Rep. Peter King Calls For Arrest Of Glenn Greenwald


#1

Freedom Of Press ‘Cherished,’ But ‘No Right Is Absolute’
Rep. Peter King Calls For Arrest Of Glenn Greenwald: Freedom Of Press ‘Cherished,’ But ‘No Right Is Absolute’ | Mediaite
Greenwald fires back on Twitter:
“Only In America can a renowned and devoted terrorism supporter like Peter King be the arbiter of national security and treason.”

Peter King’s terrorist connections:
Reminder: Peter King, Who Wants to Arrest Glenn Greenwald, Is an Actual Supporter of Terrorism - Hit & Run : Reason.com


#2

You go King! I might just have to move to your district so I can vote for you. lol


#3

Has the first amendment been repealed?


#4

No because I am exercising it. :grin: There are limits on the first amendment when National Security is at risk.


#5

In your way of thinking, I would guess that you feel the same about the 4th amendment!?

If so … I would submit to you that we Close The Borders!

Why?
Well apparently the ‘new’ talking point on why we need amnesty for Illegals is so … “We can find them, bring them out of the shadows … find out who they are”!
(20 million ‘potential’, unknown terrorists?)

(Where’s the NSA?)

Oh yeah … busy tapping into AMERICANS phones, bank accounts, websites etc. etc.!

I would also submit to you that … Terrorists … Do Not use Verizon contract cell phones in communications!


#6

You obviously do not read many of my post, so therefore you should not make inaccurate assumptions. First of all, I have been a critic of amnesty on RO. Amnesty will cost us 6.3 trillion dollars according to the Heritage Foundation. However, it is a BIG stretch to call illegal immigrants a terrorist. Second of all I have been a critic of the Obama administration abusing section 215 of the Patriot Act. I do not think the Patriot Act legitimately allowed 2 million Verizon phone records to be seized.


#7

No national security was put at risk.

Also: New York Times Co. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


#8

I was waiting for you to site that Supreme Court case. :drink3: We will see what comes out of this. I am sure there will be multiple investigations. First, we need to get Mr. Snowden back into the US. That should be one of the US government priority.


#9

of course when the SCOTUS makes a decision they dont like they call it a kangaroo court


#10

True. Though the Constitution backs me up on this as well. There is no “national security exemption”.


#11

Only since 1969. Prior to the Brandenburg v Ohio SCOTUS case national security leaks were not protected speech. Not that I dont agree with the Brandenburg decision but I think you would have a hard time making an original intent argument when the free speech part of 1st amendment wasnt a full individual liberty until 1925 and national security leaks wernt protected until 1969


#12

I’m thinking more around the late 1700s.


#13

King got his butt kicked by Greenwald.
This redstate diary destroyed all of his claims: Rep. Peter King erroneously calls for arrest of Glenn Greenwald | RedState


#14

Well *full *protection only comes when the 1st amendment is combined with the 14th amendment


#15

:thud:


#16

think again, actually leaking classified info is still illegal

a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute


#17

So all the government needs to do to cover up illegal activity on it’s part is to classify it, that way when a whistleblower blows the lid off the corrupt, illegal activity then they can prosecute the whistleblower. Can’t imagine that being abused AT ALL. It’s not like the NSA surveillance was violating the 4th… oh wait.


#18

By law illegal activities can not be classified, so if an illegal activity was “classified” then leaked it wouldnt be violating that disclosure law.


#19

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:18, topic:39803”]
By law illegal activities can not be classified, so if an illegal activity was “classified” then leaked it wouldnt be violating that disclosure law.
[/quote]Like the NSA program?


#20

I am interested in seeing you address sillipuddi’s point. If you believe there are limitations to the First Amendment when national security is at risk, do you believe there are limitations to the Fourth Amendment when national security is at risk?