Prosecute Bill Keller, the NY Times et al? (get a cuppa joe first..)

[Overpaid Slacker]

There's a question mark at the end of the title of this thread for a reason...

Now, I'm obviously not a fan of the NYT and its editorial fellow-travellers. However, even given the low esteem (OK, contempt)with which I hold the bloviating whor ... I mean "Gray Lady" ... I am actually stunned at its most recent disclosure of ultrasecret US anti-terrorism efforts, all in the name of 'the public interest'.

For those of you not paying rapt attention to this story, a little history. One of the NYT-lauded 9/11 Commission's strongest recommendations was for the US Gov't to better track al Qaeda and Islamist financining. The administration established what it called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP a/k/a the SWIFT program) to track the finances of terrorists through a transfer bank in Belgium that processes about $6 trillion in transfers a day. The SWIFT program was successful, directly resulting in the capture of Riduan bin Isamuddin or "Hambali", who was al Qaeda's Indonesian contact and the center of the 2002 Bali bombing that killed 200. The SWIFT program also netted Uzair Paracha, now convicted for laundering money for al Qaeda in Pakistan.

So here we have an effective policy for tracking and capturing terrorists, in a non-military way that is preferred by those who wage war against the War. Here's the NYT editorializing when the WTC ruins were still smouldering:

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.... If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one. (emphases added)

This is precisely the kind of program that the NYT and others endorsed. Even according to the NYT reporters who exposed and therefore essentially killed this program (Lichtblau and Risen), there was nothing illegal about it and it is, essentially uncontroversial (about the best thing the NYT can bring itself to imply about a Bush policy).

Why, then, is Bill Keller (NYT Editor) empowered to unilaterally determine which American secrets need to be disclosed "in the public interest"? How did this unelected, unaccountable private citizen with an obvious agenda become the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes the "public interest" and what secrets need to be kept?

I, personally don't equate "public interest" with "increasing NYT circulation or the number of Pulitzers on its mantlepiece."

Given a crystal clear choice between helping protect America and its people and helping al Qaeda, the NYT chose to help al Qaeda.

I can't say this much better than Andrew McCarthy:

It was in view of the TFTP’s palpable value in protecting American lives, its obvious legal propriety, and the plain fact that it was being responsibly conducted that the administration pleaded with the newspapers not to reveal it after government officials despicably leaked it. Exposing the program would tell the public nothing about official misconduct. It would accomplish only the educating of al Qaeda — the nation’s enemy in an ongoing war; an enemy well-known to be feverishly plotting new, massive attacks — about how better to evade our defenses. About how better to kill us.

Appealing to the patriotism of these newspapers proved about as promising as appealing to the humanity of the terrorists they so insouciantly edify — the same monsters who, as we saw again only a few days ago with the torture murder of two American soldiers, continue to define depravity down.

The newspapers, of course, said no. Why? What could outweigh the need to protect a valid effort to shield Americans from additional, barbarous attacks? Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, smugly decreed that the Bush administration’s “access to this vast repository of international financial data” was, in his singularly impeccable judgment, “a matter of public interest.”

And you probably thought George Bush was the imperious one. And that the public’s principal interest was in remaining alive. Wrong again.

So, the NTY exposed clearly classified information... again. Information received clearly in breach of the law from informants in the government. And the NYT will not reveal the identities of any of the "almost 20" felons whose crime the NYT furthered.

In short, the NYT's secrets are more important than ours. The self-declared secrecy czar, Bill Keller, believes that blowing this program was "in the public interest"; that the public effectively never has an interest in the government having secrets or having classified matters remain classifed. Yet the NYT will greedily guard its own secrets (the identities of those who leaked the information) in defiance of legal, "duly processed" governmental investigations.

The NYT demands legal protection for its own secrets so that it can better arbitrarily reveal the government's. Utlimate arrogance, or chutzpah? Or both?

Officials who leak the classified information with which they have been entrusted can be prosecuted for theft of government property. If the information is especially sensitive, they can be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act. In either event, the press has no legal right to protect such lawlessness. Lichtblau and Risen should be subpoenaed, and if they refuse to reveal their sources, they should go to jail. During their tenure as guests of the government they can reflect upon why their secrets are more important than ours.

