The New York Times, the Washington Post and law professor Jonathan Turley are suffering a severe case of nerves about Attorney General Gonzales's statement that the law may require prosecution of reporters who publish government secrets. Today's WaPo editorial refers, again, to the wrong part of the law in the growing hysteria about the libs idea that the Bush administration is trying to violate the First Amendment and do something the law has never allowed. (Hat tip to the PowerLine guys for a reminder on what's really the law).
The law that governs the James Risen - NSA terrorist surveillance leak situation is 18
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the
government to the detriment of the
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,
cipher, or cryptographic system of the
foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or
repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or
planned for use by the
for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence
from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the
same to have been obtained by such processes -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
So if a reporter receives, like Risen did, top-secret information about the creation, use and probable success of a system like the NSA one and writes a story about it that reveals the system to the detriment of the
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?