War With Iran Has Begun 5/21/07

That article could put peoples lives in jeopardy. It is clearly aiding and abetting the enemy. This is not whistle-blowing it is a criminal activity. The reporter and their sources should be prosecuted. Iran is a danger to the whole planet. This is most definitely a National Security issue. Only those who side with the Terrorists could say otherwise.

You could use the argument that once the story is out it is no longer a crime to repeat it. I'm not sure that passes the smell test. I'm sure all the major media sources will be using that excuse shortly.

The law should be enforced. Warrents should be issued and heads should roll. The actual person in the CIA who leaked this should face Treason charges and everyone who repeated the leak should join them in prison. This aided a named enemy in the War On Terror.

They reported the news.

I don't agree with it.

But free press and all that.

Mr Cut Wolf.

Have you heard of Executive Orders that the President can make which overrides our Constitution???????

Just checking.

Another basic questions: WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS????

Oh, theres one, oh another one, hey that guy has a turban he is a terrorist, according to this Gov. almost ANYONE can be a terrorist.

Heres my proof of my statements. Lets see yours.
Does Congress REALLY need to approve wars?? archives.cnn.com...

Executive Orders - Is this Consitutional??
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 23-5-2007 by hoochymama]

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
War With Iran Has Begun 5/21/07

We have been in a proxy war with Iran for years now. The insurgents in Iraq are from Syria and Iran. I'm sure we've been moving to destablize the country for a while. It's nothing new.

Good. Hopefully they'll prevent another illigal war.

It is clearly aiding and abetting the enemy. This is not whistle-blowing it is a criminal activity.

The Bush Administration has been involved in criminal activities for 6 years now. I know you warmongers are chomping at the bit to kill another 100,000+ people cuz I know the bloodlust inrpired by 9/11 hasn't totally abated yet, but jeeze, actions like these just make you guys look like The Great Satan that pretty much the entire wolrd considers your evil empire to be now.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Cutwolf

But free press and all that.

The press is not free to print information it knows is secret for National Security reasons. This reporter and the Network commited a crime. The problem is the media has so much political power they thumb their nose at the law and consider themselves above it. Until the Justice Dept. does its job and prosecutes these acts of treason it is also committing the crime of Obstructing Justice.

This is not Iraq we are talking about here. The United Nations Security Council voted unanomously for sanctions. The only people siding with Iran are Terrorists and their supporters. No rational person thinks that Iran should have Nuclear Weapons. Iran has made no secret of its intentions to destroy the Free World.

Originally posted by sardion2000
chomping at the bit to kill another 100,000+ people

That's a bogus number. Don't bother posting links .. it's already been debunked.

pretty much the entire wolrd considers your evil empire to be now.

You wish. And even if it did .. we wouldn't care.

Originally posted by hoochymama
Mr Cut Wolf.

Have you heard of Executive Orders that the President can make which overrides our Constitution???????

Just checking.

Another basic questions: WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS????

Oh, theres one, oh another one, hey that guy has a turban he is a terrorist, according to this Gov. almost ANYONE can be a terrorist.

Heres my proof of my statements. Lets see yours.
Does Congress REALLY need to approve wars?? archives.cnn.com...

Executive Orders - Is this Consitutional??
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 23-5-2007 by hoochymama]

I'll use your source against you.

From the wiki article:

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues in the United States therein.

If you are not familiar with the War Power's Act:

Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec.. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, you may feel it is unconstitutional. It may very well be. The fact of the matter is, however, that the law is on the books.

Cut Wolf. I guess you "kind of agree" with me which is OK with me.

Didnt Scooter Libby get in trouble for releasing "Classified Info"???

They went after him pretty hard. I doubt anyone will go after the person who gave out this Classified info because like someone said earlier, this is a test to see how the American people react. If we feed into the FAKE news and start to gradually approve of it, just like the lies for going to war in Iraq, they will use this to go to war with Iran.

Its simple.



[edit on 23-5-2007 by hoochymama]

Originally posted by sardion2000
actions like these just make you guys look like The Great Satan that pretty much the entire wolrd considers your evil empire to be now.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by sardion2000]

So, you want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons? You approve of that? The United Nations Security Council does not agree with you. I'd be interested in knowing why you think the world should sit by and let Iran do the things they have promised to do?

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Cutwolf

But free press and all that.

The press is not free to print information it knows is secret for National Security reasons. This reporter and the Network commited a crime. The problem is the media has so much political power they thumb their nose at the law and consider themselves above it. Until the Justice Dept. does its job and prosecutes these acts of treason it is also committing the crime of Obstructing Justice.

This is not Iraq we are talking about here. The United Nations Security Council voted unanomously for sanctions. The only people siding with Iran are Terrorists and their supporters. No rational person thinks that Iran should have Nuclear Weapons. Iran has made no secret of its intentions to destroy the Free World.

