Should the NYT have been prosecuted for receiving The Pentagon Papers?

[cthulu2016]

The NYT took possession of classified documents knowing that they were not provided to them legally.

They then published them.

Should persons at the NYT have been prosecuted?

Bonus Question: Was the NYT acting as a spy for North Vietnam, or acting to 'aid the enemy' by publishing such secrets about the war in a newspaper the NYT knew full well the government of North Vietnam had access to?

[leftstreet]

1. NO, there was a Republican in office! n/t

[cthulu2016]

4. But the Pentagon Papers trashed our greatest civil rights president since Lincoln.

The juicy parts of the Pentagon Papers were mostly about LBJ's era.

[Safetykitten]

2. Of course! I live in the moment. Wait, I have a Vine to see. It's a policy message from

our President!

[NYC_SKP]

3. FWIW, Daniel Ellsberg tried to do it through channels, regrets that, praises Snowden/Manning

Per NPR.

Pentagon Papers Leaker Daniel Ellsberg Praises Snowden, Manning

August 03, 201312:16 PM

Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who in 1971 leaked the top-secret Pentagon Papers detailing the history of U.S. policy in Vietnam, that unlike Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, he "did it the wrong way" by trying first to go through proper channels — a delay that he says cost thousands of lives.

"I really regarded [it] as anathema ... leaking as opposed to working within the system," Ellsberg says, speaking to NPR's Linda Wertheimer. "I wasted years trying to do it through channels, first within the executive branch and then with Congress."

"During that time, more than 10,000 Americans died and probably more than a million Vietnamese," Ellsberg says.

"That was a fruitless effort, as it would have been for Manning and Snowden," he says.

more at the link, including audio:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/03/208602113/pentagon-papers-leaker-daniel-ellsberg-praises-snowden-manning

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. Oh really now....One big difference...

To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.[9]

Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision Gravel v. United States.

[cthulu2016]

7. If the question was whether Gravel should have been prosecuted this would be relevant

The NYT did receive the classified docs... they did not get them from the freaking Congressional Record. The question stands.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. Gravel entered into the record to make that impossible.....rarely is he ever given credit for that!

and what did these two douchenozzles do instead?

[cthulu2016]

11. The NYT knowingly took possession of classified docs before the Gravel action

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. What Gravel did made it not worth their while.....

what did these two douchenozzles do instead?

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Has a US journalist or news organization ever been prosecuted for receiving classified information?

No.

[cthulu2016]

8. The question was whether the NYT should have been prosecuted

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. and my reply is.....had Gravel not made them PUBLIC...they could have been!