The Far Left-Wing-Liberal N Y Times revelation “did great harm to the United States” ?

Question

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) decried, “We’re at war, and for the far Left-Wing Liberal N.Y. Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous.”

“In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, therefore it is an act of treason."

Whose side is the far Left Wing Liberal ACLU supporting Democrats on anyway? And what version of the US Constitution do they adhere to?

Article Three of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as, "Levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. Depending on the circumstances, treason is punishable by death or imprisonment of not less than five years and a fine of no less than $10,000. A treason conviction also precludes one from ever holding public office".

What say you?

Liberal repies please refrain from:
1 - Name calling
2 - Personal attacks

Answer 1

The New York Times and all newspapers except the Washington Times and the Weekly Standard should be banned and their reporters imprisoned for lies and slander.

The Commie Democratic Party should be banned. We want a One-Party Christian State!

Denying the truth of anything said by the President gives comfort to the enemy and should be severely punished. The President has your interests and welfare in mind. Only he can stop terrorism and taxes and crime.

America will be better because of George W. Bush, the best president America has ever had, and defender of the Christian Faith!

Answer 2

The NY Times has been on the far left for some time. As to publishing the papers I don't know. How did they get them? If they could get this information then others could as well. There are spys in the USA and they are looking for any and every thing they can find about the workings of the nation. I would not be surprised if these papers were already known by those we call enemies. I do not like the NY Times for a lot of what it prints. Should the general public know everything. I honestly do not know the answer. I do not like a lot of what the medias are doing now and would like to see them take more responsibility about what they day and do. They also have to earn money as a business so where is the line drawn? I do remember when many things were kept secret from us that should not have been. Left, Right and some place in the middle but just where?

Answer 3

"In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy,"

in my opinion, opinions are all equal, and my opinion says he is wrong.

do you see how silly using this as evidence.

here's an answer ive given before ENJOY
*****************************************************************

Why only the NY times, where is the LA times, the wall street journal.

Why did George Bush declare, he would be tracking and cracking down on terrorist bank transactions in early speeches.

Rember that warentless wiretaps began before 9/11 yes before 9/11


Why do repulblican not complain about all leaks, for example where's the love for Judith Miller?

The troubling part of both question and answers is that you set up a strawman for them to attack, meaning your question implies that news papers are assisting terrorist organizations. hence treason.....

That is misleading and not the real issue at heart. The real issue is that the government tracks everyone.

This is the issue at heart the right of people to privacy, versus the right of government to collect infromation without probal cause for an infinite amount of time.

Why infinite because you can not get a surrender or peace treaty against the war on terror, because terror is a tatic not a nation state.

The questinon again remains if the media does not report on the government and its potential deminising of the 4th amendment rights along with the Superme Courts conclusion that privacy is implicit.
At what point does the press remain quite, the press has an obligation to provide people with facts, so they can choose thier leaders or hold them accountable, the press is the fourth estate....without them how can we protect our freedoms...


At what point does america stop being the democracy and begin to look like the countries invade to give freedom too.

The question is not freedom of the press but the obligation of the New papers to tell, warn, alert, save, rally, inform the people that there is a serious danger looming not from terrorist but from our own government.

Again the real question is shouldn't newspaper do thier job and serve the people when government attempts to overreach it power especially in a perpetual war with no end.

The president swore an oath to uphold the constitution...he has failed.

Source(s):

Besides there was always the court system for supeonas, warrants there are even secret courts.....this is just too ridculous on the governments part.

More importantly the actions taken by the government may be illegal, and they don't want that out would they

Answer 4

The NYT has revealed two main things that have gotten it into trouble.

First, the monitoring of international money transfers. Which has been publicly enacted law since 2001, and has been the subject of numerous White House press briefings. So, I really can't see how mentioning a program, most details of which were already public knowledge, harmed anything.

Second, the warrantless wiretapping program. Which a federal judge has already determined was illegal and unconstitutional. So, how can the government complain that someone is "adhering to the enemy" for talking about a program that was illegal to start with?

Not to mention that in the almost two years since the warrantless wiretapping program was revealed, it has been the subject of numerous White House press briefings. So, if the government can talk freely about it while it was going on, the news of its existence cannot be all that catastrophic for the nation.

Also, under the general laws as they've been applied for centuries "aid and comfort" is the standard for accomplice liability. Which requires a specific intent to aid the enemy/terrorist/criminal, and the specific intent that they accomplish a criminal goal. Also, the aid must be such that it makes the goal substantially easier.

Nothing the NYT has revealed has made it any easier to terrorists to accomplish their goals. The money tracking was public knowledge, and the government can still conduct all the surveillance they want, and to the same extent, just by following the established laws.

So, as a simple matter of statutory construction, the argument fails because the actions of the NYT don't meet the threshold required.

Also, as a matter of law, we're not at war. Congress has the sole power to declare war, which is a specific statutory legal status. Congress never declared war. Authorizations for the Use of Military Force are not declarations of war. Different legal status. So, the argument that such-and-such applies "because we are at war" is incorrect as a matter of law.

Answer 5

I say the Constitution means nothing! Freedom of the Press? Why care? The whole Constitution is already being ignored, why should freedom of the press be any different? And don't forget, the press had the opportunity--no, the DUTY--to expose bush for the incompetent dishonest boob he is and always has been, but let him slide in to office. So screw em. I really don't care if the gvt. shuts down the press because it isn't doing its job anyway.

Answer 6

So basically republicans want to put liberals in jail that express opinions that are contrary to what republicans want them to say? I think I learned something in 10th grade civics about something called an amendment... It said something along the lines of freedom of the press or something. But thats stupid. Lets just only say things that praise and support the people that run the country no matter what they are doing and how negatively it affects the country and the world. That way the terrorists can't win!

Answer 7

I say the criminals are sitting in the White House. Thank God for the New York Times and the ACLU - they're the ones protecting my constitutional rights.

And I hope Andy is kidding - that's the most disturbing pile of dung I've read here in a loooooong time.

Answer 8

Liberals and Conservatives have different views, yet use the same tactics. Discrediting others views to make theirs look better. But this only appeals to simpe minded people like themselves.
You are talking about a very important issue, and need to express yourself more maturely.
Intelligence work is very complicated. They can't just "share"
information, because of foolish people who do things like
spread it all over the press.

Answer 9

Oh but it was OK for Bush and company to reveal the name of the undercover CIA operative, Just because her husband wouldn't fix the facts to favor his unjust war in Iraq. Conservatives = hypocrites. And god forbid if a news paper publishes the truth, the truth is something that really eludes you NeoCons, isn't it?

Liberalism, Novus Ordo Seclorum, Annuit Cœptis !!

Answer 10

Man oh man... This just causes me to have a headache..
this is american Propaganda...
The NY times did its jobs in holding the government resposible for over stepping its boundaries, and of course stomping on the consitution.
Instead of admiting to there crime, they try to discredit it by saying when you call out the government spying on the american people you support the terrorist.
This is all just bullshit to make people look away from the real issues the fact that the government is overstepping its power.