Updated
Republican Congressman Peter King of New York wants the New York Times prosecuted for its disclosure of the classified terrorist financial tracking program.
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.
Rep. Peter King cited The New York Times in particular for publishing a story last week that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.
King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation’s chief law enforcer “begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times — the reporters, the editors and the publisher.”
“We’re at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous,” King told The Associated Press.
A message left Sunday with Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis was not immediately returned.
Senator Arlen Specter said such an action is premature – no surprise there.
In spite of Senator Specter’s remarks, I hope other lawmakers follow Rep. King’s lead and stand up to the New York Times and other newspapers who work to undermine our government’s ability to protect us from terrorists. The editors of these newspapers must know that we will not tolerate their disclosing secret national security programs and operations, tipping our hand to our enemies, which puts the lives of our citizens, military personnel, and country at grave risk.
Unfortunately, fear of prosecution may be the only way to get the Times’ attention. It’s unfortunate, but the reality is the New York Times and the other left leaning media who published the details of the terrorist financial tracking operation don’t have any loyalty to or patriotism for America. In fact, they don’t appear to have any concern for the safety of the American people. If they had, they wouldn’t have chosen a path that puts the American people, not to mention our military personnel, in more danger. So if the media won’t refrain from publishing national security secrets, whether during wartime or peacetime, out of simple concern for America’s safety and well being, then perhaps we should make it so they refrain from publishing national security secrets out of fear of prosecution. It’s obvious that we can not trust the New York Times to do what’s right.
Additional: We learned yesterday that the Times again published classified information from a secret briefing about troop deployments in Iraq. Be sure to read Paul’s piece from earlier today.
Update: Be sure to read Austin Bay’s piece “The Axis of Abuse: The NY Times and Washington, DC Leakers.” In it he offers a variety of possible motives for the Times’ disclosure of national security secrets. He also says that the leakers should be prosecuted but is concerned that the Bush administration wouldn’t have the nerve. None the less, Austin is right. The person or persons who leaked our national security secrets to the Times must be prosecuted and jailed.
Update II: Allahpundit has the video of Rep. King’s appearance on Fox News Sunday where he stated that the NY Times should be charged publishing classified national security information.
This thread is gay. So are its members.
Hi Laura,
The Espionage Act was written and has been readily interpreted to deal with LEAKERS as well.
To put it bluntly: there is, by rule of law, a great difference between the function of a free press-which is to inform the citizenry of information- and taking that information from its classified form and passing it into the hands of others. The latter is espionage. The former is not.
THe men at Powerline are lawyers, but to be honest, their positions on this matter has very little to do with the reading of the law and very much to do with interpreting the law. And, those are two very different and essential things.
Furhter, your opinion that the NY Times wishes to be prosecuted is interesting, but hardly based in any reality. It makes for great fodder at Free Republic, but the truth is a bit more simple.
My take is that the leak in the Pentagon was intentional in order to provoke this very dust up.
The fact that AG Gonzales spoke out on this very matter a few weeks ago is evidence of that.
Firing up the base is one of the great ways of enforcing power.
TO wit: Although one may never be able to get the NY Times to stop publishing information, you can make them remember the bruise you gave them last time they did. (The letters to the Editor alone are proof of that right now. And, they are pouring in no doubt. Still.)
There is nothing new to this tactic. Except its now in the headlines.
Mac Lorry wrote:
here’s an interesting twist to this story. The New York Times, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal all posted essentially the same story on their web sites Thursday night. It’s ludicrous to think that these three news organizations independently investigated this classified program and just happened to publish their findings at almost exactly the same time. What likely is that the editors of these three news organizations conspired to publish the story about a classified program.
Sorry Mac, but your theory is simplly not grounded in the reality of how news stories move from source to source.
The reality is: it’s not uncommon for a story to go from one source to the other in total and unedited. It happens hundreds of times every single day, from Page 1 to 100. News outlets have deals in place to share such oontent.
That’s not uncommon at all. “Conspired”? Hardly. Again, your “theory” just ignores or is unaware of how the news biz works.
What such a story does imply is that all three news outlets were approached by the leaker.
Now, in such a circumstance, it’s good money to assume that all three would print the information. It’s what they DO!
From an insiders perspecitve, the “theory” could be that all three news outlets were set up.
It rubs both ways.
Congress should outlaw the NY Times and Washington Post after they shut down Public Broadcasting. All the paradoid dittoheads can then get daily injections of Rush and FOX without fear of the real facts.
My take is that the leak in the Pentagon was intentional in order to provoke this very dust up.
The fact that AG Gonzales spoke out on this very matter a few weeks ago is evidence of that.
Firing up the base is one of the great ways of enforcing power….
What such a story does imply is that all three news outlets were approached by the leaker.
