HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why hasn't Bob Woodward (...

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:06 PM

Why hasn't Bob Woodward (or his sources) been prosecuted for aiding the enemy...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/manning-prosecution-press-freedom-woodward

But let's apply the government's theory in the Manning case to one of the most revered journalists in Washington: Bob Woodward, who has become one of America's richest reporters, if not the richest, by obtaining and publishing classified information far more sensitive than anything WikiLeaks has ever published. For that reason, one of Woodward's most enthusiastic readers was Osama bin Laden, as this 2011 report from AFP demonstrates:

"Al-Qaeda has released a video marking the anniversary of 9/11 which includes a message from its slain leader Osama bin Laden to the American people . . . . He recommended that Americans read the book 'Obama's War' by Bob Woodward which details wrangles over US military decision-making.
"

If bin Laden's interest in the WikiLeaks cables proves that Manning aided al-Qaida, why isn't bin Laden's enthusaism for Woodward's book proof that Woodwood's leakers - and Woodward himself - are guilty of the same capital offense? This question is even more compelling given that Woodward has repeatedly published some of the nation's most sensitive secrets, including information designated "Top Secret" - unlike WikiLeaks and Manning, which never did.

In 2010, NBC News' Mike Isikoff wrote an excellent article about Obama's war on whistleblowers that made exactly this point. Writing under the headline "Obama administration cracks down on mid-level leakers, despite high-level officials dishing far more sensitive secrets to Bob Woodward", the long-time Washington reporter wrote:

20 replies, 1557 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why hasn't Bob Woodward (or his sources) been prosecuted for aiding the enemy... (Original post)
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 OP
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #1
jeff47 Jan 2013 #2
dsc Jan 2013 #3
jeff47 Jan 2013 #5
dsc Jan 2013 #6
jeff47 Jan 2013 #7
msanthrope Jan 2013 #9
dsc Jan 2013 #10
jeff47 Jan 2013 #13
msanthrope Jan 2013 #8
msanthrope Jan 2013 #4
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #11
msanthrope Jan 2013 #15
PufPuf23 Jan 2013 #12
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #14
PufPuf23 Jan 2013 #16
KoKo Jan 2013 #17
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #19
KoKo Jan 2013 #18
msanthrope Jan 2013 #20

Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:55 PM

1. Kick...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:25 PM

2. Because Woodward hasn't signed an agreement giving up his 1st amendment rights

in return for access to classified information.

Leaking information is a crime. Receiving and disseminating information that was leaked to you is protected speech.

Plus, "aiding the enemy" is against the UCMJ. Woodward's not in the military, and thus not subject to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:00 PM

3. Hence the inclusion of Woodward's source in the OP

but it does make one wonder about the treatment of Assuange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:07 PM

5. Who, as "a senior administration official" also isn't subject to the UCMJ.

Since that indicates a civilian source. Soldiers aren't "administration officials".

Could such a person be prosecuted under civilian law? Of course. But that would assume 1) their identity is known, and 2) their "leak" wasn't authorized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:09 PM

6. But they do have security clearances which they presumedly get by saying they won't share the info

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:12 PM

7. Yes, but senior administration officials generally don't do unauthorized leaks.

They just sound unauthorized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:14 PM

9. Bingo. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:18 PM

10. the leak of Plame was authorized that doesn't make it either legal or wise

now I am not claiming that any leak to Woodward equates to that but I do think that for Manning to be facing life in prison and Assurange will facing a possibility of charges here while both Woodward and his leakers are running around unmolested does seem to be a bit unfair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:40 PM

13. "Assurange" will not be facing any charges

He didn't break any laws. Despite his paranoia about extradition, it's perfectly legal to distribute information that was leaked to you.

Manning is facing charges because he actually did the leaking - which is illegal.

Woodward is in the same boat as Assange.

The people who leaked to Woodward was presumably authorized by the president. And Congress punted the entire classified information system to the president. So what he says, goes. If he says "leak it", then it can be leaked.

It appears that Plame's leak wasn't actually authorized by W, but more likely by Cheney. Since the president's the one with the classification authority, that's not a legal leak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:14 PM

8. You are accepting the false premise that The Guardian proposes--namely, that

Bin Laden's interest in Woodward's book is analogous to the evidence presented against Mr. Manning.

Tell me what Mr. Woodard published that lead to this:

http://www.merinews.com/article/combing-wikileaks-taliban-vows-to-punish-nato-informers/15827788.shtml

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:04 PM

4. Woodward wasn't subject to the UCMJ at the time. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:25 PM

11. What about his sources?

Where is the Grand Jury investigation into his sources?

And surely, if the U.S. can empanel a Grand Jury over Wikileaks and Assange, they can do the same for Woodward and his publisher.

And finally, civilians have indeed been brought before military commissions on the charge of aiding the enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:46 PM

15. LA, do you seriously think Mr. Naval Intelligence was 'leaked' anything 'classified?'

Come on....Bob Woodard's the intelligence community's worst-kept secret. That's why this article is so laughable....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:25 PM

12. Russ Baker in Family of Secrets discusses Woodward's

sometimes reported (denied by Woodward and others) connections and military career in intelligence and CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:42 PM

14. I suspect he is regularly privy to top secret info in order to advance the goals of the military

and government and he does what he is told.

FYI, it is Russ Baker. Dean Baker is the economist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:00 PM

16. Thanks. I edited the the reply title. Just grabbed the book off the shelf.

Some say Woodward worked as a military laisson while in the Navy Intelligence and had a Top Secret clearance

He had very little journalism experience at the time of Watergate.

There is quite alot of info and conjecture about Woodward in Baker's book.

Baker provided and documented a perspective on Watergate and Dean I had never considered.

I was an undergrad at Cal when Nixon resigned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:03 PM

17. Oh , Good Post...I just posted here in "Great Reads" with different snips of article

and didn't realize you'd posted here in "GD." I figured no one would read this in "GD" but, so far you are going good with wider readership!

K&R! Article needs as much exposure as can be given to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:27 PM

19. Hmmm. Not getting much traction in GD, either. Good conversation going on at...

The Guardian, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:07 PM

18. BTW....re Woodward and Bernstein....I think when most of us are long dead

we will realize that there was much more to what happened with Nixon than "Woody & Berstein's" great reporting and that wonderful movie about Watergate.

Think it will be much more nuanced and even darker and more sinister than what we all were told.

Just saying as one who lived through it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 07:12 AM

20. We agree. Which means Satan's tying on his skates and having Hitler fire up the Zamboni....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread