operations in the mid east anti-terror campaign against targeted leadership. The FOX report is at: https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-government-intelligence-analyst-leaked-classified-al-qaeda-documents-to-reporter-indictmentT [Sorry, I couldn't find a way to make the above address an active link; you'll have to copy it to your search bar] The reader replies immediately focused on the lack of an indictment of the reporter, and a few pointed out that SCOTUS seemed to protect news media reporting no matter what citing the NY Times Viet Nam era Ellsburg case, which sort of exempted media unless that paid for the information in some manner. At first blush the facts of this case seem to be very distinguishable from that case. Here we have two people, one a government agent with a clearly inappropriate top secret code word access job, and a like minded an anti-American ideologue well known for his willingness to expose secret materials [charges have previously been brought against several of his leak sources]. Leaking classified materials, or aiding in that activity are felonies. Conspiracy to commit one or more felonies with others is itself a felony, usually with harsher penalties than the underlying felony itself. Given their ongoing communications as reported by FOX, the existence of a criminal conspiracy seems to me to be as clear as day. The question is: whether the media discloser of the information is exempt from prosecution by virtue of the 1st Amendment. I would argue not. Yes, the "media" here did not pay cash or whatever to the leaker, but, the achievement of their mutual goal to actively harm American interests by treasonous leaks, was clearly itself a reward to both. The blogger no doubt benefited financially from increased site hits and ad revenue if SCOTUS remains interested in the factor of economic benefit. I hope that Barr goes after the blogger on the basis that such disclosures can be straight treason conspiracy by all parties acting in concert, and/or that our changing world of bartering sensational ideological and political "news" for all sorts of diverse benefits (almost inevitably resulting in economic gain to all parties) moots the issue of clear, one-way financial compensation. I think the current SCOTUS a bit more likely than not to adopt this view, but that one or two more appointments by Trump before the case gets to them would insure a big time "clarification" of 1st Amendment rights. Consider, what would we have done if the NY times printed the OVERLORD plans in late May, 1944, without cash payment to the undercover Nazi in the Pentagon. I have no doubt that that leaker and a bunch of NY Times a-holes would have simply disappeared that night. This is different only in the magnitude of the underlying events. The magnitude of an evil does not alter its existence, but ony, perhaps, the harshness of the penalties that the criminals should suffer. HAND!
