It looks obvious

In general it would be safe to claim that most people agree that in order to grant security we give up some of our rights and liberties. Forming a government in its most minimal form is exactly about protecting one security and human rights. However the limitations on one’s liberty should be minimal and only if directly aimed to specific security risk.

Should we allow limitations on the freedom of speech in the name of national security? Sure! Any government employee who is entrusted with classified material gives up on some of his freedom of speech. But then what about the press, or for that matter any citizen, that isn’t entrusted with classified materials - are they subject for the same limitation? We have no censorship, and until now the press was not limited in publicizing stories – sometime irresponsibly.

But ,according to the NYT , the attorney general thinks that he might found a loop hole to further limit our liberties, in the war that suppose to protect our liberties. It isn’t that the attorney general thinks that he can argue that the intention of the constitution was that it is ok to limit the freedom of speech but that he:

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week.

"That’s a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

So while fighting against Bin-Laden and his kind, raising the flag of democracy and freedom, We are in bed with other terror organizations in the Middle East, and now we are going to:

The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday.

Now we can sleep quietly…