Peter King & Lindsay Graham: NSA Scandal Proves Americans Need To Be Watched More Closely (Updated)

Peter King (R-Stasi) has taking the very brave position of calling for the prosecution of reporters that publish classified data. Presumably, he is only referring to the classified data leaked by whistleblowers, NOT the classified data accidentally revealed by Michele Bachman during primary debates, and definitely not the classified data selectively leaked to news outlets by the administration. In any case, Peter King is taking a helpful stance: since the terrorists hate us for our freedom, the best way to protect ourselves from attacks is to just have less and less of it as a precautionary measure.

Below is Peter King's response word for word, so you can be amazed at every logic-bending morsel.  So eloquent is he that he DOESN'T EVEN NEED to mention the Supreme Court's per curium opinion in the Pentagon Papers case. Behold:

Peter King: if [reporters] willingly knew that this was classified information, I think actions should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude. I know that the whole issue of leaks has been gone into over the past month but I think something on this magnitude, there is an obligation, both moral and but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which so severely would compromise national security. As a practical matter, I guess there have been in the past several years a number of reporters who have been prosecuted under it, and the answer is yes to your question.

Is a blogger a type of reporter? We hope not because we are too delicate to really thrive in the slammer. Anyway, after Peter King explains that reporters should have "action" taken against them for publishing "classified" information, the Silver Fox plays a video of National Intelligence director James Clapper lying to Senator Wyden's face about the scope of data collection. But you know what, it was kind of a white lie, Peter King explains:

Peter King: I think James Clapper was in kind of an unwinnable position there. No matter what he said could have compromised American security. If I were his lawyer right now, if I were advocating for him, I'd say that we are not collecting information on individuals, we're collecting information on phone numbers. I realize that's a technicality. But that would be probably be [sic] the legal rationale that would be used. But this would be like asking someone on June 4th or June 5th 1944 'Are we planning D-Day tomorrow or in two days?' You know, what do you say?

I'm sure James Clapper is really bummed that Peter King is not his lawyer, because these are great arguments he's making.

But not to be outdone, Linsdey Graham wants us all to know "he approves of censoring snail mail if it was necessary to protect innocent lives."  LUCKILY, in his expert opinion, it is not necessary to do that; that would be silly. No no, it's only necessary to know who you're calling, when you're calling them, for how long you're calling them, and how often you call. And also what you search for on the internet and who you freely associate with on Facebook and whatnot. So no need to panic!

No word yet, by the way, on whether they still hate us for our freedoms. We'll let you all know soon as we find out who "they" even IS anymore.

Update: On Fox News today, Peter King specified that hewants Glenn Greenwald jailed because King thinks that Greenwald has threatened to reveal the identities of undercover CIA operatives, which Greenwald has not. No, Fox's Megyn Kelly didn't mention the very relevant Pentagon Papers case, either.

[ HuffPo / RawStory / Update from TPM ]