Verified answer

Exactly.

It's not the reporter who would be in trouble, it would be the SOURCE of the leak.

Now we have read Article 1 section 8 of the united states structure which locations the well regulated militias of the 2nd modification below Federal control now we have honestly learn the complete US structure and as such we know for a reality that there is nothing in it that helps the gun crazies absurd fantasy about our Founding Fathers being proponents of mob rule ; correctly simply the opposite is correct we all know the army historical past of the Civil battle the place the Union made large use of the well regulated militias in line with the foundations of Article 1 section eight Edit @ james should you had in reality troubled to read Article 1 section eight of the U.S. Structure you will have seen whatever very extraordinary about it: it requires that Congress create and equip a navy it does now not require that Congress create and equip an navy

How many times did we have this problem during the Bush years? Democrats took glee in leaking classified information to the press to advance their political agenda.

Yes we do. And we don't try to make the Second Amendment more important as the c0ns do. Every administration has tried to stop and will try to stop leaks which threaten national security. The telling thing is the Hate Obama First crowd on the right never made a peep until Obama was in office. I wonder why?

Actually that's not really true, any one can be prosecuted for releasing classified materiel

Section 793 prohibits the gathering,

transmitting, or receipt of defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information

will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation. Violators are subject to

a fine or up to 10 years’ imprisonment, or both,58 as are those who conspire to violate the statute.59

Persons who possess defense information that they have reason to know could be used to harm

the national security, whether the access is authorized or unauthorized, and who disclose that

information to any person not entitled to receive it, or who fail to surrender the information to an

officer of the United States, are subject to the same penalty.60 A

There is nothing in the first amendment that prohibits the subpoena of phone records. There is a state law that shields journalists in California, but no shield law exists at the federal level.

Theodore Roosevelt was an idealistic Republican Governor of New York, much of what he did backfired, and was nominated to be a vice-president for McKinley just to get him out of New York and into obscurity. But, McKinley was shot to death 6 months after being elected.

So as to not reward the assassin Teddy followed everything that McKinley had promised. But, after Teddy ran for president in the next election and won, he declared himself as being 'his own man', and became a loose cannon against Wall Street and greedy corporations.

It was then that the 100 families that control USA policy (can you name any?) started to buy up all the media outlets.

So you talk about freedom of the press. Let me give you an example, Bradley Manning contacted major news outlets trying to pass them improperly classified as secret documents about the Iraq war. They never returned his calls. He ended up giving them to wikileaks.

Freedom of the press, the press restricts its sphere of ideas to a severe limit.

Another example: I cannot get published as an editorial in my local newspaper about the FutureGen 2.0 project. Its a set of 6 electric power generating stations at select locations in the USA that are being set up to store the exhaust CO2 and CO gases deep underground. The excuse is to prevent green house exhaust gas emissions , the real purpose is mass murder to clear property and land of its owners so the government can give it to the Wall Street banks. It also clears the obligations to 401k and SS accounts. One plant is in Polk County in north central Florida.

They only understand it and support it IF it is in their favor, if it is not in their favor, if it shows Obama to be an incompetent boob, then NO they do not support it. (You need to throw Christians into that mix too, if it is Christian based the 1st Amendment does not apply either)

Yes, I understand the 1st amendment. Don't you know that liberals want more freedom in the social life while conservatives want restrictions?

@Good for nothing, I've read a lot of your answers and you post what YOU think liberals would post. Well, it's actually your own answer not from liberals.

was it liberals who said wikileaks was bad and assange should be taken out with a drone?