New York Times- guilty of treason??

Question

why is it that reporter get mad when the Congressmen hide behind thier offices when acting unethically and/or illegally, yet have no problem hiding behind the First amendment ? I just want to know if telling the world about a secret government program that is allegedly perfectly legal is a violation of public trust and our own safety during war. It sems that any of us "regular people" would get in BIG trouble if we revealed classified information.

Answer 1

The First Amendment does not permit newspapers to violate the Espionage Act of 1917.

The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law passed shortly after entering World War I, on June 15, 1917, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. It was punishable by a $10,000 fine and 20 years in prison. The legislation was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any widespread dissent in time of war constituted a real threat to an American victory.

Answer 2

The problem is that the New York Times has never given a second thought on what they publish and is solely concerned with selling newspapers. Pentagon Papers anyone? Sure terrorist fund tracking is no big secret but publishing the details on how it all works is irresponsible journalism and extremely disloyal. Even NY's own agrees (see Rep. Peter King's response). Proving treason will be a very difficult task but the newspaper should definitely have to answer for this... guess the memory of 9/11 has faded in their minds. So happy it wasn't my Washington Post - as a law student and intern with a major news outlet I'm so disappointed.

Answer 3

I think some in the media have lost all sense of discreation, we are in a war and if they need to do something to track these guys then go ahead especially if it's legal. All of these rules and regulations were written before 9-11, we are in a war unlike any other we've fought before and if we need to use unusual tactics to wage it then so be it. I think what the Times did was utterly unnecessary and was just done for readership numbers, I don't care about the banking thing just like I couldn't have cared less that they were listening to Bin Laden's satelite phone until some
idiot reporter decides to put it on the evening news just for some
pathetic scoop or because they needed something to talk about for 5 min. ( how much could we have learned from that satelite
phone) but when they heard it on the news they shut the damn thing off . Does the term " shooting yourself in the foot " mean
anything to anybody?

Answer 4

Absolutely. Freedom of the press can only go so far, it is only a matter of time before the main stream media goes too far. I believe they went to far a long time ago, but when they control public opinion, it is hard to get support for this claim.

I have never seen such a despicable organization be so much against America. They are working so hard for the terrorists, and nobody sees it that way because those on the left have no sense of country any more. They feel guilty that we are to strong and too wealthy that we have to fight our wars with one hand tied behind our backs.

Lets put all of our resources at work and get all of the terrorists once and for all and be done with this.

Answer 5

You don't have all your 'facts' together. That supposed 'SECRET' had been common knowledge for over A YEAR... the Times just reported what everyone that needed to know, already knew. IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE WORLD PRESS.!

I first saw that story over a year ago, in a European Newspaper, so it was NOT the treasonous, hot news story of the year the Bush Whitehouse would have you believe.

The only reason Bush can get by with feeding this crap to the American people is, he knows they don't READ, let alone read real newspapers and they don't realize that what the FOX network tells them is pure fabrication.

Answer 6

No more than the White House is guilty of exposing the name of a covert CIA Agent, or leaking classified information to suit their agenda.

If Congress would do their job of oversight, then the press would not be so pressured to be the only check on a corrupt administration.

Long live freedom of the press, and the New York Times, "The Paper of Record"!

Answer 7

Not even close, had the press been on the ball there never would have been an Aushwitch. If it was a secret the Times would never had found out about it in the first place. Oh, I forgot about the A-Bomb to the Russians. That was suppose to be a secret too.

Answer 8

Because they can hide behind the first amendment. They pretend like they're doing a service to the people and that's it's "the people's right to know," but I think it's because they don't like the President and they're not going to do anything that would help the war on terror even if that means putting people at risk.

Answer 9

I am all for the freedom of the press, but freedom comes with responsibility. To let our enemies know how we are trying to catch them is an act of treason. I think the newspapers have a right to print whatever they want, but they are not above the law.

Answer 10

Ofcourse not!
Freedom of the press is in the Constitution!
I think this also speaks volumes about how much the people really trust and respect this vial administration, without coming out and saying it!
I just wished they'd hurry up and come out and say it so I don't have to hear all the right-wing fundal(mental)ists blow smoke about this crap a#$ administration anymore!