I'm of mixed feelings about going after the NYT directly for its actions. But, really, if this is not a clear-cut case for prosecution of the NYT under the Espionage Act, the "Comint" Statute and others, I can't imagine one. Is one editor's determination that something is "in the public interest" an absolute legal justification for anything that a media outlet wants to do?

It simply cannot be. No elected official answerable to the public has that kind of authority. How on Earth can some jacka$$ on West 43d street be empowered unilaterally to issue absolution from criminal activity with some feeble "it's in the public interest" pablum?

One more McCarthy bit:

The media aspire to be the public’s watchdog? Ever on the prowl to promote good government? Okay, here we have public officials endangering American lives. Public officials whose violation of a solemn oath to protect national defense information is both a profound offense against honor and a serious crime.

What about the public interest in that? What about the public interest in rooting out those who betray their country in wartime?

Not on your life.

National-security secrets? All fair game. If it’s about how we detain, or infiltrate, or defang the monsters pledged to kill us, the New York Times reserves the right to derail us any time it finds such matters … interesting.

But the media’s own sources? That, and that alone, is sacrosanct. Worth protecting above all else.

National-security secrets, after all, are merely the public treasure that keeps us alive. Press informants are the private preserve of the media.

And they’re just more important than you are.

One last thing (sorry, I know this is overlong) I do not view "freedom of the press" in the wrong, pre-spun manner in which the institutional media does. It is not and was never intended to be freedom for the press to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. It is the freedom of the people to have access to the press, of individuals to express themselves.
The Framers also called it "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry and certainly not an entitlement to act so thoroughly recklessly with classified information about a legal program.

JP

[Joeaksa]

Feel that they need to take them to court and if guilty, put the people who made the decision to publish this information in jail.

Exposing any countries secrets is a criminal offense. The question is where and who gave the newspapers the information? They need to be tried as well...

[on-ramp]

hey Joe,

is starting an illegal war a criminal offense? or how about illegally spying on millions of Americans without their knowledge... do the laws only apply when it's convenient?

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by on-ramp
hey Joe,

is starting an illegal war a criminal offense? or how about illegally spying on millions of Americans without their knowledge... do the laws only apply when it's convenient?

Since Congress approved it, it wasn't illegal and it has nothing to do with the NYT's possible crimes. Or are you one of those folks who thinks it's illegal unless the UN says it's ok?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Since Congress approved it, it wasn't illegal

Buying a house is legal, but lying on your loan app and forging dox to hide the fact that you have no income, is not.

[Rick Lee]

Oh, the old "Bush lied" line again. Get a new one. How is it that he's so dumb, but managed to fool Congress and even had numerous foreign intel. agencies AND his predecessor concur?

[hunter914]

It looks like the terrorists have already won, and in a bigger way than they could have anticipated: have the Country's own population subvert the very nature of the Constitution.

lot of big talk about the Military in Iraq dying for our Freedom in the U.S. what good is it? from flag burning to anti-gay marriage to prosecuting the Free Press for keeping government accountable, the Republicans have done more damage to our Country than Terrorists ever could.

Why so weakminded? Why is it OK for the Military to die for Freedom and not for you to take the chance that you will also die in our Country by a terrorist or any other attack?

What price Freedom do YOU pay? bunch-a panty-a$$ed wusses you all are.

here's a thought. Don't like living in a Free country, free from Government intervention? China has a growing economy, I'm sure they'd welcome you, so just get the **** out of our Country and stop trying to change it to YOUR petty political games and needs.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by on-ramp
hey Joe,

is starting an illegal war a criminal offense? or how about illegally spying on millions of Americans without their knowledge... do the laws only apply when it's convenient?

When you find one, pls let us know. Since Congress authorize it, you need to find a new war to focus on...

Thought you were going to put me on Ignore? Please?!!

[legion]

This is high treason.

Anything less than a firing squad at dawn I will view as weakness on the part of the Bush administration.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by hunter914
It looks like the terrorists have already won, and in a bigger way than they could have anticipated: have the Country's own population subvert the very nature of the Constitution.

lot of big talk about the Military in Iraq dying for our Freedom in the U.S. what good is it? from flag burning to anti-gay marriage to prosecuting the Free Press for keeping government accountable, the Republicans have done more damage to our Country than Terrorists ever could.

Why so weakminded? Why is it OK for the Military to die for Freedom and not for you to take the chance that you will also die in our Country by a terrorist or any other attack?

