At that point, the act of deliberation implies the deliberators are unsure that saving lives and possibly preserving the nation are more important than what? They have not revealed a list of what precedes lives and country on their list, except some kind of political gain.

I believe the motive is political gain because the same persons did not fight this battle with the Clinton administration.

Therefore to me, the act of deliberation in this case is proof absolute of despicable character and criminal behaviour. This is the woman in the story of Solomon who would let the baby be cut in two, rather than let the other mother have the baby. Unfortunately the baby they are willing to sacrifice is my nation.

“And Romeo — criminal law is totally focused on the defendant’s mental state (”mens rea”). Except for a very few crimes (like statutory rape), mens rea is an element that always needs to be proved”

Mental state is not considered in every criminal case. It is inserted mostly in two situations, where the accused is considered to have been medically mad and not capable of reasoned judgement, or when the specific crime allows for moments of passion.

Mental state is normally brought in for only extreme crimes, by the defense who is gaming the law or the prosecution who pities the defendant, or to in the case of minor crime, to remove a confirmed nutter from the streets for public safety. In other words, it is used pragmatically when useful. There is no automatic consideration of mental state, or our courtrooms would be very different indeed.

Myself, I don’t give a chickens rump for the motives of the grey-hearted former Lady.

I might add, WWLD? What would Lincoln do? Lincoln did make many moves above the pale to win his war and preserve the union. He won. Bush is no Lincoln in these matters. Hopefully, this war we fight will not require a Lincoln. I consider Lincoln a great hero.

In fighting the war, Bush has done better than most IMHO.

If the media actually was working secretly for America’s enemies in general and international Islamist terrorist groups in particular, how would it act differently from what it does today? I’m sure you could come up with examples, but sadly I……

You don’t like the use of the term “traitors” to describe Mssrs. Risen, Keller, and Lichtblau? What descriptive term would you use in referring to these find upstanding citizens who claim to speak for you on matters of determining what is in the public interest and national security? And who openly flaunt felony laws and assert the right to do so with total impunity? And who deliberately publish, with no legitimate reason and with malice, secret information exposing a government surveillance program with a probable result that terrorists and those who fund them will escape apprehension and continue to conduct terrorist activities in this country? Just how would you term them?

I’m not sure I’m allowed to use the term here, but I think they’re [another word for where the poop comes out].

UPDATE: Chairman of House Homeland Security Committee Calls NY TIMES ‘Treasonous’…      King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation’s chief law enforcer "begin an investigati…

Amen. We are a nation based on the rule of LAW. The Congress and the NTY are NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Stuff like this leak story, and the crimes of Reps McKinney and Willam Jefferson make me sick, as they seemingly get a pass from prosecution.

This is the “sky is falling” tactics being used again in this argument.

There will be no constitutional crisis. No one dare saying the NY Time is above the law! We prosecute NY Times on criminal charges of leaking classified information. If we go after those that leaked out Plame’s ID with such a vigor that no adminstration officials are spared, then we should do the same here that no news reporters are spared. If a news report violate the law, they must be prosecuted. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!

Let the court decide if leaking clasified information intentianally is protected by the second amendment.

Nail them traitors, I said. And nail them good please.

The real liberal RINO is up to no good. again.

Prosecute NY Times.

seems as tho Strong is stuck

Would it be best to start with the top 5 companies that advertise in the Times? It would be easier for people to remember 5 companies, and therefore really impact their sales until they pull the advertising. At that point, we could go after the next 5 top, … Anyone know of a list somewhere of these advertisers? If not, anyone willing to keep track of this?

Also, the New York Times Company owns About.com, The Boston Globe (boston.com), the International Herald Tribune (iht.com) and some other regional websites – make sure you immediately cease any activity on these sites (or cancel your subscription).

From technical point of view they have been told by the government not to print them because these are classified information, but they did it anyway.

Upon reading their reports I have seen no evidence in government abusing citizens’ rights. So I don’t see how reporting these stories help protect my right.

These stories have no value, whatsoever, in promoting our rights or in protecting lives. On the contrary, it may cost lives.

I hope you will see the way I do.

Its also an important constitutional question about how far the freedom of the Press goes.

You: So I repeat my hypothetical: what if Bush has reason to believe that the Times is about to expose another NSA program, one which, it turns out, is unambiguously illegal? Should he cut the power to the Times building and send the National Guard in to surround them?
Answer: Absolutely not. The President should do what every American citizen has the right to do, i.e., petition the appropriate court for an injunction to enjoin the publication of information that is likely to cause harm and for which there is no adequate remedy after the publication. The party seeking to publish the information has its day in court to justify its intended actions.

You: See why I worry about means-ends logic? There’s not even a whiff of concern here about possible government abuse of power.
Answer: No, I don’t see it at all because there isn’t a whiff of concern that the government in any way is guilty of abusing its power. Not even the NYT itself questioned the government’s authority to conduct the investigation. So what is the motive for publishing the leak? Abuse of power is a straw man and carries no validity. Was the motive merely the pathological hatred of the President as you have said? If so, then the abuse of power argument is patently false and cannot possibly justify the revelation of a legal, secret method of intelligence gathering.

You: Isn’t the legality of the program a key to determining whether publication is appropriate or not? You do want to know if the government is breaking the law, don’t you?
Answer: Not in this case. There is no reasonable argument that the legality of the program is in question. That is not the motive for publication and you and everyone else know it.

You: My point about demonizing them was in response to your assertion that they feel “no compunction” about Americans dying. As Misha says, you have no way of knowing that.
Answer: First, I can’t find where Misha said anything of the sort. Moreover, how do I know that these traitors feel no compunction about the loss of American lives? Because they published the piece with no legitimate reason to do so other than the malice they harbor for this President and the Americans who elected him. I don’t buy into the “blackmail” theory; that is a stretch and is speculative at best. The fact is that the act of publishing this information was purely malicious. Further, their alleged deliberation is not an indicator that they have some degree of compunction. How do I know that? Because they published the story in spite of its probable results. I don’t have a cartoonish image of Keller or anyone else cackling with glee; I have the impression of a supremely arrogant group who demonstrate reckless and wanton indifference to the possible consequences of their treasonous act. Just look at the arrogance in their assertion that they get to decide what is in the national interest and, based on that judgment, they get to flaunt the laws of this country by publishing classified information. You need no more evidence of malice than that. If death results from the publication, it is murder. Any reasonable person knows that.
When a news organization releases information that it knows to be classified, knows that the publication of which is illegal, and could produce consequences up to and including the death of innocents in this and other countries, and does so with absolutely no legitimate motive, they get absolutely no credit for anything, including some alleged deliberation.
These immoral and depraved monsters deliberately and with the highest degree of arrogance and malice illegally revealed secret information, obtained through an illegal leak, that without the slightest doubt has had a lasting, negative impact on this nation’s ability to prevent terrorism, death, and destruction within its borders. Their degree of contempt for the lives of Americans is unparalleled and cannot be excused or mitigated. Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau must be stopped from inflicting further damage to this country by any means necessary. There can be no rational argument to the contrary.

The act of spending time to discuss if they should print the news even though life could be lost because of the news…..is..the evidence you need to prove that they have “no compunction”.

Do any human being that value life need even to discuss?

Allah, you are digging deeper and deeper into the hole. It is time to get out.

On one side you think Ann Coulter’s comment of the 9/11 widows are cruel because she used the word “enjoy”, but on the other side you think it is ok to weigh human life against printing of a piece of news.

Hm…..I am saddened.