1) “the crime isn’t publishing leaked classified information”

The new interpretation of law that Gonzales is proposing is to make publication of the leaked classified material a crime that he may prosecute. The journalist would indeed be prosecuted for publishing.

2) “the crime is when the reporter refuses to name his source in a criminal investagation”

This isn’t a crime per se, but it can result in a contempt of court charge imposed at the discretion of the judge. However, I didn’t see where Gonzales was even addressing this issue, probably because the law he was referring to didn’t address revealing a source.

Of course, I’m just going by what the article said, plus a Washington Post editorial I read that deals with some possible ramifications. If you’ve got a source that disputes this article, it’ll be a CRIME if you don’t reveal it, and don’t think I won’t prosecute

Now, having said that, it’s almost always Judges that get all pissy when a reporter refuses to name his /her sources.

You don’t see a contradiction here?

Gonzales’ proposed application of the law could be much more far reaching than anything we’ve ever seen regarding public disclosure, and even the subsequent discussion, of classified information. His pretense of merely doing it to carry out the will of the Congress that originally passed the law is transparent and disingenuous, for this was not their intent. I believe the Administration merely wants to deter and punish those who expose embarrassing classified actions.

I heard something on the news just this morning that seemed apropos. The National Weather Service has already listed the names to be used for tropical storms and hurricanes for this season, and “Alberto” will be our first named storm. I only hope it doesn’t wreak as much havoc as Alberto Gonzales does.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ”
(source: US State Department)

I see that it says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom speech or of the press.”

“Definition: abridge
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Middle French abregier, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH
2 : to shorten in duration or extent
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : CONDENSE
synonym see SHORTEN”
(Source: Merian-Webster Online)

The First Amendment IS THE LAW!!!
What this member of the Bush Crime Syndicate is advocating, is that we burn the constitution, as it no longer matters, as the president is, in effect, King.

Anyone wanna go a couple of rounds in the Cage Match with me on this one? Go right ahead. I’ll warn you now, that you better do your homework, because uncited references will not be tolerated.

I am getting sick of the Bush Crime Syndicate, taking away our rights, burning the constitution, torturing people, and killing our military personell overseas.

These people must be brought up on RICO charges, proscicuted, and imprisoned. Every last one of them.

Of course reporters aren’t above the law. Neither is the G.

Members of the “damn liberal media” are so evil until the storm troopers start knocking (or should I say knocking down) your door.

I like it the way it is now. Besides the powers that be aren’t concerned about intel leaks – they’re concerned about being caught with their bribe money in the freezer.

The 1st ammendent does not allow them access to top secret information. The government is trying to identify the source of the leaks “by connecting the dots”. Does anyone remember that phrase? Notice how quickly the Mass Media shifts their perspective to suit their own agenda.

Pre 9/11 – illegal to connect the dots
Post 9/11 (for a couple years) – supposed to connect the dots
Post 9/11(4 years later) – connect the dots but not with Mass Media!!!

No wonder their circulation is in the tank. ”

Benson, so if the government does something illegal, and it relates to “classified” information, then we should ignore it, or be ignorant? And if they classify something so as to not let it get out, then that makes it right?
Would it be safe to say that you fall into the line of thought that says: “If you don’t have anything to hide, then you should hove no problem with the government listening to your calls, reading you email, or monitoring what you read, watch, or say. Do necessarily agree with the press at all times on what they cover? No, but I do recognize the check that the press provides on the government to keep it “honest.” (At least as it relates to behavior in regards to citizens.)
Additionally, would it be safe to say that you have no problem with the “prisoners of war”" being held by our government post nine-eleven?

And the masses standby and watch with voyeurustic delight as Lady Liberty is gang banged by the religious right and fascist conservatives in America.

So, just who is the information classified from? The American People, of course.

Having said that, I don’t mind having legitmate laws enforced (assuming this is legitimate), I just get tired of this selective enforcement that goes on every day. If they aren’t going to at least make an attempt to enforce a law 100% of the time, then it probably shouldn’t be a law to begin with.

Good luck in there…I hope you can keep your blog going still with random updates from the joint…