While those on the left — and a few on the right — will surely argue that prosecuting the Times would be an unwarranted response, the charges must be levied nevertheless. In fact, if President Bush fails to pressure AG Gonzalez into filing the charges, then he too bears a significant portion of the responsibility.America today is engaged in a war on terror, which is being constantly undermined by the MSM. The Times in particular has published classified materials on three separate occasions in as many months, and they have done so with impunity. President Bush has no right to protest if he is unwilling to take the necessary steps to prevent further violations against the American people. If exposing the SWIFT program does, in fact, pose a security risk, as President Bush suggests, then he has a duty to act. Otherwise, he, too, is complicit in the endangerment of Americans lives.The crime that the MSM is guilty of is clearly expressed in Section 798 of the Espionage Act:
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates . . . transmits . . . or publishes . . . any classified information . . . concerning the . . . intelligence activities of the United States . . . Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
AG Gonzalez must bring charges against the Times and other media outlets, whether he can successfully prosecute them or not. After all, even a failed prosecution will yield a successful result: the MSM will definitely think twice before publishing classified information in the future. When members of the Bush administration and other government officials urged the Times to bury the story, they did so with legal precedence. While the First Amendment protects press freedom, it is not a blanket freedom absent of limitations. The constitutional rights of all people and organizations end where that of another person or organization begins.
The media's role as a government watchdog was conceived in order to protect the American people, not to endanger them. The editor of the Times, Bill Keller, recognizes that America's national security cannot be violated, absent of strong extenuating circumstances — such as criminal activity. No such criminal activity was implied in the Times piece.
Moreover, both Republican and Democratic officials warned Keller that publishing the story did, in fact, violate national security. His decision to publish the piece in spite of those warnings effects a dangerous precedent: it allows newspapers to decide what does and does not constitute a national security risk.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
They knowingly leaked classified government information that was being used to protect American citizen's from terrorists and capture these terrorists.
If that's not treason it's pretty fucking close!
2 - Diz
You people are unbelievable. Once again I am in no way defending what the NYT did but president Bush's and Cheney's statements that were released did nothing more than rile up the hard core conservatives who are just dying to bash on the media in retaliation of other significant headlines that were more legit.
Please, I've already asked this in other posts and have had it gone unanswered...WHY THE HELL DOESN'T THE ADMINISTRATION CARE THAT THIS "CLASSIFIED GOVERMENT INFORMATION" IS REACHING THE PRESS IN THE FIRST PLACE? If people in our government are stupid enough to let classified information fly by the ears of the media then they must not really give a flying fuck about our national security. So stop barking up the "oh my, oh my, do anything to stop the terrorists from terrorizing me" tree.
Whenever theres a leak about one of the administrations fuck-ups we hear the classic "no comment"...but when a news agency RELAYS information that was ORIGINALLY leaked by our government itself we hear words like "dispicable". Its just sad that you people buy into this bullshit.
3 - Dave Nalle
Diz, as I've already commented on one of the zillion other articles on this pointless topic, the reason the administration doesn't care is that they deliberately leaked the info to the Times. Doh.
Dave
4 - Diz
classic rovian style damage repair tactics...just like Bush's speech and plan on immigration that he knew damn well would never get through a shit flinging monkey circus congress but made "my fellow americans" tingle in their panties. Not saying it was a bad plan just saying I can't imagine a Texas-style jesus freak like Bush actually standing by it.
5 - Diz
I respect the fact that you and your family need Jesus in order live a fulfilling life I simply ask people leave their bibles at home when engaging in any form of politics so that we can actually do whats right in an intelligent manner rather than insist on allowing your faith in fairy tales to bear any influence.
Wasn't it George Sr. who was once quoted for saying that any american who doesn't believe in god shouldn't be a citizen because we're one nation under god? Any religious fanatics with such firm beliefs can go straight to the hell they're naive enough to believe in.
6 - JP
Dave, you have a point--I've suggested they make a bigger thing out of this type of story to make it LOOK like they have a similar interest in catching whoever's behind the Plame leak, when they really don't. This is ALL manipulation, folks.
JOM, what has Jesus and what you believe he did for whom got to do with anything?
After 2 or 3 articles on the topic, this is the dumbest thing I've ever read. It wouldn't even make an episode of South Park, it's not clever enough. IF (BIG IF) you hard core righties would have put half the energy into Afghanistan that you are putting into making ridiculous accusations against the media, Osama would be dead by now.
Do you people really have this much disdain for the role of the media as watchdog? Or because we're told we're "At war", we should suspend all disbelief and doubt?
