Pete Hoekstra, Interviewed by Bill Bennett, agrees: Journos to Jail
Published by Mike Stark April 21st, 2006 in Bill BennettCaution: Big file - 14+ minutes of audio..
I’m just beginning to discover Bennett’s morning show. He’s on from 6-9 AM EST, so you West Coasters don’t have a chance…
Anyway, as many of you will recall, Bennett suggested that some Pulitzer winning journalists should instead be jailed for publishing classified information. Bennett wants them prosecuted under the Espionage Act.
And it looks like he’s found some support in Congress. To be fair, the chairman of the intelligence committee, Pete Hoekstra, isn’t calling for the reporters to be jailed for violations of the Espionage Act. Instead, he seems to be longing for the journalists to be hauled before a court, ordered to divulge their sources and jailed if they refuse to comply…
Some of you may see a big difference in the two charges. To be sure, contempt of court does not carry the weight a charge under the Espionage Act would entail… However… In this blogger’s opinion, if these reporters are pursued by the long arm of the law, the United States will have taken a significant step towards tyranny.
In fact, I know a lot of you will agree with me that we’ve already taken some pretty long strides down that road… I think Hoekstra - the Chair of the Intelligence Committee - coming out for the jailing of journalists is, in and of itself, further evidence of this trend.
It seems like this is another good time to ask: exactly what does America stand for? What are we protecting ourselves against? How much of a difference is there between asking for prosecution under the Espionage Act (which carries with it the potential for the death penalty) and calling for the death of Salman Rushdie?
The jailing of Judith Miller comes up in this conversation. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about that. One one hand, the self-promoting wench deserved contempt for her negligence and total disregard (to this day) for the consequences of her spreading of unsubstantiated gossip. I’ll admit that I cheered when I saw the news about her jailing.
At the time, I disregarded warnings about slippery slopes. These days, I’m not so sure I was right. In fact, I think I was wrong. I don’t think we can depend on the stodgy system of law to bend quickly enough or be flexible enough to differentiate between legitimate reporting and stenography/gossip spreading. And if we are going to start jailing reporters at all, I think we need to trust that the law will make sense… I don’t have that trust.
Finally, I included the call that Bill Bennett took immediately subsequent to the interview. The guy says it as well as I ever could.
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
he let the bennett guy trap him into the “why isn’t it ok for NSA to spy on Al-Queda” arguement. When the argument is spying on Americans without a Warrant. which is against the law. These guys are very good. It’s a well oiled propoganda machine. I don’t think i have the wit to think on the spot like that and counter these guys. I’ve only scene Al Sharpton and Glenn Greenwald (from crooksandliars) pull it off smoothly. I also think they have a really good process in screening for those who may be prepared for them.
But i will give the caller credit for bringing the similarities between us and china who we regard as violating freedoms.
Hoeksta “Americans may die” …hmmm like the result of BushCo Inc. lies before the invasion .. also I almost choked (having to self-Himlich (sp?) myself) laughing hearing him talk about the administration’s “passion for stopping leaks” … my call? in the spirit of Bill B. … 3-2 odds Rove indicted by Fitz Grand Jury meeting today.. Thank you for this audio..
That caller Tom who comes in at 12min is a radio ninja.
Kudos to Tom for his call, but he missed the point of Bennett’s attack — the right to disclose “national security secrets during a time of war” is the most basic form of journalism if those “national security secrets” are illegal, and the legality of renditions or the nsa wiretapping is clearly illegal to everyone but King George & His Court… Hey Bill, I know you like to gamble a little, I’ll bet you more Republicans go to jail over this war than journalists, and you already have a 1-0 lead…
No I think Tom nailed it when he said that China’s killing of Falun Gong members should be exposed despite the state claiming national security
And he nailed it when he said that Germany’s killing of Jews should have been exposed for what it was even though Hitler claimed national interest.
Tom is a ninja remember?
If Al Qaeda is as sophisticated as Mr. Bennett claims, then they likely ALREADY know they are being spied upon by others. US intelligence agencies spy on everyone. It’s not a state secret to say that Al Qaeda is being watched or that prison camps exist in other countries. It’s not as if Al Qaeda is being given information that it doesn’t already have or could figure out on their own by rubbing two brain cells together.
Mr. Bennett thinks that Arabs/Moslems are stupid and can’t operate without the aid of American journalists.
The crux of modern free speech jurisprudence was stated by Justice Holmes in a case decided during World War I: “No one has the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.”
Where American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are “in harm’s way” there is absolutely no right to breach security regulations or to knowingly publish classified information.
The question becomes more difficult where the risk to troops is less clear and the classified information may relate to violations of United States Law or binding treaty obligations or international law. However, simply because the information is classified, it is very difficult to tell if American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines ARE actually put a risk by such a release.
Therefore, I have no sympathy for anyone who would release such information sua sponte, the (in my opinion) poorly decided and unreasoned Pentagon Papers case from 1971 not to the contrary.
Where something suspect is discovered the moral obligation on the part of the media is to go to the government and confront those responsible. If things are changed, there is no issue. Where things remain the same and there is greater assurance that something is amiss, THAT (rather than the classified information) becomes the story.
However, this is simply one man’s opinion.
if the leak exposes something illegal, i assume exposing it is protected. does this mean that if they prosecute the reporter of the nsa warrantless surveillance (i think it was risen), the court will be forced to rule on the legality of the nsa program? i have looked at the arguments, and the justifications and all, and there is no way in hell that the nsa program is constitutional. its blatant. if so, i hope they do prosecute risen (or whomever it was), cause as long as the republicans control congress no investigation will go anywhere.