Seymour Hersch of THE NEW YORKER magazine released the news that the US has been carrying a no. of missions deep in Iran to evenuate the dismantleing of their nuclear infrastructure.
How does alerting the world about these secret missions help the US?
If they are secret missions, then why is Hersch writing as much detail as he can? What is the line that separates first amendment rights and treasonous acts
There CAN be national security implications in a reporter revealing such information, I admit. But in practice (mostly) the rule has been if you have it you can print it.
Certainly one of the more important examples is The Pentagon Papers
Is Mr. Hersch a US citizen? Last time I checked the US Constitution, it would take 2 witnesses who witnessed my treasonous act to convict me or Mr. Hersch. It seems to me an article on the New Yorker magazine isn’t proof of treason.
I’m fairly certain the established legal precedent is that reporters can report on troop movements without the legal ramifications of having commited treason, even if these reports might help the enemy. Apparently the free speech part of the constitution trumps the no-treason part, though I don’t know why this is. I recall Geraldo got in trouble during the latest Gulfwar for reporting where the unit he was imbedded with was located. He was tossed out of the unit by the US militray, but they didn’t charge him with any crime.
Oddly enough, not every would agree it is the responsibility of the press to ‘help the US,’ and if they do, they might not all agree with you on the right methods to ‘help the US.’
It’s the odd thing about the First Amendment, it also protects the right to publish things the government does not want you to publish. Otherwise it would be kind of pointless.
A spy representing a country other than the US is able to obtain absolutely top secret information from deep in the bowels of US intelligence. He transmits this info to a journalist who publishes in detail all of the secret information to the world at large.
Are you saying that the journalist is not liable in any way relating to treason?
I don’t know National Security Law, but my guess is that there would be liability based on interaction with an agent of a foreign nation.
The whole concept of a responsibility for the press to do things the government wants disturbs me more than a little. If the press finds out about secret missions in a foreigh nation that violate US and international law, should they not report them? Should they not report on matters that might lead to courts martial for military personel, if the government determines such actions were necessary for the conduct of whatever combat situation was involved?
I’m not saying the press does not have a responsibility to be aware of the effects of what they publish. But I am most uncomfortable with allowing the government carte blanche to determine what is in the national interest and what can be published.
Apparently, otherwise Robert Novak would be swinging by his neck.
The First (and also Fifth) Amendments are indeed odd. A few years ago I had detectives knocking on my door wanting to speak to me about what was on my website, and my alleged Internet communications. My response was “Based on the advice of legal counsel, I wish to make no comment on this matter without legal counsel present. Do you gentlemen have a warrant for my arrest, or a search warrant signed by a federal judge?”
Response: “Umm…no.”
My reply: "Then I bid you gentlemen a fond goodbye. [I then slam the door in their face.] "
Treason was never an issue. The Constution just says I don’t have to respond to cops. “No comment” is powerful words in court.
Part of that line is intent, specifically intent to help the nation’s enemies. There’s an informative post on this matter here. To sum up (from the link):
Definition of Treason under Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution
Is Sy Hersh making war on the US? Nope.
Is he “adhering to our enemies?” Nope
Is he giving them aid and comfort? Nope.
Is Iran even our “enemy?” in the sense that we are engaged in any sort of ongoing military conflict? Nope.
No “treason” here. just the Freedom of the Press in action.
I would consider giving advance knowledge of a military strike or information about past covert actions to be giving aid. In fact I am not entirely sure how it could be seen otherwise.
There is no need for a military conflict for them to be our enemy. We never directly engaged the Soviet Union but they were considered our enemy.
Based on my admittedly non-expert knowledge, it would appear that “giving them aid and comfort” is not it itself treason; “adhering to the enemy, giving them aid and comfort” is. Which is where intent comes into the picture.
The following is quoted from Cramer v. United States, a Supreme Court case from 1945:
Again, I’m not a lawyer. But it seems pretty clear from the above-quoted decision that Mr. Hersch’s actions do not meet the definition of treason unless it can be proved not only that his actions “aided the enemy” but that he intended to betray the United States by so doing. And merely intending to inform the U.S. public of what’s going on in Iran is not the same thing as intending to betray the United States.
I think there’s also still the issue of whether Iran is an “enemy.”
Does anybody know how “enemy” is legally defined as it relates to treason?
What exactly does adhering to the enemy mean? Must one jump in a vat of glue and then find the closiest Iranian to jump on?
Neat. Therefore, liberals are not traitors, despite common GOP nonsense to the contrary.
Easy. Treason is defined in the original text of the Constitution. Free speech is based on the First Amendment – a change made to the original Constitution, after the original’s enactment. An amendment trumps anything in the original text, to the extent of any logical conflict. That applies as much to ordinary statute law as to the Constitution.
Of course, this is not as simple as it appears (nothing is, in the law) – it does not, by itself, establish that speech or publication can never be treasonous, or otherwise criminal, in and of itself. None of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights or later amendments are absolute or unlimited; sometimes the courts will balance the right against the government’s interest in infringing it, applying any of several different tests depending on the circumstances. WRT speech and publication, the publisher might still bear civil liability (e.g., for defamation) or ciminal liability (e.g., for disclosing classified information) – after the content in question is published. The Pentagon Papers case, however, established that the government can only step in and prosecute after the content is published and the damage is done; “prior restraint,” i.e., censorship, is now allowed.
Do you people who feel comfortable with journalists releasing information which is classifed as top secret but not considered treason believe there is a need for intelligence agencies in the US?
And alerting the Iranians and the world of our covert actions performed for reasons in the OP is not treason…would YOU as a journalist be willing to release any top secret info you learn?..Please explain…
Sorry, I meant, of course, “prior restraint” is not allowed.
This is nonsensical. It is also difficult to respond to in a coherent manner because I’m unsure of what point you thought you were making.
Intelligence agencies exist to carry out investigations, to gather data, and to advise other government entities on decisions. Hiding information is not the job of an intelligence agency. Unless you believe the Ministry of Propaganda to be a legitimate type of intelligence agency. It is, however, the right of any organization to deem certain information’s secrecy important to operation. The government is constrained in what it can decide is secret, but citizens cannot directly force the government to yield information that it has legitimately deemed secret.
The press is just a group of citizens that get special access to events. It carries no legal power to extract information from anybody. Agents of the government are no more required to offer the truth to a member of the press than you are. If a formal request for non-secret information is made that information has to be given, but if a reporter shoves a microphone in the face of a general he doesn’t have to say anything more than “Get that the fuck out of my face.”
Now, if the government wants something secret it can stonewall. That’s fine. I may question it morally, but legally and practically I understand it. If a reporter uses legal methods to extract that information, or happens to see it while not breaking the law, that is also fine. These things happen. The reporter can do whatever they wish with that information. If the government tries to stop them by applying force that is not okay. Appeals to patriotism are acceptable means of convincing a reporter to not print something. Threats of violence are not.
Treason is a strong term. Is reporting on government corruption treason? Is it possible to commit treason by telling citizens of a democratic republic about the activities of its elected government? There is a world of difference between telling everybody that the government is engaged in secret military activities and telling only our enemies.
If I were a journalist and I discovered top secret information I would report it, if it was newsworthy. Exact troop locations are not newsworthy, the nature of denied and potentially illegal missions is. Why? The second lets people know what kind of government they have elected and this is vital to democracy. If people do not know what kind of government they have elected there can be no informed voting.