Why is it not against the law to illegally possess or publish classified info?

I just happened to think about this. It's one thing to request info under FOIA, but sans that? Why isn't it against the law?

It's that whole "freedom of the press" thing. If you're a journalist you can slander, malign and disclose pretty much anything without fear of consequence.

Now, that being said, if you're the Obama administration and you're pissed about leaks you can put James Rosen in jail but only because he's with FOX and FOX doesn't count as "media".

MaggieD said:

I just happened to think about this. It's one thing to request info under FOIA, but sans that? Why isn't it against the law?

Click to expand...

This might help answer your question.

Q: Could U.S. Prosecute Reporters For Classified Scoops? A: Maybe : The Two-Way : NPR

TheGoverness said:

This might help answer your question.

Q: Could U.S. Prosecute Reporters For Classified Scoops? A: Maybe : The Two-Way : NPR

Click to expand...

I love NPRs milquetoast language "protecting sources is far from settled" uhhh no it's not, the US Supreme Court has ruled the first amendment does not protect a reporter from failing to disclose sources in a grand jury, in another case the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can compel a reporter to name their sources if those sources have testimony relevant to their defense. This is 100% settled

MaggieD said:

I just happened to think about this. It's one thing to request info under FOIA, but sans that? Why isn't it against the law?

Click to expand...

honest question Maggie, if obama (as preside then) was doing something against the law or against American interest would you seek to prosecute the media in reporting it?

For example I don't fault the media for reporting on Snowden, I fault Snowden. Can you say the same?

Praxas said:

honest question Maggie, if obama (as preside then) was doing something against the law or against American interest would you seek to prosecute the media in reporting it?

For example I don't fault the media for reporting on Snowden, I fault Snowden. Can you say the same?

Click to expand...

I can fault the media for printing something that they know is classified. If it isn't against the law, it should be, in my opinion.

MaggieD said:

I can fault the media for printing something that they know is classified. If it isn't against the law, it should be, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

So then when the media reported what Snowden said you believe they should have been prosecuted? Just trying to get a baseline here.

Because I disagree there, even with Snowden, I don't fault the media I fault Snowden.

Re: Why is it not against the law to illegally possess or publish classified info

That is a good question but we should take that a step further. Starting with what makes certain information (facts?) classified?

It appears that it is simply up to the executive branch to decide what would "damage national interests" if it was made public (for some period of time?). What, exactly, qualifies as "damage" is one key question - does the reputation of the POTUS's credibility count? And who, exactly, can say what must be kept secret (and from who else) to qualify as a national interest?

Obviously there is need to protect methods and sources but a phone call is not a protected method and a head of state is not a protected source so it boils down to the content (subject matter?) of such a phone call. The recent leak of a (six month old?) telephone conversation transcript between the POTUS and the Mexican president about paying for a border wall is hardly what anyone would consider worthy of being considered classified. Matters of funding for US public works projects should not be hidden as the "great" wall itself is to be in plain site for all to see (and admire?).

Cleary Trump was embarrassed by the exposure of his dopey campaign promise of "making Mexico pay for the wall" as being total BS - but is the president's wish to hide his own campaign lie sufficient to make something classiifed? The release of this particular conversation may damage the POTUS and call into question the security of any other private converstaions of the POTUS but the release of this call's content does not damage "national interests". So who makes the call that releasing something (stamped?) classified, which clearly should not have been, is or is not a crime?

I could tell you the real deal, but then I would have to....?

Praxas said:

So then when the media reported what Snowden said you believe they should have been prosecuted? Just trying to get a baseline here.

Because I disagree there, even with Snowden, I don't fault the media I fault Snowden.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I do. I think we have to draw some lines re disclosure of conversations with heads of state. If the transcripts are true, it is VERY bad for our country. If heads of state think they cannot be candid on these private calls, I see that as a probable nightmare.

I understand where you're coming from. I just think we need some control so our foreign policy can be effective.

The bigger problem, though, is why the White House can't plug these leaks. Ere' something behind the curtain we don't know. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the press focused on THAT?

Re: Why is it not against the law to illegally possess or publish classified info

The media, and even private citizens, have no obligation to protect classified information. Those of us who have worked with classified information received training on the handling and protection of classified information and signed non-disclosure agreements stating we could be prosecuted if we mishandled it. The media and private citizens have received no such training nor have they signed such legal documentation.

