 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: Class action lawsuit against media on "leaks" |
 |
|
John O'Neill is a lawyer, correct?
Can someone pass this story on to him with the question of how to go about the class-action suit suggested?
The suits would be against the MSM for endangering our security via the "leaks" of the foriegn surveillance programs of the NSA, the very same MSM who helped malign the Swiftvets recently, and all of the Vietnam vets just a few decades ago.
----------------------------------------------
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/01/putting-my-family-in-danger.html
PUTTING MY FAMILY IN DANGER
AJ Strata has an excellent idea:
A while ago someone suggested a way for ‘We The People’ to fight back as these treasonous liberals expose us to attack. The idea was to bring a class action law suit against the media outlets who recklessly expose our defense mechanisms to our enemies.
We don’t need to win, as much as get millions and millions of people signing up against the New York Times, Washington Post, the reporters themselves. In my opinion these companies are impairing my civil rights by exposing me and my familiy to terrorist acts. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the partisan actions of these leakers is putting all of this at risk.
These are not whistleblowers, they never show a single instance of wrong doing - just theories and conjecture. Their motivations are purely partisan politics.
I don't know about you, but I am getting tired of this kind of political BS compromising our war effort on every front.
Why not file a lawsuit and petition for class action status? God knows there are plenty of people out there who file lawsuits for practically no reason whatsoever. What about Mr. Newdow who filed a lawsuit because his daughter had to "suffer" through saying the Pledge of Allegiance with its oppressive references to God? This national security situation is far more serious and potentially dangerous to my child's life and pursuit of happiness than that triviality.
The wanton and deliberate leaking of this intelligence program not only puts those in classified postions out in the field at risk, but it also seriously impacts my own family's safety. If there are issues in the program that are controversial from a legal standpoint, then I expect Congress and the President to deal with them discretely--particularly during a time of war.
The fact that there are people in Congress who want to use this as a weapon against the Commander in Chief and for their own partisan gain-- rather than to defeat our enemies-- tells me that they do not deserve my respect, my confidence nor my vote.
I can't vote against the NY Times and its editors (I already cancelled my subscription a long time ago); but I think a lawsuit against them would be entirely appropriate and appeal to a lot of people like me, who are totally outraged at the unbelievable attitude of our national media toward the nation's security. They are putting my family in danger, and they don't care.
Why not file a lawsuit and petition for class action status? Why not demand that they cease and desist this behavior?
Any good lawyers out there?
UPDATE: The Anchoress agrees and has some further thoughts.
UPDATE II: Isn't this interesting. Many of us seem to have reached the limits of patience with the MSM all at the same time. ShrinkWrapped discusses "bear baiting". Must have been a bunch of New Year's Resolutions.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:46 PM Comments (22) | Trackbacks (4)
----------------------------------------------
As an example of the frightening ways the information "leaked" by the leakers and then published in the MSM can be used by the terrorists, from http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1126 :
One thing I have not posted on is the seriousness of these leaks. I have hesitated to do the thinking for the terrorists on how to use this information. But I have decided to provide one simple example I think they will figure out on their own, partly to illustrate the damage done by these partisan idiots, but also to pre-empt some possible counter attacks by the foreign terrorists.
The one example of the damage I will explore is a how this ‘news’ allows terrorists to take cover in plain sight, and to roil our political process by making us fight amongst ourselves. The response is sadly simple, and relies on the desperation of the anti-Bush crowd to latch onto anything that could harm Bush for political payback. The problem with the liberals out of control is they are so damn easy to manipulate. They are not thinking, they are reacting.
For the terrorists to use the leak of the NSA spy program against us they simply have to start contact innocent Americans at random. That way their communications with their agents here in the US will be one contact within numerous fake contactsl. But it doesn’t stop there. If these terrorists target liberals and well known leftists, then it will become clear the Feds will be detecting calls to these anti-war types. And if that news were to break, then the left would go more hysterical than they are now and we would have a real problem in the country trying to stay focused on protecting ourselves. And that would give Al Qaeda the distraction they need to get a WMD in place.
-- FDL
_________________
"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" - Thomas Jefferson on paying ransom to Muslim corsairs (pirates). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would think that if there's some ad hoc "lawyering" to be done, "Judicial Watch" might be the one to...um...watch? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deuce
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 589
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FtDix & Me#1,
First let me preface this note by applauding the concept...what a great idea, a non-anti-capitalist class action lawsuit...dunno if it's been tried!
The whole class action concept (class envy) is outside the box for most conservatives!
