Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Peter King: Punish Journalists Who Publish NSA Leaks" video.

No, but people who murder on behalf of the theology of foreign nations MAY be. Yes, I realise the Boston Bombers acted alone, but there was speculation that the elder brother was radicalised in Chechnya. And even if he wasn't, any time there's a terrorist attack on behalf Islam, it's reasonable to ask if that's part of a wider international action, and that's where the phone records might have helped.
1
Of course it's utterly infeeasible, but that's not the point, I was simply using that as an illustration. Handing China the ammunition to deflect criticism about having been caught hacking US computers is a massive betrayal. As for journalist's integrity - are you kidding?! UK populist journalists have almost no integrity and if a traitor couldn't find a US publisher, they could quite easily approach UK papers.
1
I actually don't completely disagree with King. Supposing the journalists leaked the codes to disable all of the US's weapons, there would be clear treason there. What qualifies a mere journalist; a person with zero knowledge of the government's global tactical situation; to decide what information is safe to release and what isn't? It's not black and white.
1
So all you have to do is shout "Freedom of speech" and national security means nothing?
1
I disagree. Just because someone else leaked the information to them doesn't suddenly absolve them of responsibility to their nation's wellbeing.
1
Actually, guantanomo shows how much regard the US has for rule of its own laws.
1
Laws change all the time, and the US government has proven that it's prepared to operate outside its rule of law when it deems it expedient. Start revealing too much classified operational information that puts lives at risk, and just watch how quickly this sacred status of never prosecuting journalists disappears.
1
Actually, I agree with you completely Bob - but as Ilive in Britain; ythe United State's 52nd state, and a far more intrusive regime, I really think we're in NO position to complain. And I NEVER agreed with NSA snooping - I just think that you have to be prosaic about the threat posed by newspapers releasing national secrets.
1
Is it OBVIOUSLY info we need to know? It's taken as read that the security services routinely surveills lots of people. If broad fishing operations like this prevent say 100 attacks or terrorist operations coming to fruition,some might consider it a worthwhile price. I don't personally, because I think liberty has a price, and if we have to feel a little less safe as a result, then so be it. But then nobody can whine that Boson or 9/11 was missed when NSA is not allowed the tools to do the job.
1
Given the racial demographic of the US population, I would say that Christianity has become the predominant theology of modern America. And given that neither Christians, nor any of the religions you mentioned are blowing people up for theological reasons, clearly keeping an eye on the people who have connections with the primary terroristic theology on the planet could be deemed reasonable. Depend what price you're prepared to pay for peace of mind.
1
That's an interesting distinction. So in your opinion, the detection of terrorists and criminals on a global scale is less important than a newspaper's right to say what it wants, or your right to privacy? So would you say that the constitution ALWAYS trumps the security of the nation?
1
First amendment is not some get-out-of-jail-free talisman that you simply wave about and it allows you to reveal anything to anyone. I suspect that even when the constitution was drafted, treason was still not protected.
1
Yes - it was just an extreme example. But the government would still go after the journalist/publisher as well - it's not either or. Both would be threats to national security and it would be an easy case to make.
1
Of course US citizens are the enemy, if they coordinate with foreigners to kill other US citizens. Boston Bomber is a case in point.
1