Also, it isn't a road I would want to go down. You can classify anything for any stupid reason you want. THe overwhelming majority of classified correspondence has nothing to do with national security. I used to receive classified emails that said nothing other than things akin to "Merry Christmas" or "Good morning". I don't want the simple application of "CONFIDENTIAL" on top of any government correspondence to stop the media from being able to report on it. Because if that is all it takes I PROMISE you just about everything will become classified.

If the government wants to protect information then it is the government's obligation to protect it.

MaggieD said:

I just happened to think about this. It's one thing to request info under FOIA, but sans that? Why isn't it against the law?

Click to expand...

It is. For some reason, we don't lock people up for it like we should.

Re: Why is it not against the law to illegally possess or publish classified info

Skeptic Bob said:

The media, and even private citizens, have no obligation to protect classified information. Those of us who have worked with classified information received training on the handling and protection of classified information and signed non-disclosure agreements stating we could be prosecuted if we mishandled it. The media and private citizens have received no such training nor have they signed such legal documentation.

Also, it isn't a road I would want to go down. You can classify anything for any stupid reason you want. THe overwhelming majority of classified correspondence has nothing to do with national security. I used to receive classified emails that said nothing other than things akin to "Merry Christmas" or "Good morning". I don't want the simple application of "CONFIDENTIAL" on top of any government correspondence to stop the media from being able to report on it. Because if that is all it takes I PROMISE you just about everything will become classified.

If the government wants to protect information then it is the government's obligation to protect it.

Click to expand...

The law does not require an NDA.

MaggieD said:

Yeah, I do. I think we have to draw some lines re disclosure of conversations with heads of state. If the transcripts are true, it is VERY bad for our country. If heads of state think they cannot be candid on these private calls, I see that as a probable nightmare.

I understand where you're coming from. I just think we need some control so our foreign policy can be effective.

The bigger problem, though, is why the White House can't plug these leaks. Ere' something behind the curtain we don't know. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the press focused on THAT?

Click to expand...

I agree the leaks are a big problem but then who has been placed by the president to head off that problem and what president is currently pacing these people?

I know we have a disagreement on media and their legal responsibility but let's be honest here and if the transcripts are true we have a very deficient president at the helm.

MaggieD said:

Yeah, I do. I think we have to draw some lines re disclosure of conversations with heads of state. If the transcripts are true, it is VERY bad for our country. If heads of state think they cannot be candid on these private calls, I see that as a probable nightmare. I understand where you're coming from. I just think we need some control so our foreign policy can be effective. The bigger problem, though, is why the White House can't plug these leaks. Ere' something behind the curtain we don't know. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the press focused on THAT?

Click to expand...

So you want the press to do the President's Chief of Staff job??? Find and plug leaks???

Should the press root out police corruption AND not report it?

Watergate broke wide open do to leaks. Without them the case more than likely would have been just renegade operatives and no knowledge of a President attempting a cover-up.

Now about 'private' conversations with heads of state- by now I figured the NSA's 'Patriot Act' guidelines meant NO ONE can have a secret conversation. The information will get out, can the USofA successfully prosecute a foreign news source when fed by say Russia's intelligence services? I see a YUGE difference between leaking snide name calling done by our people, reporting 'secret' and repeatedly denied meetings vs giving our defense plans/launch codes/ troop readiness reports... I figure most of us do...

One thing that is a constant in this lament is who complains about leaks- if your political lean is temporarily at the top then leaks are bad... eace

:lamo

MaggieD said:

I just happened to think about this. It's one thing to request info under FOIA, but sans that? Why isn't it against the law?

Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to your question Maggie, because I'm not familiar enough with the US Code. It may already be illegal, I don't know.

But what is certain is that in the last 15 years or so, the amount of material "classified" by the government has grown by leaps and bounds. I think Dana Priest at WaPo and other have written about that phenomenon. It has become absurd.

If the government has nothing to hide, why does it hide so much?

Thoreau72 said:

I don't know the answer to your question Maggie, because I'm not familiar enough with the US Code. It may already be illegal, I don't know.

But what is certain is that in the last 15 years or so, the amount of material "classified" by the government has grown by leaps and bounds. I think Dana Priest at WaPo and other have written about that phenomenon. It has become absurd.

If the government has nothing to hide, why does it hide so much?

Click to expand...

I agree with you. But I think, in this case, conversations between world leaders deserve the classification. I think it's vital to our relationships with them. The way to solve problems between countries is candid dialogue... not dialogue that is couched in nothingness because others fear the sieve that's become on White House.