David Gregory to Greenwald: Why shouldn't you be charged with a crime?

[Danan]

So you'd rather keep the Espionage Act on the books as is, where it's used to pick off good guys, but disregarded when it suits the administration?

I wouldn't risk to sacrifice Greenwald's liberty for the potential that the Supreme Court throws out the Espionage Act. It's never worth it nor moral, imho, to harm individuals for the good of the many - especially when it's very doubtful that anything good will actually come from it.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I wouldn't risk to sacrifice Greenwald's liberty for the potential that the Supreme Court throws out the Espionage Act. It's never worth it nor moral, imho, to harm individuals for the good of the many - especially when it's very doubtful that anything good will actually come from it.

I see that too. In part, I'm reacting against Greenwald and others complaining that the administration is trying outlaw journalism (https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/348793179757219843). That seems dishonest, since the pertinent statute has been around since 1917. It would be better if Greenwald would criticize the Espionage Act instead of sparring with Gregory.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I see that too. In part, I'm reacting against Greenwald and others complaining that the administration is trying outlaw journalism (https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/348793179757219843). That seems dishonest, since the pertinent statute has been around since 1917. It would be better if Greenwald would criticize the Espionage Act instead of sparring with Gregory.

He has criticized the Espionage Act.

He has also criticized the usage of the Espionage Act what, three times against whistleblowers since 1917, one of whom being Daniel Ellsberg and the Obama administration using the Act against seven whistleblowers.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe that is what Greenwald has more been pointing out... that this administration has gone above and beyond what any other administration has with regards to using the Espionage Act to charge whistleblowers.

Judge Napolitano had a good bit where he was speaking about the Espionage Act and the ramifications of it. He was on a roll but they only let him speak for a few minutes at a time.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Not cool.
Exactly.
Exactly, the feds are coming out ahead in this regard.

I apologize if my previous post gave offense. That was not my intent. Well ... maybe it was. A little.

I am just incredulous that anyone could seriously expect that the federal courts (right up to and including SCOTUS) would "throw a flag" against Team Fed on a matter so heavily fraught with implications for federal authority & power.

And the mere idea that Glenn Greenwald should be put in jeopardy of conviction for any crime (let alone one so grave as "espionage" - or even just "aiding & abetting" such) is itself a travesty - especially if it's for so dubious a purpose as tilting at windmills (such as trying to get SCOTUS to effectively "slap down" either of the other two branches in any significant or substantive way).

It would allow the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, in a case with a resourceful, benevolently-interested defendant (Greenwald).

On an issue of such profound moment as this, there is not the slightest chance in hell that SCOTUS would do anything other than rubber-stamp the Feds' desired "interpretation" and application of the Espionage Act. That is, after all, what SCOTUS is for in the first place (de facto if not de jure). As "Exhibit A", I offer Chief Justice John Roberts' ludicrously reasoned deciding vote on the Obamacare decision ...

This would put an end to the dangerous amount of discretion the DOJ currently enjoys in whether to charge particular defendants.

It would do no such thing. And there is no basis for imagining that it would. SCOTUS would simply confirm "executive discretion." They might - for the sake of paying lip service to notions of Constitutionality and the Rule of Law - promulgate a few impotent & ineffectual pro forma quibbles. But that is all.

In other words, not only would this not put and end to the DoJ's perfidy, it would only serve to "justify" and "validate" it.

So you'd rather keep the Espionage Act on the books as is, where it's used to pick off good guys, but disregarded when it suits the administration?

Me? I don't have any say in the matter. The simple fact is that Espionage Act isn't going anywhere - regardless of what you or I would rather.

It will continue to be used to pick off good guys. It will continue to be disregarded when it suits the administration. And that is all. There really isn't much more to be said about it than that.

Even in a ludicrously phantasmic scenario in which SCOTUS struck down the Espionage Act in toto, Congress would simply re-enact it under another name (with suitable cosmetic changes to dodge whatever objections SCOTUS might have enunciated). And the band would play on ...

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm reacting against Greenwald and others complaining that the administration is trying outlaw journalism (https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/348793179757219843). That seems dishonest,

It is not dishonest. David Gregory queried whether Greenwald should be charged with a crime for engaging in perfectly legitimate acts of journalism.

IOW: He queried whether journalists ought to be made criminals (i.e., outlaws) for doing their jobs (i.e., journalism).

And others besides Gregory have been quite explicit in their desire to see Greenwald prosecuted. (Peter King, to name but one.)

So Greenwald has every goddam right to "complain" - especially when a so-called "journalist" like Gregory so glibly muses about the propriety of prosecuting journalists who prove troublesome to the regime ...

since the pertinent statute has been around since 1917.

So what? What has that got to do with anything?

Do laws have some kind of "expiration date" after which they can be abused for purposes of shutting people up or punishing "troublemakers?"

It would be better if Greenwald would criticize the Espionage Act instead of sparring with Gregory.

Greenwald was entirely correct to respond to Gregory in the way he did. The Espionage Act has nothing to do with it - except insofar as it is likely to be one means to the Feds' end of turning (troublesome non-lackey) journalists into criminals. In other words, the Espionage Act is merely a contingent particular in the general question at issue here.

 

[Occam's Banana]

He has criticized the Espionage Act.

He has also criticized the usage of the Espionage Act what, three times against whistleblowers since 1917, one of whom being Daniel Ellsberg and the Obama administration using the Act against seven whistleblowers.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe that is what Greenwald has more been pointing out... that this administration has gone above and beyond what any other administration has with regards to using the Espionage Act to charge whistleblowers.

Exactly! Greenwald has repeatedly pointed out that the Obama administration has levied charges of violations of the Espionage Act more than all other previous administrations combined.

And although I do not have a reference or link handy, Greenwald has also pointed out that - in addition to punishing actual honest-to-gosh espionage - one of the primary purposes of the Espionage Act of 1917 was to punish those who merely dissented against the government (especially with respect to American participation in World War One). In fact, one of the most famous political prisoners in American history, Eugene Debs, was a victim of the Espionage Act for just that reason.

FTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs#Arrest_and_imprisonment

Debs appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. In its ruling on Debs v. United States, the court examined several statements Debs had made regarding World War I and socialism. While Debs had carefully worded his speeches in an attempt to comply with the Espionage Act, the Court found he had the intention and effect of obstructing the draft and military recruitment. Among other things, the Court cited Debs' praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated in his opinion that little attention was needed since Debs' case was essentially the same as that of Schenck v. United States, in which the Court had upheld a similar conviction.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

David Gregory queried whether Greenwald should be charged with a crime for engaging in perfectly legitimate acts of journalism.

IOW: He queried whether journalists ought to be made criminals (i.e., outlaws) for doing their jobs (i.e., journalism).

Charging doesn't turn anyone into a criminal. Gregory didn't ask if anyone should be made into a criminal. Gregory asked about charging. Greenwald's answer was nothing like your answer. Greenwald's answer was lame.

So what? What has that got to do with anything?

Do laws have some kind of "expiration date" after which they can be abused for purposes of shutting people up or punishing "troublemakers?"

Greenwald's acts were criminalized in 1917, which is why it's wrong to accuse anyone in the present of "making crime" out of those acts.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

CHENEY: ... I did think that the New York Times violated the law because there is indeed a provision that says it is a felony offense to publish information about communications intelligence in the United States. It's never been enforced. But it's a felony calling for a sentence of ten years to do that.

WALLACE: Should have prosecuted the New York Times?

CHENEY: I urged that we ought to investigate. And either the law is the law or it isn't. It's never been enforced. Nobody had the nerve to actually go after the New York Times. But it's on the books.

And I thought in this case obviously -- now admittedly, I'm a hard rock on some of these things. And it's probably wise that others said, no, no, we don't want to prosecute the New York Times. But there is a provision of law. It's very clear. It is publication of communication intelligence, and it has never been enforced.

WALLACE: But you think it should be.

CHENEY Well, either that or take it off the books.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-n...s-nsa-surveillance-program#p//v/2482865656001

One of my problems with the non-prosecution under the Espionage Act is that NYT can count on it, but regular people can't.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Bump for a recent thread discussion.