• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should the Press be charged for treason?

maggie2

maggie2

Active Member
It seems to me that the New York Times did nothing that constitutes treason. They simply reported on probable illegal activities of the US government. The press has a right and an obligation to tell the people what the government is doing. If you hope to remain a free country then the press must remain free.

It's interesting to me that both the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal reported this story at the same time as the NY Times but Bush and Cheney singled out the Times as the 'bad guy'. Interesting, isn't it?
 
kevmicsmi

kevmicsmi

Well-Known Member
maggie2 said:
It seems to me that the New York Times did nothing that constitutes treason. They simply reported on probable illegal activities of the US government. The press has a right and an obligation to tell the people what the government is doing. If you hope to remain a free country then the press must remain free.

It's interesting to me that both the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal reported this story at the same time as the NY Times but Bush and Cheney singled out the Times as the 'bad guy'. Interesting, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Ny times were the first to run with the story. Sorry Maggie, I need you to back up your statement that these were probable illegal activities. Can you support that statement at all?
 
BUDDY

BUDDY

User of Aspercreme
maggie2 said:
It seems to me that the New York Times did nothing that constitutes treason. They simply reported on probable illegal activities of the US government.
Click to expand...
I second what kev said. There is no evidence that this was illegal.

maggie2 said:
The press has a right and an obligation to tell the people what the government is doing.
Click to expand...
No they don't. If that were true, then people would not have been so upset at the whole Valerie Plame fiasco. The press is legally obligated to not report information that is vital to the national security of the United States or it's allies.

maggie2 said:
If you hope to remain a free country then the press must remain free.
Click to expand...
You can be free and yet not be allowed to do certain things. I consider myself free even though the law says that I can't drive on sidewalks.

maggie2 said:
It's interesting to me that both the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal reported this story at the same time as the NY Times but Bush and Cheney singled out the Times as the 'bad guy'. Interesting, isn't it?
Click to expand...
No, not really. Have you ever picked up your local paper and read an article, and just under the reporter's name it says something like, Associated Press or Wshington Post? Same thing here. They printed a story that was written by the NY Times journalist initially, then once the story broke, they ran with additional reports form there own journalists.
 
M

Mercy Not Sacrifice

Well-Known Member
It seems that a double standard has emerged in the way we judge the Press.

When one story, one single story whose printing may compromize our "ability" to maintain order in the world, its publisher is demonized.

Yet FOXNews can blast and demonize those who would dare to introduce policies of peace and justice to the world, day in and day out, over and over again. However, nobody is calling for FOX's head--certainly not the president.

If there is a liberal bias in the way things work in the Press, I have yet to see it. It's time to call a spade a spade and cut The New York Times some slack.
 
kevmicsmi

kevmicsmi

Well-Known Member
Mercy Not Sacrifice said:
It seems that a double standard has emerged in the way we judge the Press.

When one story, one single story whose printing may compromize our "ability" to maintain order in the world, its publisher is demonized.
Click to expand...
Yes, when one story is published that comprimises national security, and is possibly illegal(or at the very least, their sources are guilty as sin), the publisher should not only be demonized, but threatened prosecution if they fail to release their source to the government.
Yet FOXNews can blast and demonize those who would dare to introduce policies of peace and justice to the world, day in and day out, over and over again. However, nobody is calling for FOX's head--certainly not the president.
Click to expand...
You HAVE to be kidding, right? "Demonization" as you call it is free speech!!! You honestly think we should care more about a news outlet disagreeing with you than national security??? You honestly think Fox is the only news outlet that demonizes positions they do not agree with? Are you advocating outlawing "demmonization"?
If there is a liberal bias in the way things work in the Press, I have yet to see it.
Click to expand...
I wonder why!!!:bonk:
 
M

Mercy Not Sacrifice

Well-Known Member
kevmicsmi said:
Yes, when one story is published that comprimises national security, and is possibly illegal(or at the very least, their sources are guilty as sin), the publisher should not only be demonized, but threatened prosecution if they fail to release their source to the government.
Click to expand...

You're not worried about a news station that openly advocates the defiance of the Geneva Convention and civil rights laws?

You HAVE to be kidding, right? "Demonization" as you call it is free speech!!! You honestly think we should care more about a news outlet disagreeing with you than national security??? You honestly think Fox is the only news outlet that demonizes positions they do not agree with? Are you advocating outlawing "demmonization"?
Click to expand...

Advocating something I disagree with is one thing. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Advocating something that is point-blank illegal is something totally different.

I wonder why!!!:bonk:
Click to expand...

Yeah me too, considering that it was not that long ago that I was a staunch conservative. ;)
 
standing_on_one_foot

standing_on_one_foot

Well-Known Member
Hmm...I don't think it counts as treason. Unwise, perhaps, or irresponsible--you could make those arguements, with great validity--but treason? It's not direct enough Aid or Comfort for me to be comfortable with that. But, of course, G-d bless America, FOX can say what it likes, and regularly does. I suspect calls for prosecution for treason will go nowhere.

One does have to wonder if terrorists were completely in the dark that their money would be monitored without the New York Times saying so, mind you.
 
greatcalgarian

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
kevmicsmi said:
What do they consider an abnormal situation? Are the people in Guantanamo American citizens? No, they are alleged illegal combatants in a war against our country. Why should we afford them US citizen rights?
Click to expand...

I would consider in the first place how these people become US prisoners questionable. You do not simply go into another nation and grab people from there. According to international law, you either ask the government in that nation to arrest those people, then pass over to you, or you do nothing.:p

The world 'alleged' speaks for everything. And the use of the phrase 'illegal combatants' is simply fooling US citizen, and the whole world is just laughing at the legality of the phrase 'illegal combatants' :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top