To their credit, The New York Times has been offering some great reporting on the matter of leaks and the debate over liberty versus security. In doing so, they offer former Bush administration lawyer, John Yoo’s perspective on the debate. He says:
“Manning’s defenders will say that Manning only leaked information to the 21st-century equivalent of a newspaper, and that he could not have known that Al Qaeda would read it,” Professor Yoo wrote in National Review Online.
“But WikiLeaks is not The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, and it does not have First Amendment rights,” he added. “Manning communicated regularly with WikiLeaks’ founder and would have known about the group’s anarchic, anti-U.S. mission.”
I guess I missed that caveat in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in which it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the established press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
My mistake, it doesn’t say established press at all. If this “lawyer’s” reasoning amounts to Wikileaks not being The New York Times, then that’s the epitome of “stretching.”
I can’t stand Yoo. He’s been rendering opinions on national security matters for years under Bush and now Obama and he’s despicable and disgusting.