7 - gonzo marx
ummmm..how was this Program secret?
on numerous occasions since 9/11 W and a host of other WH spokespeople have said repeatedly that international financial transaction were being used to freeze assets and catch suspected terrorists
how can something be classified if it is mentioned at numerous press conferences and speeches?
please...just fucking spare me the partisan bullshit
as for "treason"...so far those screaming for it have all been Rovian shills with long records of doing so...but my point is...you have to have a War
no War has been declared by Congress
not to mention that there is a huge difference between investigative reporting informing the Citizens of facts and incidents being done in our names...
now, this can definately be embarrasing (Abu Grahib and the revelations of shipping prisoners to Syria for "extrodinairy rendition" come to mind)
but since neithe Congress nor the Senate are providing the oversight of checks and balances that they are SUPPOSED to do as part of their fucking jobs...who will do it?
and with all that we have going on in the world that our Government shoudl be dealing with, the Senate leadership gives us a week on a Gay Marriage Amendment, and this week an amendment again Flag burning...while tossing out border security, immigration reform and a thousand other things that don't rate a blip on the GOP campaign strategists radar
get the Congress controlled by the GOP to legally declare War, then we can talk about the 1917 Espionage act...until then it's just more vitriol spewed against the half of the citizenry who don't go along with the GOP Agenda
it's our fuck RIGHT to bitch, complain and demand Answers from our Government
this is America..the fucking Government works for the Citizens...NOT the other way around as W and his cronies would like us to believe
according to our Constitution, the government has NO power except what is granted by the consensus of the People
and unlike the assertations of the paid attack dogs, there IS a huge difference betweeen questioning the Government/Administration and "hating America" or "treason"
get used to it
Excelsior?
8 - JP
Best quote I've seen all day--Peter King (Republican, obviously) on the Times: "This is the second time the New York Times has done this. And to me, no one elected the New York Times to do anything."
THE POINT, King you bloody idiot, is that the press is OUTSIDE of elected office, reporting on events on behalf of the citizens. If you want a constant stream of Bush Administration press releases, watch Fox.
9 - IgnatiusReilly
I saw King on The Factor tonight. He made no mention of the treason committed by the leaker, which makes me wonder why the omission by him and that of this author. I'm not saying the Times is without fault because I haven't read the article, like I'm sure everyone commenting here has, but the sole focus of the Times certainly feeds into theories of calculated attacks against the President's "enemies" rather than dealing with the issue
It seems to be a pattern with this President, completely missing the obvious tactics to remedy a problem. Go to war before securing the country. Immigration reform without securing the border. Focusing on the media without securing the departments involed. He and his team would bail water out of a leaking boat without plugging up the whole. I'm sorry I voted for him in '00.
10 - synecdoche
Another display by the administration of turning news into a story on the reporting of the news. They knew the story was running, and if it was so darn important to quash, could have tried for an injunction. Then thery stay quiet until some House shill screams for retribution. Only then does Potus make a statement. The manipulation tactics they are using are soooo predictable. Now the real story will be buried under an avalanche of the story of the misdeeds of the MSM rather than the continued erosion of Constitutional protections by this administration.
Never forget that the War On Terror is a war on an abstract term. As Wilfred funk reminds us: These abstract political words are the words that demagogues fool us with. They have led charlatans to power. Misunderstandings about them have brought on wars between nations. They should really be bundled up with a red ribbon and stamped with a danger sign, for dangerous they are. It is just as well to keep in mind that Hitler said that his Germany was a Democracy. That's how far words can stray.
This administraton only deals in abstacts and their own made up reality. I think you all should be very afraid for the future.
11 - jack e. jett
all i can say is thank god for the ny times.
jack jett
12 - Joe
They knowingly violated our rights, AGAIN. The worst president in the history of this country has the audacity to lie to the country to start a war and then call the NYT reporting disgraceful.
Exposing a CIA agent to start an ILLEGAL war is
far more than disgraceful.
13 - sr
Joe, The worst president in the history of this country was a peanut farmer. [Edited]
14 - Bliffle
I suggest that the NYT use the Rove defense: everyone KNEW the gov was spying on US citizens.
15 - Dave Nalle
Actually sounds pretty plausible to me in this case since the fact that the government was monitoring bank transactions has been general knowledge for at least a decade.
Dave
16 - Gina Weiss
Dave, you have a point--I've suggested they make a bigger thing out of this type of story to make it LOOK like they have a similar interest in catching whoever's behind the Plame leak, when they really don't. This is ALL manipulation, folks.
it's our fuck RIGHT to bitch, complain and demand Answers from our Government
this is America..the fucking Government works for the Citizens...NOT the other way around as W and his cronies would like us to believe
according to our Constitution, the government has NO power except what is granted by the consensus of the People
and unlike the assertations of the paid attack dogs, there IS a huge difference betweeen questioning the Government/Administration and "hating America" or "treason"
Yep, just more smoke & mirrors - I couldn't agree more. I might add that it's our DUTY to demand answers. They've forgotten that they're our "servant" government and treat us as slaves with them as master.
no War has been declared by Congress
I'm not sure how many Americans are aware of this. Many people I talk to think that Bush's TV 'announcement' was a declaration of war..... a good indication of mindless, controlled zombies.
I think you all should be very afraid for the future.
VERY, VERY, VERY afraid...
17 - Dave Nalle
no War has been declared by Congress
I'm not sure how many Americans are aware of this. Many people I talk to think that Bush's TV 'announcement' was a declaration of war..... a good indication of mindless, controlled zombies.
And it's remarkable how many people don't seem to understand that a declaration of war is not necessary for the deployment of troops when it's authorized by congress under a document like the AUMF. If you have a problem with Bush's actions in Iraq, take it up with congress which gave him the authority and just recently voted overwhelmingly to continue the deployment.
Dave
18 - Bliffle
"If you have a problem with Bush's actions in Iraq, take it up with congress which gave him the authority and just recently voted overwhelmingly to continue the deployment."
IMO, that's disingenuous in the extreme. GWB twisted congress' arms to get that authority. And most of those arms were compliant republicans. The initiative was GWBs, entirely.
19 - Franklin Chase
"GWB twisted congress' arms to get that authority"
There is psychological term for someone who absolutely "cannot" believe anything, no matter how straighforward, unblemished, or truthful the action is.
That the above statement clearly bowdlerizes actuality. It's an amazing "psychosis" and one being observed continuously in our well connected society and enervates any discussion.
Congress bullied? Right. If anything Congress has demonstrated their unwillingness to perform as public servants. In as hegemonic a caveat as I have ever witnessed.
To think otherwise is hubristic, inculcating false pretense to a point and fashion akin to nihilism.
(Reality) Check please!
20 - gonzo marx
comment #17 sez...
*And it's remarkable how many people don't seem to understand that a declaration of war is not necessary for the deployment of troops when it's authorized by congress under a document like the AUMF*
true enough..congress is to blame for the shoddy oversight that led to the AUMF, and the AUMF does indeed allow the Administration to utilize military force...
but that is NOT the constitutional or legal (as per the War Powers Act) definition of War...and it is in this confusion of the legalities between the two very different conditions that is being leveraged by the Administration...since it appears most folks are truly not aware of the difference between a War and an authorized military action
to wit: the POTUS' powers in a legally declared War are much broader than they are under a military conflict...yet this Administration has been behaving as if they have had the carte blance given to them by an actual Declaration of War
please note the difference...this becomes crucial in the legal argument that some like Representative King are putting forward about the Times being involved in "treason"...very difficult to prove under the 1917 law, considering the precedents, without a legal declaration of War
the same legal arguments can be made about the bypassing of the FISA courts, the illegal 3 year detention of the american citizen Padilla (who is most likely guilty and should be tried and punished, but NOT held without arraingment for 3 years...a clear violation of his constitutional rights, even if he is a "bad guy")
you can't have it both ways...either get Congress to declare War legally, or operate within the more limited Powers delineated by the Constitution and Federal law...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
21 - Andy Marsh
The thing I don't get about this issue is: If this program is/was so well known then what made it news in the first place? Why did the NYT believe that it was in your interests...not mine, I don't read the times...to know about this program?
It wasn't secret...it was "well known"...it's a non-story...these are all the arguments I keep reading in defense of the Times. Well, all those arguments lead to only a couple of things...it was filler for the paper...or...they really don't like this administration and it was just another way for the times to stick it to them...
Or did they do it because the administration asked them not to?
22 - gonzo marx
well Andy, Ron Susskind's book "the One Percent Doctrine" which came out a little while ago, and was written in the last year , details the program pretty extensively...including sourced material form the Administration itself....so it doesn't appear that they were trying to keep most of it secret...
the big bit that appears to have been overlooked among all the hysteria and hyperbole on both sides is the fact that the so called "warrants" used to gather much of these records are actually "executive supeonas" issued from the WH or Justice Department without judicial review...SWIFT required such before releasing records, once can presume it was to cover their own asses with their customers
so the hullaballoo about the Story itself seems rather trivial, the big deal are the frothing at the mouth types who are screaming "treason" for an article about a program the President announced right after 9/11
it does appear that the Administration just doesn't like it when thye are forced into any kind of transparency concerning what they do in our names
we will know more as more comes out, eh?
Excelsior?
23 - Richard Brodie
The Treasonous Times Must Be Prosecuted!
How about prosecuting the treasonous Whitehouse for squandering a trillion dollars to protect the borders of Iraq and Israel, while leaving OUR OWN borders 99% unprotected!
24 - Dave Nalle
IMO, that's disingenuous in the extreme. GWB twisted congress' arms to get that authority. And most of those arms were compliant republicans. The initiative was GWBs, entirely.
Bliffle, about 80% of the Democrats supported the president in the recent vote, so that's hardly just compliant republicans. In addition, arm twisting works to get the 1 or 2 votes you need to pass something. It's not a fair description of something which passes with over 90% support.
Get a clue. The elites of both parties are fully behind the war
Dave
25 - Dave Nalle
but that is NOT the constitutional or legal (as per the War Powers Act) definition of War...and it is in this confusion of the legalities between the two very different conditions that is being leveraged by the Administration...since it appears most folks are truly not aware of the difference between a War and an authorized military action
You can say this all you want, and I might even agree with you to some extent, but the fact is that several judges have upheld it and written decisions which support the opinion of the Justice Department that the AUMF indeed IS the equivalent of a declaration of war and/or that the declaration of war on the US by Al Qaeda puts us in a de facto state of war which triggers wartime powers for the president. That's where it stands no matter how much you may disagree.
Dave