Cormint-y Fresh?
Writing in The Weekly Standard, Heather McDonnell clearly explains why The New York Times is "a national security risk".
And Gabriel Schoenfeld argues that there's a statute -- the Cormint statute -- under which The New York Times could be prosecuted, if not for the financial piece, for the NSA story.
Of course, in light of the First Amendment, it is profoundly disturbing to think of newspapers being prosecuted -- even when they're as breathtakingly irresponsible as the New York & LA Times. But in constitutional interpretation, there's such a thing as trying to construe a statute so as to avoid raising a constitutional question -- and here, I'd argue that the same prudential principles apply . . .
The New York Times and The LA Times shouldn't be pushing the envelope so far that, simply to protect national security, the government is almost compelled to put an unwelcome precedent of prosecuting a newspaper on the books.
Perhaps an interstitial step, as Hugh Hewitt has noted, would be for Congress to hold hearings on the pieces and their impact on national security. After all, if the "Big Oil" companies can be summoned repeatedly to the Hill under specious charges of "price gauging," it seems appropriate for the newspaper companies to explain why they believe they can substitute their national security judgment for that of the federal government in the middle of a war. After all, what they've done is far more damaging to the national security, and potentially to Americans as a whole, than any price gauging could be.
And Gabriel Schoenfeld argues that there's a statute -- the Cormint statute -- under which The New York Times could be prosecuted, if not for the financial piece, for the NSA story.
Of course, in light of the First Amendment, it is profoundly disturbing to think of newspapers being prosecuted -- even when they're as breathtakingly irresponsible as the New York & LA Times. But in constitutional interpretation, there's such a thing as trying to construe a statute so as to avoid raising a constitutional question -- and here, I'd argue that the same prudential principles apply . . .
The New York Times and The LA Times shouldn't be pushing the envelope so far that, simply to protect national security, the government is almost compelled to put an unwelcome precedent of prosecuting a newspaper on the books.
Perhaps an interstitial step, as Hugh Hewitt has noted, would be for Congress to hold hearings on the pieces and their impact on national security. After all, if the "Big Oil" companies can be summoned repeatedly to the Hill under specious charges of "price gauging," it seems appropriate for the newspaper companies to explain why they believe they can substitute their national security judgment for that of the federal government in the middle of a war. After all, what they've done is far more damaging to the national security, and potentially to Americans as a whole, than any price gauging could be.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:39 AM
3 Comments:
"It is no wonder internet news sites have taken over the nightly news."
No, Amber, it is because they fulfill your desire to be told only what you want to "hear," lest the fragile house of cards you and others here call reality doesn't disintegrate with a puff of the truth.
Amber writes, "I think their needs to be serious repercussions for stories that proove to be false, and potentially loosing their staus as 'press' and the freedoms which go with that designation"
Amber, would you also apply these same rules to blogs? I'm just curious, because without "stories that proove to be false," Carol wouldn't have very much to post on at all.
as yet unsubstantiated allegations
So the newspaper reports outright rumors now? Great.
Post a Comment
<< Home