The point...well made, by the way at American Lawyer, is that lawyers are trained by liberals to be liberal:
| Quote: | [there are about 230 Law Schools in the US]..."The 191 accredited law schools in the United States churn out some 40,000 J.D.s a year. These people will become community leaders in business, politics, education, civic organizations, and many other fields. Even today, after centuries of lawyer jokes and other forms of lawyer-bashing, the legal profession remains, as Tocqueville observed, the natural aristocracy of merit in a society that rejects inherited rank and privilege. How these lawyers are trained matters a great deal not just to them, but to the larger society that they will help to lead. Their political values, shaped in part by their teachers and then carried into their communities, will help define them as parents, citizens, and leaders.
What, then, are the political values of law professors, and how closely do those values resemble those of the larger communities that the newly minted lawyers will enter and influence? The answer to these two questions depends on whether you believe the high-minded ideals about diversity emblazoned on the facades of university buildings, celebrated in academic ceremonies, and proclaimed in the briefs that the schools file in affirmative action and academic freedom cases-or whether you believe, instead, the empirical evidence on law faculty diversity that a few social scientists have recently developed.
...Which groups would add the most viewpoint diversity to law school faculties? Lindgren's answer, for most faculties, is "Republicans, conservatives, and evangelical or fundamentalist Christians... |
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1133258711465
So, good luck finding a 'conservative' lawyer! the ones I knew are software developers, VP s, etc...albeit all-round great people. Very few remain lawyers, and obviously fewer still become judges!
Deuce |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
It looks like my post on AJ Strata's Blog is gaining traction. Here is my original post on this issue posted right here back in October.
http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21033&highlight=
| SBD wrote: | If the real truth does see the light of day in the Plame Game, it is the New York Times that should be held accountable and be forced to pay all of the money wasted on this fraudulant investigation. It absolutely amazes me that it was continued to this point. I know that reporters in this country are lazy and some down right stupid, but it took over a week for them to figure out that they could make up the story that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent to get at two Bush administrataton officials. What about the DOJ or George Tenent who have yet to acknowledge that Plame was undercover. Shouldn't the entire Department of Justice be fired for not reacting immediately to such an act that undermines National Security and puts lives in danger. What about Joe Wilson who gave several interviews after Novak's story and even spoke with Novak about his wife, but it never occurred to him to mention it and stop any further damage that could occur including the endangerment of his wife and two little girls.
The following article should have put an end to this saga, but once again the New York Times just continues to commit treason against the United States. The time has come to put an end to this once and for all. If anyone knows a lawyer that is willing to file a class action lawsuit against the New York Times to recover the taxpayer dollars wasted by the lies and distortions of this rag, I will be the first to join the class and contribute in any way I can. The New York Times should be no different than any other entity that has wasted the taxpayers money for spreading lies and must pay back the government for costs incurred.
Please let me know if anyone has any ideas on this because I am serious and I think that it could actually work. I sent this idea this morning to Move America Forward to see if they are interested. 
| Quote: | National Review July 22, 2003, Tuesday
July 22, 2003, Tuesday
SECTION: National Review Online; Krugman Truth Squad
LENGTH: 1484 words
HEADLINE: Retraction Times
BYLINE: By Donald Luskin; Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm. He welcomes your comments at don@trendmacro.com.
BODY:
I smell another New York Times retraction coming up. And a big one. Paul Krugman, America's most dangerous liberal pundit, has made a statement in his Times column today which - if it had been directed against a private individual rather than public officials - would almost certainly trigger a libel suit.
It's an extraordinarily serious allegation, tantamount to accusing Bush administration officials of treason:
... Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act ...
Krugman has been raking President Bush over the coals for his "16 words" in the State of the Union address - so now, the Krugman Truth Squad is going do a little raking with these "18 words." Let's start by putting Krugman's 18 words in context (which is more than Krugman ever does when he quotes President Bush):
And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him - it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.
Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.
Okay, let's look at this statement under the microscope in the Krugman Truth Squad's forensics lab, and watch a lie being born.
We'll start with the first sentence: "And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife." First, we're not "on the subject of patriotism." It's a peculiar error for a newspaper well known for being heavily copy-edited, but other than the title of the column - "Who's Unpatriotic Now" - there was no reference to patriotism in the column whatsoever. And similarly, there's no "affair of Joseph Wilson's wife" - these two paragraphs are the attempt to invent one.
The second sentence: "Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings." What a coincidence - it just so happens that Wilson "went public" by publishing an op-ed in none other but the New York Times itself on July 6. Considering that Krugman's Times column is a defense of copyrighted material that appeared in the Times, journalistic ethics demand that this potential conflict of interest be disclosed. But then ...
