Should the media be allowed to release security secrets to our enemies?

Question

At what point does freedom of the press cross the line from first amendment right to treason?

There has been an ongoing release of information from the CIA to the media throughout the last six years, much of it actually helping our enemies know what we are doing.

When does the media become traitors?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

Bush Invented - regardless of how they got the information, it is wrong to reveal it when it puts our countries future at risk. Your position is that the second wrong is okay because of the first, illogical.

It appears ABC does not have a problem passing our security secrets to our enemies, but it does have a problem with the first amendment.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/227489.php

Answer 1

It crossed a long time ago. Unfortunately, Bush is not tough enough to do anything about it.

This particular incident needs to be handled in the following

1. Arrest the writers
2. Force them to reveal their source.
3. Arrest the source. Try for treason, convict, and execute.
4. Send the journalists to jail for a while. Make an example of them.

I sense that this may be intentionally leaked. There is nothing that is not too surprising.

Answer 2

Who's side is the media on? Are they Americans or are they spies for a foreign power? They need to get on board with the whole concept of national security. Some secrets are necessary in the realm of world politics and not all the government needs to be out for public view. This does not mean that the government is not accountable. That is why there is congressional oversight for all activities that the government undertakes. They members are sworn to secrecy so that our enemies don't know what we are doing. Look at the Manhattan Project. Do you think the Japanese new we were going to nuke them? Or how about their lack of intel? They wanted to catch the carriers at port in Perl Harbor on Dec 7. They didn't. Had the media reported it, they may have attacked sooner or later to get the carriers. What would have happened then?

Answer 3

What you describe is treason. Liberals who hate America have infiltrated the CIA and, along with their treasonous allies in the media, are doing all they can to defeat our attempt at helping the Iraqi people establish a functioning democracy now that their nightmare of life under Saddam is over. Liberals only love their own personal freedom and are constantly trying to limit the freedom of others. Treason is nothing new for liberals. Jane Fonda was allowed to go unpunished for her treason in Vietnam, and since then liberal treason has increased to the point where now even liberals in the CIA give aid and comfort to our enemies by telling them through their media allies what our plans are so our islamofascist enemies can kill more of our people.
Liberals are so blinded by their hatred for Bush, morality, and America that they are helping our enemies who want to murder every liberal on this planet. They learned nothing from the beheading of Daniel Pearl by muslim terrorists when Pearl went to Pakistan to tell their side of the story. Liberals do not realize they are committing suicide with their treason. Liberals must wake up and smell the jihad while America is still strong enough to protect them.

Answer 4

Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. This was done so that the government could not tell the press what they can or cannot publish, thus pushing through their own agenda. It was also done so that the government could not hide anything from the American people and carry out their own things in secret. As far as aiding the enemy, we are trying to overthrow the Iranian government and create more instability in the Middle East. This is something that the American people need to know about. We have already bit of more than we can chew. Ever wonder why the terrorists attacked us. It because of stunts like this. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, is quoted as saying, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" We were the ones that created these terrorists, and it lead to people like Bin Laden attacking us. Plus, if American people start to accept government censorship what's next we start restricting other parts of the Constitution as well? It should be left up to the media outlets as to whether to publish the information or not.

Answer 5

I also find it deplorable how our media goes out of it's way to portray the US in an evil imperialistic way to the rest of the world, or how they only seem to show all the negative press and nothing of the positive, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq! I think if the media showed more of the positive aspects of the war, like how we are building roads and schools etc., that the populous from around the world would have a much more positive view on the war! Unfortunately they seem to have an agenda to bring negative attention to the war and the US!

Answer 6

The short answer is no. They should not be allowed to release secrets to the world, that allows our enemies in the world to use that info for their own benefit.

I've said often that we should use more covert ops in dealing with the War on Terror . . . but am forced to re-think the safety of those operatives with media that doesn't seem to have a conscience ready to expose them . . .

They are traitors, in my humble opinion, the moment they make the decision to broadcast or print the Intel.

Answer 7

The media is to blame for so much I wouldn't know where to start. The media is traitorous without a conscience. They are in a position which makes so incredibly much money that its rediculous and that, in the end, is what makes the world go 'round. We live in a hedonisitc, glutenous society going in a downward spiral, and picking up speed.

Its up to us as individuals to have/demonstrate higher morals and ethics in the face of temptations to act the same way the media does as we tread through our respective lives. Easy to say, tougher to do.
.
.
.

Answer 8

A patriot journalist would reveal the source of the leaks so we could shoot the traitors for treason. I fear there are way too many liberal elite 'journalists' covering for their liberal elite socialist traitors in congress. And I am quite confident in my assertion that these are liberals leaking and printing this information. If it were a conservative, they'd have swung in the gallows a long time ago.

Answer 9

The other side of the coin is R. Murdock keeping his papers from publishing anything controversial about china, cause he wants a satellite deal to go through.

BTW since iran is sending arms and training people, screw them. Walk in, take out the U235 enrichment stuff.
Now as for the question, what would have happened in WW2?

Answer 10

this could be a annoying question to answer. The Bible names many enemies. some are actual, some religious. So right it is my take on the subject: a million. no longer genuinely everyone seems to be in the physique of Christ. This factors to the top that no longer genuinely everyone seems to be your brother in Christ. Even spiritually. In turn, in the event that they don't seem to be in the physique, they're an "enemy", yet in uncomplicated terms to the ingredient the place they flatly refuse the gospel of salvation. it is the place the Bible tells us to shake the dirt off our ft and flow on. 2. in case you ingredient to a extra religious nature, you may call the "seven deadly sins" or somebody or stress that seeks to divert our interest from serving God. those could rely between our enemies. 3. The Bible says to love human beings that detest you. of course then we could desire to love our enemies. The Bible by no ability says to hate absolutely everyone, which contain our enemies and this ends up in a great distinction between enemy and hate. purely as a results of fact I call you an enemy does no longer advise that I hate you. purely the alternative. i will love you extra considering the fact which you're my enemy. Why? you like it extra desirable than my brother in Christ, who already has the terrific Love of all. In end-love those you call enemy, yet determine you comprehend who they're. in the event that they pontificate a distinctive gospel, refuse the real gospel of salvation or blaspheme the Holy Ghost, then those could be worth of the call of enemy. returned, this would not advise i will hate you or shun you away. The Bible supplies a strict command on enemies, and a extra strict command on hate.