Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

There is one problem with the entirely justified if self-interested media squawking about the Justice Department’s snooping into the phone records of multiple Associated Press reporters and Fox News’s James Rosen.

The problem is that what the AP reporters and Rosen did arguably violates the letter of the law.

The search warrant in the Rosen case cites Section 793(d) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Section 793(d) says that a person lawfully in possession of information that the government has classified as secret who turns it over to someone not lawfully entitled to posses it has committed a crime. That might cover Rosen’s source.

Section 793(g) is a conspiracy count that says that anyone who conspires to help the source do that has committed the same crime. That would be the reporter.

It sounds as though this law criminalizes a lot of journalism. You might wonder how such a law ever got passed and why, for the last 90 years, it has very seldom produced prosecutions and investigations of journalists.

The answer: This is the Espionage Act of 1917, passed two months after the United States entered World War I. In his 1998 book Secrecy, the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tells the story of how it came into being. Congress was responding to incidents of German espionage before the declaration of war. In July 1916, German agents blew up the Black Tom munitions dump in New York Harbor. The explosion was loud enough to be heard in Connecticut and Maryland. The Espionage Act was passed with bipartisan support in a Democratic Congress and strongly supported by President Woodrow Wilson, also a Democrat.

..................

Barack Obama and his Justice Department seem to be of a different mind. They have used the Espionage Act of 1917 six times to bring cases against government officials for leaks to the media — twice as many as all their predecessors combined.

“Gradually, over time,” Moynihan writes, “American government became careful about liberties.” Now, suddenly, it seems to be moving in the other direction.

Baldy wrote:Lots of gold in this opinion piece.

Obama and the 1917 Espionage Act

There is one problem with the entirely justified if self-interested media squawking about the Justice Department’s snooping into the phone records of multiple Associated Press reporters and Fox News’s James Rosen.

The problem is that what the AP reporters and Rosen did arguably violates the letter of the law.

The search warrant in the Rosen case cites Section 793(d) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Section 793(d) says that a person lawfully in possession of information that the government has classified as secret who turns it over to someone not lawfully entitled to posses it has committed a crime. That might cover Rosen’s source.

Section 793(g) is a conspiracy count that says that anyone who conspires to help the source do that has committed the same crime. That would be the reporter.

It sounds as though this law criminalizes a lot of journalism. You might wonder how such a law ever got passed and why, for the last 90 years, it has very seldom produced prosecutions and investigations of journalists.

The answer: This is the Espionage Act of 1917, passed two months after the United States entered World War I. In his 1998 book Secrecy, the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tells the story of how it came into being. Congress was responding to incidents of German espionage before the declaration of war. In July 1916, German agents blew up the Black Tom munitions dump in New York Harbor. The explosion was loud enough to be heard in Connecticut and Maryland. The Espionage Act was passed with bipartisan support in a Democratic Congress and strongly supported by President Woodrow Wilson, also a Democrat.

..................

Barack Obama and his Justice Department seem to be of a different mind. They have used the Espionage Act of 1917 six times to bring cases against government officials for leaks to the media — twice as many as all their predecessors combined.

“Gradually, over time,” Moynihan writes, “American government became careful about liberties.” Now, suddenly, it seems to be moving in the other direction.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:Lots of gold in this opinion piece.

Obama and the 1917 Espionage Act

Totally agree.

The charges of megalomaniac always seemed a bit over the top but now I'm starting to lean that direction. You could say I've been a little slow on the take in that regard Baldy...kinda like you finally seeing the light that Obama isn't a progressive.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Totally agree.

The charges of megalomaniac always seemed a bit over the top but now I'm starting to lean that direction. You could say I've been a little slow on the take in that regard Baldy...kinda like you finally seeing the light that Obama isn't a progressive.

Funny, kalm.

I've said this 1,000 times. He might not (or can't) govern like one, but you know as good as I that he is as "progressive" as they come.

However, he has taken a step in that direction by using this arcane statute on the books from 1917.

LeadBolt wrote:Woodrow Wilson was one of, if not the most progressive President's of USA. It is not surprising that Obama would follow his lead in surpressing opposition. Progressive's generally believe that they have a corner on truth and an obligation to change others and will go to great lengths to silence opposition while esposuing just the open mindedness.

kalm wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:Woodrow Wilson was one of, if not the most progressive President's of USA. It is not surprising that Obama would follow his lead in surpressing opposition. Progressive's generally believe that they have a corner on truth and an obligation to change others and will go to great lengths to silence opposition while esposuing just the open mindedness.

I think there's a certain degree of truth to that just charge. Just like the conservative tendency to espouse the virtue's of a free market while fighting to maintain entrenched economic power and monopoly.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Totally agree.

The charges of megalomaniac always seemed a bit over the top but now I'm starting to lean that direction. You could say I've been a little slow on the take in that regard Baldy...kinda like you finally seeing the light that Obama isn't a progressive.

Funny, kalm.

I've said this 1,000 times. He might not (or can't) govern like one, but you know as good as I that he is as "progressive" as they come.

However, he has taken a step in that direction by using this arcane statute on the books from 1917.

Ibanez wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Funny, kalm.

I've said this 1,000 times. He might not (or can't) govern like one, but you know as good as I that he is as "progressive" as they come.

However, he has taken a step in that direction by using this arcane statute on the books from 1917.

He can't manage. He might have the institutional knowledge but he can't manage a group of people. He's never had to before.

LeadBolt wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

He can't manage. He might have the institutional knowledge but he can't manage a group of people. He's never had to before.

Obama is progressive, but neither a manager nor a leader. He gives a great speech. He is extremely thin skinned, hold grudges and can't handle criticism.

He promises transparency and pulls out deception and intimidation to hide what he is doing, just as you would expect from a member of the Chicago political machine.

He was not ready to be President and has not learned on the job. He does not seem to have any desire to govern, only to campaign and leave the governing to others. He has attended 11 times the number of fund raisers as cabinet meetings during his terms of office. Is there any doubt as to why he hasn't had a consistent, coherent policy record?

He seems to have no grasp on details and how things fit together and impact other items. It is kind of like his new fuel standards for autos, which will lead to the discouragement of innovation and alternate fuels as they focus solely on gasoline consumption. He has no idea that this will lead to: a). lightening of vehicles causing them to be less safe during collisions; b). discourage alternate fuel use in cars and innovation; c). entrenchment of current manufacturers; d). increased costs in future vehicle prices, freezing out many lower income buyers; e). reducing demand for new cars because of the increased price and costing jobs. All the while he is pushing for subsidies for alternative fuels, whose potential market the fuel standards will decrease.

Typical is his wavering on Bin Laden. Hillary and Panetta basically had to pull a coup to send in the Seals, after having to get the secret service to pull him off the golf course to come back to the White House to watch.