The third sentence: "Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him - it's unpleasant stuff." What's the "unpleasant stuff"? Krugman never says - so we are left to imagine a vicious smear campaign that does not, in fact, exist. CIA director George Tenet discussed Wilson's claims (without naming Wilson) in his courageous statement in which he expressed regret that the Niger intelligence had been cited in the State of the Union address. While Tenet argued Wilson's investigation was both incomplete and that elements of it partially supported the Niger intelligence, he said nothing whatsoever disparaging of Wilson. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said in a press briefing the day after Wilson's Times op-ed that there was "zero, nada, nothing new here." And in another press briefing the day after Tenet's statement, Fleischer forcefully argued that Wilson was presenting a one-sided view of his investigation for the media. But there was no "unpleasant stuff" whatsoever.
The most "unpleasant stuff" I can find is a critique by Capsar Weinberger in last Friday's Wall Street Journal. I'm not sure whether he qualifies as an "administration ally," but he notes that Wilson was always "an outspoken opponent of the war" and calls him a "retired ambassador with a less than stellar record." By the standards set by Krugman's columns - in which, for example, he has compared George Bush to Emperor Caligula and Captain Queeg - that "stuff" isn't really all that "unpleasant," is it? Or maybe the problem is the fact that Bush and security advisor Condoleezza Rice affronted Wilson's pride by being unaware of his investigation, which by his own admission he never wrote up as a report, prior to the inclusion of the "16 words" in the State of the Union.
The fourth sentence: "But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative." Isn't it remarkable that Krugman would quote conservative icon Robert Novak as an authority on anything more important than the time of day? Well, partisan punditry makes strange bedfellows. Here's what Novak said in a July 14 Chicago Sun-Times column:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
And here's what Time reported in a July 17 story:
And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched [sic] Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.
In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job."
This is a "smear job"? To say that Wilson's wife "suggested" or "was involved" in Wilson's trip? For one thing, who's to say it's not true - according to Novak, the CIA agrees Plame was "involved" - and if it is true, is it still a smear? And what if it's false - what exactly is the "unpleasant stuff" here? Is it the implication that Wilson's wife finagled an all-expenses-paid trip for her hubby to Niger? Now maybe if he were investigating Iraqi uranium purchases from Maui I could see the point, but it seems to me that the most "unpleasant" element is that it suggests that Plame must not like her husband very much.
Now on to the fifth sentence: "Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative." Huh?! When did "their characterization" of Plame go from being an "operative" (per Novak) or an "official" (per Time) to being a "covert operative"? That's Krugman's characterization. That's not reporting. That's not commentary. It's just plain old making stuff up.
Apparently the Times has learned nothing about fact-checking from the Jayson Blair scandal - or perhaps Krugman longs for the same kind of Pablo Picasso-like "retirement" from the Times that former executive editor Howell Raines told Charlie Rose he intends to enjoy - now that he's been chucked out onto the hard pavement of 43rd Street.
Okay, we're almost there - one sentence to go: "That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic." Well, there we have it. It's one thing for Krugman to use every dirty trick in the book to disagree with the policies of the Bush administration (though even there, only an utterly amoral partisan would agree that his end justifies his means). But this is something far worse. He has accused the Bush administration of endangering the life of a "covert operative" by exposing her. He has, in essence, accused the Bush administration of a conspiracy to commit treason.
If that's not what he really means then it is most urgent that a retraction from the New York Times be immediately forthcoming. |
SBD |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've written the lawyers at PowerLine asking that they comment on the feasibility of such a suit. I'm not sure an action that does not result from suffering actual damages to citizens or institutions vs. the threat of such damages would go far.
Also, such a proceeding would further peel back whatever remains of the details of the NSA operation.
But I'd love to see such a suit go forward. 
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Schadow wrote: | | I've written the lawyers at PowerLine asking that they comment on the feasibility of such a suit. |
This morning, PowerLine has come out with an extensive analysis of the culpability of the NYT in revealing the existence of the NSA program. While PW did not address the question of a class action suit against NYT, there is no doubt that NYT is in violation of the law. Quoting the PowerLine piece [emphasis mine]:
| Quote: | The federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:
"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." |
And,
| Quote: | | "Assuming that the terms of the statute apply to the leaks involved in the NSA story, has the Times itself violated the statute and committed a crime? The answer is clearly affirmative. The statute makes knowing and willful "publication" of the proscribed information a crime. Moreover, under the basic federal aiding and abetting statute -- 18 U.S.C. § 2 -- in willfully helping the leakers publish their disclosures, the Times is as culpable as they are and punishable as a principal." |
Will anyone have the guts to go for it?