Although I can't find any laws or Supreme Court cases dealing with the exact same scenario, there are some that could apply:

New York Times v. United States 1971

Nixon tried to use 'prior restraint' to stop the NYT from publishing classified documents because the publication would hurt national security. Court ruled Nixon violated the 1st amendment

Implications

The broader implications of this case at the time were that the people of the United States were exposed to a history of inner operations of the Executive with regards to the war, putting the Government under a level of public scrutiny it had not known before. The Times’ victory strengthened the notion that it was not only the right of but also a central purpose of the free press to scrutinize government. This notion has been kept strong since and is still evident today in public criticism of the Bush Administration. The status of the debate in recent years has focused on criminal technicalities relating to First Amendment rights, as well as prior restraints against information that has the potential to harm people economically. It is still contended that the freedom of the press cannot be abridged through vague speculations of harm.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are also cases such at the North Jersey Media Group v Ashcroft which ruled in favor of the public's right to know vs the government's right to secrecy.

I really wish we would just stay out of it. We should just give Israel the OK and let them nuke Iran and turn that place into a glass parking lot. Geeze. We need to work smart, not hard.

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Although I can't find any laws or Supreme Court cases dealing with the exact same scenario, there are some that could apply:

How could disclosing National Security secrets be legal? I don't think it is that they could not convict a reporter its that they are afraid to prosecute for political reasons. The Justice Dept. is clearly not doing its job. Janet Reno, by making the Justice Dept. a political tool, opened a can of worms that won't be easily closed again. She scared me more than Bush or Iran ever could. Both Clinton's and Bush's Justice Departments have thumbed their nose at the law in favor of politics. Presidents come and go but when the Justice Dept. gets corrupted it could take generations to clean up the mess.

Originally posted by Dissension
I really wish we would just stay out of it. We should just give Israel the OK and let them nuke Iran and turn that place into a glass parking lot. Geeze. We need to work smart, not hard.

There is more logic in your post than anything I've read in a long while. Two thumbs up here

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Although I can't find any laws or Supreme Court cases dealing with the exact same scenario, there are some that could apply:

How could disclosing National Security secrets be legal? I don't think it is that they could not convict a reporter its that they are afraid to prosecute for political reasons. The Justice Dept. is clearly not doing its job. Janet Reno, by making the Justice Dept. a political tool, opened a can of worms that won't be easily closed again. She scared me more than Bush or Iran ever could. Both Clinton's and Bush's Justice Departments have thumbed their nose at the law in favor of politics. Presidents come and go but when the Justice Dept. gets corrupted it could take generations to clean up the mess.

You just ignored my post.

There isn't some set in stone definition of what is national security and what isn't.

The rulings seem to favor the presses right to report vs the government's right to secrecy.

The government can't exercise 'prior restraint' after the story is already published. That doesn't make sense.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying anything about the legality of the CIA employee who disclosed it (illegal). But if the report is leaked to the press, they have the right to report it.

Any attempt to go after the press would inevitably go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the government tends to lose these sorts of cases.

They should attempt to crack down on leaks, however.

[edit on 5-23-2007 by Cutwolf]

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Ships packed with 17,000 sailors and Marines moved into the Persian Gulf on Wednesday as the U.S. Navy staged another show of force off Iran's coast just days before U.S.-Iran talks in Baghdad
cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Keep in mind, I'm not saying anything about the legality of the CIA employee who disclosed it (illegal). But if the report is leaked to the press, they have the right to report it.

[edit on 5-23-2007 by Cutwolf]

I see what you are saying. We are misunderstanding each other I think.

My point is that the CIA Agent committed a crime and the reporter did in fact assist in the crime by printing the leak. Who knows how the courts would view this. Judges routinely attempt to legislate from the bench which is a right not given to them in the Constitution. It scares me that both Congress and the Supreme Court are trying to eliminate the Separation of Powers with their actions. Congress is not doing that because they think it is just or noble, they care only about their own careers. That should scare everyone no matter which side of the political fence they reside on.

I don't think the journalist who reported this is acting any more criminally than MSNBC did by publishing the VT shooter's media kit.

Originally posted by Cutwolf
I don't think the journalist who reported this is acting any more criminally than MSNBC did by publishing the VT shooter's media kit.

Does two wrongs make a right? Its the what ifs that get me. What if Iran, after hearing this report or reading it, decides to punish us be taking hostages or kills Americans already in Iran in retaliation. Does the reporter bear any responsibility for that? Actions have consequences. Perhaps the blame lies solely with the person who leaked the information legally, but morally? If a Police Officer leaks to me they are investigating my neighbor and I leak that to the neighbor who arms himself and kills the officer; am I responsible. Yes, I think I would share guilt. I see this as being the same thing.

This has been an interesting conversation, but I need to get some work done. You gave me a couple of things to ponder. Thanks.

The government isn't the moral police.

And the reporter is simply doing his job.

The blame does, in fact, lie solely with the one who leaked this information.