Don’t confuse ‘freedom of the press’ with aiding & abetting national security violators

Our U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact, or a death warrant.

While it does call for freedom of the press, it does not mean that such freedom will be inviolable even if it means jeopardizing America’s national security.

Violating federal law – especially where national security is involved – is serious.

The ‘senior U.S. gov’t official/s’ involved in leaking national security communications willfully broke the law (18 U.S.C. 798)…as did the media that willingly published it.

The law is there for a reason…failure to properly prosecute in its enforcement would be a clear message to all that national security is no longer an important issue.

(On top of that, our allies will not trust often critical cross-agency cooperation if we’re not able to demonstrate our intelligence agencies are under control.)

Besides, we’ve had enough of a previous administration trampling rule-of-law.

And the law doesn’t differentiate between leakers, or those who publish leaks.

Publishers of such classified material who refuse to identify leakers aid and abet such unlawful activity, and as such, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

As Fox News’s Jarrett points out “…the statute itself clearly criminalizes the publishing of classified material…” but then says prosecuting the publisher is wrong.

We disagree. Federal laws in place to protect our national security shouldn’t be toyed with, and as noted above, the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact.

After all, would publishers of secret American troop movements be protected? What about names of covert intelligence operatives, or missions currently being worked?

Clearly, freedom of the press cannot be more important than the lives of our military, or our intelligence operatives in foreign lands, far from any U.S. protection.

The only thing they have to rely on are the federal laws protecting them.

When they aid and abet violators of laws protecting national security, prosecute.

Prosecute fully, ANY and ALL involved in the publishing of classified material.

And, yes, Hillary, that means you as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *