Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
No but some of them border on aiding and embedding the enemy. Saying how we were monitoring international bank transactions, the method we used to stop cold the terrorist "charity" funds, potentially lost us a valuable tool.
There was an uproar about the release of that CIA agent's name, about how everyone in the Bush administration should face jailtime. If proven true I support it.
However where was the outcry when the FBI director stated to the press (and the press printed it) how we were tracking Bin Laden's satellite phone? Was it because he was a democrat? Was it because that falls under freedom of the press? Well that definately aided Bin Laden, when he was a known dangerous criminal. Personally I think said director and journalist should face charges.
|
I have no issue if the FBI director gets in trouble, but no, not never the press. The press can only publish what the government and her agents have released.
Personally, I feel the government and the press work hand in hand on more things than not.
Also, if you have "leaks" and then claim they are hurting the war and blah blah blah..... and the people say, "yes, we need to restrain the press." You'll end up with fewer independant sources, more cover ups, more government corruption and less of the true purpose of the press and that is to be the government's watchdog to keep them in check from becoming to powerful.
Freedom is freedom and the second you put limitations on said freedom, it is no longer free, in any way, shape or form.