What price Freedom do YOU pay? bunch-a panty-a$$ed wusses you all are.

here's a thought. Don't like living in a Free country, free from Government intervention? China has a growing economy, I'm sure they'd welcome you, so just get the **** out of our Country and stop trying to change it to YOUR petty political games and needs.

You sir, are as dumb as a sack of hammers. This has nothing to do with keeping the government accountable(for acts that were described as legal in the article that outed them).

This is about a paper coming into the possession of information about a classified, legal program to combat terrorist organizations in a very effective, non-violent way. The paper was asked by the government to keep this information close to the vest so to speak, because it was working and you don't want to fix something that is not broken.

Please, use your head

[Overpaid Slacker]

Guys -
The old "illegal war" canard is a bit played out. The war was authorized by the Congress and military action was OK'd by the UN (to the extent you care about their "authority"). Both of these events occurred in the Gulf War and in the Iraq War; the Iraq War being, legally an extension of the Gulf War.

So blah blah blah. Those with a visceral anti-war reaction, blunt to actual "legalities" will continue to blithely allege the war is "illegal". Those who either blindly support the war or have studied the "legalities" will disagree, but never the twain shall meet.

Rather than re-hash this staggeringly tiresome "did not/did too!" argument in this thread, I humbly ask not to get derailed again by the same ol' crap, but to discuss the merits and possible detriments of prosecution of the NYT in this instance.

I know folks have very strong feelings (which is not to say "thinkings") about the surveillance program the NYT blew open about 7 months ago, and exult in mischaracterizing it. Rather than sow the catalyst for avoiding the discussion of the NYT in this instance I spared all you gentle readers from a disquisition on the facts and merits of that matter.

So the question remains -- whom (if anyone) should the gov't be going after in this instance? Is there anyone with any principled reason why the government shouldn't seek to prosecute (i) the leakers, (ii) the NYT and/or (iii) the editor(s) and reporters involved?

Should there be a requirement that news sources reveal leakers w/o on-communicating the leaked information?

There is a fine line between whistleblowing and treason; I don't want to discourage genuine whistleblowing, but where there's no illegality behind the events, have we just lost the will to call treason by its name?

Thanks.

JP

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by widebody911
Buying a house is legal, but lying on your loan app and forging dox to hide the fact that you have no income, is not.

hopefully some of the posters here that make up the lowest common denominator of American intelligence will understand this metaphor.

[914GT]

Originally posted by on-ramp
hopefully some of the posters here that make up the lowest common denominator of American intelligence will understand this metaphor.

Tag. You're it!

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Tobra
You sir, are as dumb as a sack of hammers. This has nothing to do with keeping the government accountable(for acts that were described as legal in the article that outed them).

This is about a paper coming into the possession of information about a classified, legal program to combat terrorist organizations in a very effective, non-violent way. The paper was asked by the government to keep this information close to the vest so to speak, because it was working and you don't want to fix something that is not broken.

Please, use your head

Now you see why Hunted is on my Ignore list! The guy makes no sense what so ever only about 99% of the time.

[914GT]

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by on-ramp
is starting an illegal war a criminal offense? or how about illegally spying on millions of Americans without their knowledge... do the laws only apply when it's convenient?

You sound just like Pinchy Sulzberger (NY Crimes Family)...

"It wasn’t supposed to be this way. You weren’t supposed to be graduating in an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life, the right of gays to marry or the rights of women to choose.”

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by on-ramp
hopefully some of the posters here that make up the lowest common denominator of American intelligence will understand this metaphor.

The irony...When are you lefties going to pull out of your inner city quagmires?

[914GT]

[Overpaid Slacker]

914GT -- NICE cuppa joe reference!

JP

[Rodeo]

Here's where we divide the people that think it would be really neat to live in Singapore from those who value privacy and freedom over law and order.

Safety vs. security, the debate will rage on.

The interesting part for me is the role reversal. The rugged, individual, freedom-loving "conservatives" will lay down without a fight for incrementally better security. The "liberal" pansies see this constant encroachment on our freedoms and privacy as nothing less than un-American.

You don't want them taking your guns, but you'll let them listen to your calls, read your emails, and download your financial transactions?

Guns don't protect your freedom in the 21st century, privacy does.



Edited to get my geography straight