WP: Press Can Be Prosecuted for Having Secret Files, U.S. Says

[Newsjock]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101947.html

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Page A03

The Bush administration said that journalists can be prosecuted under current espionage laws for receiving and publishing classified information but that such a step "would raise legitimate and serious issues and would not be undertaken lightly," according to a court filing made public this week.

"There plainly is no exemption in the statutes for the press, let alone lobbyists like the defendants," Justice Department lawyers wrote in response to a motion filed last month seeking to dismiss charges against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

... In its Jan. 30 response unsealed this week, the government said Rosen and Weissman, as lobbyists, "have no First Amendment right to willfully disclose national defense information." The government went on to say: "Stating this, we recognize that a prosecution under the espionage laws of an actual member of the press for publishing classified information leaked to it by a government source, would raise legitimate and serious issues and would not be undertaken lightly, indeed, the fact that there has never been such a prosecution speaks for itself."

Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, who first disclosed the government filing on his Web site, http://www.fas.org/sgp , said yesterday, "The idea that the government can penalize the receipt of proscribed information, and not just its unauthorized disclosure, is one that characterizes authoritarian societies, not mature democracies."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. One question:

if they want to say that journalists can be penalized for having proscribed information and disclosing it, why hasn't Novak been arrested?

[Wickerman]

2. brilliant n/t

[bemildred]

3. They don't really care about classified information, most of which

is useless crap anyway, what they want is the ability to
threaten anybody they like, and that is what this all is
about.

[sarcasmo]

12. Exactly, Fear is their key. If they can make the press afraid they have

Won.

[formercia]

14. and get rid of troublesome reporters

by leaking them classified information and then prosecuting them for posession.

[rkc3]

4. Or better yet, what about the people (cheney among them) who

pass the information to the press? Do they get a free pass or are they more culpable than the recipient?

It probably depends on whether the leaker is a Dem or a Repub.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Like hell the press can be prosecuted...

Apparently the White House has never heard of New York Times Co. v. United States.

on edit: It's even more galling that they say such an espionage case has never happened. Yes, the NY Times wasn't prosecuted for espionage, but the injunction amounted to prior restraint.

Naturally, if the press published classified troop movements, they could be prosecuted. But this idea that any classified information published by a paper can be prosecuted under espionage laws has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

[Lochloosa]

11. To educate the youth....

New York Times v. United States
403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Docket Number: 1873
Abstract



Argued:
June 26, 1971

Decided:
June 30, 1971


Subjects: First Amendment: Miscellaneous



Facts of the Case
In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.


Question Presented
Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?


Conclusion
Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

[formercia]

15. but they have a new SCOTUS to rule otherwise

the whole point behind packing the court.

[Trillo]

25. Must be "nice" to be "above" established law. (n/t)

[HereSince1628]

6. Time to tamp down the press, it's getting rowdy.

Welcome to the Right's Reich.

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Good thing they can't shut everyone up

especially the new free press, which is folks like us on the Internet who do it for free.

[rodeodance]

7. well, folks, looks like we are not one of the "mature democracies."!

....Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, who first disclosed the government filing on his Web site, http://www.fas.org/sgp , said yesterday, "The idea that the government can penalize the receipt of proscribed information, and not just its unauthorized disclosure, is one that characterizes authoritarian societies, not mature democracies."

[InternalDialogue]

8. All the administration-sanctioned leaking must be over.

This is pre-emptive posturing against the flood of whistleblowing that's coming down the pike.

[WePurrsevere]

9. IMO this falls under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. I believe that

the courts have addressed this type of issue in the past and agreed, e.g The Pentagon Papers I believe.

IMO part of the job of the REAL press is to report things that the government tries to hide under the veil of national security that are in fact no such real risk or the need and right of the the public to know outweighs that risk.

[Canuckistanian]

10. They'd have a full-blown 1st Amendment crisis on their hands

Go ahead, try. I dare you.

[Exiled in America]

18. So what? Have you forgotten what the SC looks like now?

[ArbustoBuster]

24. There's nine of them and three hundred million of us.

As long as we can still vote, the Supreme Court can be smacked down.

[Exiled in America]

29. Diebold.

[TrogL]

13. A perfect way to jail dissenting journalists - Kafka would be proud

So what they do is find out who might have copies of certain documents, reclassify those documents as "classified", then jail the journalist for having a "classified document" he wasn't even aware he was no longer allowed access to.

That's the new model of this administration. We've been reading the wrong author - Orwell is old news, Kafka rulz.

(laarn how to speel)

[cmdrzog]

16. Its been Kafka and Lewis Carrol for a long time

I'm particularly fond of "Hunting of the Snark"

http://www.emule.com/poetry/?page=poem&poem=4508

[Roland99]

17. Secrecy and now the GOP are ENEMIES of Democracy

<---- plays Taps

[Writer]

19. Oh - so there's now no such thing as qualified privilege?

Fuck that. This won't fly - even in front of this supreme court.

[grasswire]

20. any lurking journos here?

You'd better stop this creeping fascism while you can. You'd better stop it right now. Only you have the real ability to stop the tyranny.

[seafan]

21. Didn't Jimmy/Jeff Gannon have *access* to an intel document re Plame?

He boasted about being interviewed by the FBI about it. Where does he fit into all these rulings.

My head hurts.

[wordpix]

22. how about journalists who got Plame info from Libby & Cheney ? Go ahead

and prosecute, see how far it gets you, BushCo, you fascist cabal.

[progressivebydesign]

23. threatening the press, eh? bad move on their part. n/t

[Trillo]

26. Timing?

Curious that this is being declared at a time when the press seems to be regrowing new anti-establishment teeth.

[satya]

27. And while secretly reclassifying formerly published documents:

Bush Administration Secretly Removing Documents From Public Access

Some historians say the program is removing material that can do no conceivable harm to national security and note that some of the documents have been published by the government, the Times said.

How convenient...if a pesky journalist happens to possess a document that the administration itself published and has now re-classified, "problem" solved!