Title 18, Section 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The legal question of guilt in this case would indeed hinge on proof of intent. Did Ms. Priest "adhere" to the enemies of the US by deliberate provision of aid to them? Or rather, was her deliberate provision of aid motivated by some other purpose?

"Skeptic" didn't cite the entirety of the statute, but chose to cite only up to the "adhering to the enemy" portion. Why? Because this phrase is confusing legal jargon. Gee whiz, Ms. Priest didn't even shake hands with any terrorists, let alone "adhere to them"!

But she sure as Hades gave the enemy aid and comfort.

The only reason she isn't under indictment right now is that there are enough addlepated judges on the bench to whom "bringing possible doubt or disrepute upon the conduct of the executive branch by dissemination of classified information obtained from a source in breach of his sworn duties" would constitute a motive distinct from "giving aid to the enemy".

"You see, Ms. Priest's actual purpose was to give aid to the Democrats. The fact that she may have incidentally aided the terrorists is immaterial as matter of law."

This is the point I was making in my original post; the NYT and Ms. Priest won't be indicted or convicted before the bar. But I sincerely hope that the body politic damns them for the villainous turncoats they most certainly are.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?"

JFK continued:

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

...

In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

...For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

...

newspapers have constantly said-that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal."

JFk would be on Bennett's and GWB's side and opposed to the leakers and their enablers - folks like the hyper-partisan Dana Priest, Bill Keller.

There's a war on and these pieces of cr*p act like the ONLY important thing is bringing down the president.

To most of us morons out here it smells like treason.

I would point folks to Glenn Greenwald's recent notes on the matter.

What would the founders think if they knew the Republicans wanted to throw out principles held sacred since the Magna Carta, and if they knew that the administration engages in torture?

They'd think "Why did we bother with a revolution just to end up with an unjust tyrant named George?"

Freedom and liberty are meaningless to the likes of you, cheap trinkets you willingly throw away in the name of political advantage and a false sense of security in your race towards an authoritarian dictatorship.

The Republicans are a disgrace.

She's staring down the ruling party of the Superpower because SECRET PRISONS ARE WRONG, and should be discussed by the people before the government chooses such an extreme, totalitarian path.

The overwhelming number of commentators should read 'How Would A Patriot Act' by Greenwald, which explains easily how the US works.

Treason requires intent. Someone must act with the purpose to levy war or adhere to the enemy. No reasonable person believes that the NYT, or the reporters, wrote the article with the intent of levying war or adhereing to the enemy. Simply publishing "classified" information by itself will not support a charge of treason. The WSJ published a very similar article. Did its editors and reporters commit treason?

Was the information truly classified when it was published? The Treasury Department provided the same information to the WSJ. Didn't this effectively "declassify" the information? Either its in the public domain or its not. Anyone here read both stories and find information in the NYT article that was not in the WSJ article that would endanger national security?

On the July 4th weekend, maybe we shoud be celebrating the the nation, the Constitution, and what our country stands for, instead of bashing them.

For sitting next to somebody who'd called for her to be put in jail, I thought Priest did pretty damn well.

I can't wait to get to Vegas as I know how to "speak truth to power". Is this broad(priest) a big dope or what? We are at WAR! What is it that you don't get! Is it a hatred to the American way of life that pissed of you ying-yangs? You MSM/lib's are lucky to live in this country. I saw the NY Times Reporter about the SWIFT @ CNN W/ Howard kurtz. That poor boy looked like a deer facing the headlights...He looked like he should be in the touch with his lawyer.

I miss the USSR. It was less disturbing to read about the jailing of reporters, censorship, unitary executives (read: dictator), domestic spying, rampant corruption and staggering govt. incompetence when you were reading about some other country