Stephen Kaus at the Huffington Post: "The federal guidelines for such subpoenas recognize that "[b]ecause freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues." "
Washington Post: "...the 1917 Espionage Act, which made it a crime for an unauthorized person to receive national defense information and transmit it to others.... U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, who is presiding over the AIPAC case, is weighing a motion to dismiss the charges based on the defendants' claim that the 89-year-old espionage statute is unconstitutionally vague and might violate the First Amendment."
I comment on Dvorak Uncensored that if a journalist has classified information, it is highly likely the "enemy" already has that information. In fact, the only people that the information is classified from is the general population; the people who elect the officials.
This explanation is simplistic, I agree, and doesn't take into account the fringe "enemies" that aren't keyed into the larger "network" (if such really exists). But overall, shouldn't the government be focusing their attention on where journalists are getting their information? Oh, wait. Silly me. That would mean top officials, maybe even the President, would have to go to jail.
Comment Preview