Indict the NY Times!

Henry Mark Holzer of FrontPageMagazine.com has this piece today arguing for the government to indict the Times. I agree it is long overdue. “Freedom of the Press” has limitations as the author clearly explains.

The press is not exempt from laws that apply to everyone else. The press is not exempt from laws protecting our national security. The New York Times is not exempt from the Espionage Act, as we shall see in a moment.

With regard to the Times the author cites Title 18, Section 793 of the United States Code (which)

provides that �??(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of . . . any document . . . or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates . . . the same to any person not entitled to receive it . . . (f) . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.�?� (Section 794 is inapplicable. It deals with �??gathering or delivering defense information to aid [a] foreign government.�?�)

This definately applies to the NY Times. Indict!!!!!!!!!!!!!

entire article here.

6 Responses to “Indict the NY Times!”

1. John says:

   September 29, 2006 at 2:17 pm

   The government would have a difficult time proving that the leaking of the NSA program materially injured the country’s national security. In essence, the government would have to argue that before the leak of the NSA program the “terrorists” would not have anticipated that they would have been bugged when communicating with individuals inside this country. The very same ilk of “terrorists” that allegedly pulled off the highly sophisticated 9/11 attacks would not assume that after such an event they would be tracked and wiretapped? Preposterous.
2. Shawn says:

   September 29, 2006 at 7:15 pm

   the answers to liberal lies? is this a book you wrote? man, how embarrasing for you. after reading a good portion of the book I noticed that there is not one lie in there, but a bunch of questions people have been asking for years. no lies. just questions. do you hate questions. do they “confuse” you? siticking to a bunch of planned out bullet points will not make a learned person of you. try to grow. the left is not againsed you. you are agaised you. there are many ways to view facts. can you not see that? people have different beliefs. Yell all you want, you cannot change that.
3. Administrator says:

   September 30, 2006 at 1:09 pm

   Thanks for your insightful comments Shawn. Really salient and cogent thoughts.

   Care to cite any specific examples of the claims (not \\\”questions\\\” as you call them but specific claims) that I refute in my book to which you refer? Would love to hear all your examples. Since you have read a \”good portion\” of my book, I am sure you have quite a list compiled from which you can sustantiate your assertion.

   By the way, about 99% of the claims I reference and refute are not \\\”questions.\\\” They are statements. I am assuming that you can distinguish between a declarative statement and an inquiry.

   The statements (\”claims\”) that I chronicle in my book are statements made by those on the left as if they were statements of fact- not \”casual differences of opinion.\” What I do in my book is point out that the major claims of the left which are stated as if they were empirically true, are in fact, empirically and substantively false. Truth is not relative Sean. By its very definition and according to the law of noncontradiction, truth is absolute.

   At any rate, I look forward to your specific citations.

   Cheers!
   Gregg
4. John says:

   October 1, 2006 at 11:42 am

   Bush is seeking immunity for his past war crimes, and the complicit Congress is aiding and abetting such an act. Amazingly, Jack Cafferty of CNN had the courage to report all of this:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ
5. Administrator says:

   October 2, 2006 at 3:50 pm

   John,

   Your use of the word “allegedly” in the following sentence makes anything you say irrelevant to me and I can’t understand for the life of me why you waste your time.

   “The very same ilk of �??terrorists�?� that allegedly pulled off the highly sophisticated 9/11 attacks would not assume that after such an event they would be tracked and wiretapped? Preposterous.”

   Gregg
6. John says:

   October 2, 2006 at 8:17 pm

   I would have bolded allegedly if I could have, Gregg.