4 ms·

Since you seem to be new around here: Please don't start a post with I didn't read the article. Some people on this site put a decent amount of work into their

by 1337biz 13y ago

Since you seem to be new around here: Please don't start a post with I didn't read the article. Some people on this site put a decent amount of work into their comments. So please spend at least the 5 minutes skimming through the article before making a statement.

3am 13y ago
"Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant" From the article. So in spite of not reading the article, their comment was correct. You do know that it is believed that someone died as a result of this leak?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- hga 13y ago
  That would be this search warrant: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/05/20/court-documents-in-leak-case-involving-fox-news-journalist/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/05/20/court..., page 26, number 46: "Based on the above, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim [the prosecuted government employee]) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 789(d) either as Mr. Kim's co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor..." which continues with the email account to be searched, more justification, etc. Unprecedented in recent history going back to at least the Pentagon Papers?
  - 3am 13y ago
    Someone leaked top secret information that may have led to the death of a high level North Korean administrator that was a US intelligence asset. 1.) Should the person be prosecuted 2.) Should the journalist who facilitated the leak of that information be immune to legal search warrants 3.) Should the journalist who facilitated the leak be prosecuted. I believe 1, 2 are yes. 3 is no. I have no idea about recent history, honestly. I don't really care, either.
throwaway9848 13y ago
I'm not new to here. I just created a throwaway to say a few things in another thread. I didn't read it because I was already familiar with the story. I have never cared so much for the amount of effort involved in things, just the value that said thing provides. Best regards.

by 1337biz 13y ago

3am 13y ago

"Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant" From the article. So in spite of not reading the article, their comment was correct. You do know that it is believed that someone died as a result of this leak?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hga 13y ago
That would be this search warrant: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/05/20/court-documents-in-leak-case-involving-fox-news-journalist/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/05/20/court..., page 26, number 46: "Based on the above, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim [the prosecuted government employee]) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 789(d) either as Mr. Kim's co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor..." which continues with the email account to be searched, more justification, etc. Unprecedented in recent history going back to at least the Pentagon Papers?
- 3am 13y ago
  Someone leaked top secret information that may have led to the death of a high level North Korean administrator that was a US intelligence asset. 1.) Should the person be prosecuted 2.) Should the journalist who facilitated the leak of that information be immune to legal search warrants 3.) Should the journalist who facilitated the leak be prosecuted. I believe 1, 2 are yes. 3 is no. I have no idea about recent history, honestly. I don't really care, either.

throwaway9848 13y ago

I'm not new to here. I just created a throwaway to say a few things in another thread. I didn't read it because I was already familiar with the story. I have never cared so much for the amount of effort involved in things, just the value that said thing provides. Best regards.