PowerLine's piece is quite long and lawyerly and gives much precedent in other cases, etc. I strongly recommend reading it.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012749.php
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Schadow wrote: | | Will anyone have the guts to go for it? |
My bet is that NYT decision to publish was a gauntlet tossed at the Dep't of Justice, which the DOJ has, perhaps reluctantly, had to pick up.
I hadn't considered this before, but I believe that the NYT publication was strategically pre-emptive, NOT because they were concerned that they might be "scooped" by their own reporter (which, I believe, has been the popular analysis), but because they wanted (in their own arrogant style) to give Risen/Lichtblau the umbrella coverage needed, thinking they (Risen/Lichtblau) would be much more vulnerable a target than their own vaunted selves.
Perhaps that's a laudable decision in terms of loyalty to a subordinate, however it remains to be seen (and you can spell that as United States Supreme Court) whether this apparently egregious and harmful revelation will rise to the protection afforded to "whistleblowers". My bet is that it will not, and person or persons from within the intelligence community (perhaps even the legislative branch) are going to do some time...at least I hope so.
IMHO, whether NYT personnel face a similar fate pales in importance to stemming the flow of leaks from within the intelligence community itself. I would think that establishing and prosecuting that criminality must necessarily precede any civil action against the NYT itself.
Last edited by Me#1You#10 on Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: | | Schadow wrote: | | Will anyone have the guts to go for it? |
IMHO, whether NYT personnel face a similar fate pales in importance to stemming the flow of leaks from within the intelligence community itself. I would think that establishing and prosecuting that criminality must necessarily precede any civil action against the NYT itself. |
I totally agree that the individual perps need to be dragged out from under their rocks and vigorously prosecuted. Further, the widely distributed talking point, "whistleblower", needs to be stricken from the vocabulary in this case.
In the case of the NYT, I think a civil action by citizens would not be fruitful due to the lack of demonstrable personal damage (yet) caused by the paper's actions. However, the NYT has undoubtedly committed a federal crime with it's revelations and it's up to the Executive to enforce the U.S. Code and punish violators.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Schadow wrote: |
In the case of the NYT, I think a civil action by citizens would not be fruitful due to the lack of demonstrable personal damage (yet) caused by the paper's actions. |
Perhaps the NYT would pay attention if some enterprising attorneys were to write the "boilerplate" class-action suit that would be filed in the event of another attack that might have been prevented.
-- FDL
_________________
"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" - Thomas Jefferson on paying ransom to Muslim corsairs (pirates). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In our local newspaper, as I'm sure in papers all across the land, letters are appearing decrying some imagined loss of liberty due to the NSA surveillance program.
Please read this article in the Weekly Standard called "The Law and the President". It describes the purposeful granting by the Founders to the President of extra-legal powers to deal with emergencies such as Islamo-terrorism. Here are the first and last paragraphs of the article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/563mevpm.asp
| Quote: | The Law and the President
In a national emergency, who you gonna call?
by Harvey Mansfield
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17
EMERGENCY POWER FOR SUCH UNDERHANDED activities as spying makes Americans uncomfortable and upset. Even those who do not suffer from squeamish distaste for self-defense, and do not mind getting tough when necessary, feel uneasy. A republic like ours is always more at ease in dealing with criminals than with enemies. Criminals violate the law, and the law can be vindicated with police, prosecutors, juries, and judges who stay within the law: At least for the most part, the law vindicates itself. Enemies, however, not merely violate but oppose the law. They oppose our law and want to replace it with theirs. To counter enemies, a republic must have and use force adequate to a greater threat than comes from criminals, who may be quite patriotic if not public-spirited, and have nothing against the law when applied to others besides themselves. But enemies, being extra-legal, need to be faced with extra-legal force.
***
Much present-day thinking puts civil liberties and the rule of law to the fore and forgets to consider emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply. But it is precisely difficult situations that we should think about and counsels of perfection that we should avoid. Otherwise we end up admitting truth with a bad conscience, as did John McCain recently, when after denouncing the use of torture, he suddenly said on the contrary: "You do what you have to do." In this way you have morality and the rule of law on one side and necessity on the other. But isn't there a legal and a moral way to deal with necessity? Our Constitution, properly understood, shows that there is. We need to take better stock of our own achievements. |
Read the whole thing. A pretty remarkable piece of writing.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
