Abusing the First Amendment
Hugh Hewitt enumerates the multiple ways that the Los Angeles Times needs to get its story straight -- and illustrates just how unaware some of its top leadership is of relevant precedents that weaken their baldfaced assertions of right, nay, obligation, to publish a story about a classified program that was, by all accounts, effective, lawfully administered, and the product of consultations with Congress.
But ignorance about the First Amendment and press rights is, apparently, widespread. In a debate this morning on St. Louis' 97.1 FM morning show, a lefty tried to assert that James Madison had written into the Constitution a right for the press to publish stories that cripple national security efforts.
Nothing could be further from the case. In fact, as Professor John Eastman pointed out yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's show, if one examines the structure of the First Amendment, it secures "freedom of speech and of the press." That means that American citizens -- all of us, equally, not some more than others -- have the right to speak in dissent from our government, and to put our dissent in writing.
But like most other rights, it's not absolute. Chief Justice Hughes pointed out in 1931 that the government could certainly prevent publication of information like "the number and location of troops." The information that the Times splashed across its front page was similarly classified, and similarly important.
Indeed, Professor John Eastman noted in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that the Supreme Court has, in fact, conceded that prior restraints on publication of sensitive classified information are permissible.
It strikes me that the newspapers themselves and the lefties who are defending them have forgotten one essential point: That the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the American people from a tyrannical and abusive government. Here, the papers have achieved almost the complete opposite: They have taken it upon themselves to inform the enemy of a non-abusive and effective government program for protecting the country, thereby exposing the American people to a greater risk of harm. So who's tyrannical and abusive now?
But ignorance about the First Amendment and press rights is, apparently, widespread. In a debate this morning on St. Louis' 97.1 FM morning show, a lefty tried to assert that James Madison had written into the Constitution a right for the press to publish stories that cripple national security efforts.
Nothing could be further from the case. In fact, as Professor John Eastman pointed out yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's show, if one examines the structure of the First Amendment, it secures "freedom of speech and of the press." That means that American citizens -- all of us, equally, not some more than others -- have the right to speak in dissent from our government, and to put our dissent in writing.
But like most other rights, it's not absolute. Chief Justice Hughes pointed out in 1931 that the government could certainly prevent publication of information like "the number and location of troops." The information that the Times splashed across its front page was similarly classified, and similarly important.
Indeed, Professor John Eastman noted in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that the Supreme Court has, in fact, conceded that prior restraints on publication of sensitive classified information are permissible.
It strikes me that the newspapers themselves and the lefties who are defending them have forgotten one essential point: That the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the American people from a tyrannical and abusive government. Here, the papers have achieved almost the complete opposite: They have taken it upon themselves to inform the enemy of a non-abusive and effective government program for protecting the country, thereby exposing the American people to a greater risk of harm. So who's tyrannical and abusive now?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:28 AM
6 Comments:
Carol? What about the Wall Street Journal reporting the same?
Ditto:
You've made a huge effort to point out - multiple times - that it has been public knowledge for a long time that the President has been targeting financial assets of the terrorists and their supporters since the beginning of the war on terror.
This is absolutely true.
But I ask you: Is there a difference between blocking known assets and tracking transactions to see if they are related to terrorism?
My point?
Once all the known terror supporting financial assets have been "frozen", the next logical thing to do would be to find the UNKNOWN financial supports for terrorism.
But a shrewd - and serious - administration wouldn't simply find them and "freeze" them. Instead, they would track them to find out where the money is coming from and where it's going.
It's this kind of effort - this effort exactly - that has exposed terrorist activities and captured terrorists.
So your repeated attempts to claim that the program exposed by the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal is simply old news already known to the public is false.
Once assets were frozen, the terrorists and their supporters had to find alternate means to finance their operations. This program is - was - secretly tracking as many of these transactions as possible.
Now, of course, the terrorists have once again been dutifully alerted by the American media. And, once again, the job of protecting Americans and capturing terrorists has been made more difficult.
I don't expect any of this to change your mind, however. And I'm not going to go as far as to say you want America to lose. But it's blatantly obvious that you want George Bush to lose. The sad irony is that George Bush, as much as you hate it, is the person responsible for making sure America wins.
Can you put aside your Bush hatred long enough to actually root for America once in a while?
Hey everyone, here's more abuse of the First Amendment...
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (AP) -- Rush Limbaugh could see a deal with prosecutors in a long-running prescription fraud case collapse after authorities found a bottle of Viagra in his bag at Palm Beach International Airport. The prescription was not in his name.
(Limbaugh later explained that it belonged to his boyfriend.)
The left is a bunch of hypocrites, if the IRS wanted to come and monitor my bank statements, I'd have to comply, or get thrown in the slam.
If Valerie Plame is "outed" via a leak, then heads must roll...but if the press gets a juicy leak on classified information, well that's just dandy.
They are so bitter about being "out of power", they'll do anything and everything to subvert the Bush Administration and our Military.
Bush Derangement Syndrome.
As for Rush, more hypocricy, isn't it you lefties that just want to legalize all drugs? There's more than one lefty that is proud of their drug use. I'm sure you just have to go look in the mirror at yourself and then you don't need Viagra...
Dittohead,
I enjoy your posts. I no longer read Amber's fictions.
for the record, I don't love Bush, and I can't wait to get a REAL conservative in the White House. I can't wait for someone like Vernon Robinson to rise to the top. But yeah, I thank God daily that Kerry and Gore have been DENIED. talk about blind love...
Post a Comment
<< Home