Exactly. Well put. (It is baffling to read people who write about the “leftist media” (whatever that is; left of Fox?) is “begging for it” — as if these well-behaved children were astonished at a misbehaving sibling (“why can’t you just do what Dad tells you?”), rather than professionals who are paid to ask difficult, and often uncomfortable, questions, not simply pass along press releases. This does indeed “rub both ways” — and the kids who giggled so gleefully when that leftist(!) press went after the Clintons can’t seem to stomach reasonable questions about plans to use our troops for political (Midterm election) gains, rather than military ones. (And is there really no one on the Right who’s willing to step up and challenge the sheer cynicism of THAT kind of plan?))
Old Time Religion,
I’m well aware of how news stories go from one source to another, but that’s not what happened this time. When the NYT broke similarly stories, there was a time lag on when the story was posted on other news organization’s web sites, but that didn’t happen with the LA Times and Wall Street Journal, they all published Thursday night at nearly the same time. Also the LA Times and Wall Street Journal don’t cite the NYT as the source of their stories. That leaves just two possibilities. Either the three news organizations developed the stories independently and just happened to post them all at the same time or there was a conspiracy to publish the story at the same time.
MikeSC: The NY Times is in rather clear violation of the Espionage Act and there is no case law, whatsoever, that protects them in this case. The press is protected from prior restraint, but they are quite unprotected from criminal sanctions for what they print.
Sorry Mike, wrong on both counts. THere is ample case law on this matter. Are you an attorney? If not, just make that remark to one and you will get a nice laugh. Sorry, but that is the truth.
You very clearly do not understand, nor have read, the Espionage Act.
The gov’t can’t STOP them from printing it. But they can punish them for what they printed.
Again, you are not entirely correct. The government can definitely NOT “punish” newspapers for printing a story. Where you get that idea is beyond me. Maybe you just made it up. But, I think you are just re-interpreting the secondary clause from Powerline: “a majority of the justices clearly contemplated that the Times could be held responsible for any violation of the law involved in publishing the stories.”
In the end, what you seem to be advocating is that the government be allowed to decide what should and should not be published in the press.
Alas, as I noted above, this story is not new.
The existence of financial data mining programs, including Operation Greequest, has been available to the public for a number of years on the government webiste @ usinfo.state.gov under International Information Programs > USINFO > Topics > International Security > Response to Terrorism > Shutting Down Terrorist Financial Networks. Here is the link.
A quote of particular interest:
• The U.S. has now designated 153 individuals, organizations, and financial supporters of terrorism pursuant to Executive Order 13224. Designees include terrorists from around the world.
• Prior to today’s action, the U.S. has blocked over $27 million in assets of the Taliban and al Qaida, and other nations have blocked at least $33 million.
• The Treasury Department has established an inter-agency Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center, and mobilized financial investigators — under Operation Greenquest — to develop leads for further enforcement action.
Also, please note the long list of actions to date. Impressive.
These data mining programs
And, do you all here think that this program was done with people sitting in a room staring at computer screens looking for “anomolies”?
Obviously not. It was an organized, and very public, program of data mining.
Not a news story at all. In truth.
Again, though, if a source, a LEAKER, gives you a “scoop”, you print it. You run with it.
Do the math.
Mac Lorry wrote:
There is a third possibility which you omit: all three mews outlets were given the story at the same time by the same source.
And, the “time lag” is a common thing. You are making something which is common, it happens hundreds of times every day, appear uncommon.
If you understood how stories move from outlet to outlet, how that works, you would not be building a baseless conspiracy theory upon untruths and fabrications.
H. Schulze,
You give the press too much credit. It wasn’t that professionals asked difficult and uncomfortable questions. Rather some disgruntled, disloyal government worker dropped the story in their laps, and like little children with a new toy, the NYT had to show the world what it got.
Children find war hard to understand and don’t like that idea that it requires sacrifice and courage. That’s why adults have to keep the children out of positions of power as much as possible and out of the White house in particular.
Old Time Religion,
You need to read what I wrote more carefully. It’s not the time lag that shows coordination, it’s the lack of a time lag that shows coordination.
Even if that were true, without coordination, the odds of three independent news organizations posting the same story at the same time are astronomically remote.
Three news organizations all published essentially the same story at the same time and none cited the other as the source. If that’s factually wrong, say so. If not, what untruths and fabrications are you talking about?
Mac,
That’s why adults have to keep the children out of positions of power as much as possible and out of the White house in particular.
Couldn’t agree with you more. On the issue of this particular “toy” — I’m frankly unsure if the NYTimes should have waited before publishing — but not for the reasons several posters have given: “National Security”. The whole notion that plans are being considered should shock no one (I’d be more shocked if our generals didn’t present those and other options) However, WHEN those plans are to be implemented — prior to Midterm elections — is the point that Republicans have been embarrassed with. Hence all this feigned outrage when they’ve been caught out in a blatantly political use of the military.
H. Schulze,
I wrote “That’s why adults have to keep the children out of positions of power as much as possible and out of the White house in particular.
To which you replied “Couldn’t agree with you more.”
Given that the sentence you emphatically agreed with is grammatically tied to the prior sentence it can logically be conclude that you also agree with that sentence which is — “Children find war hard to understand and don’t like that idea that it requires sacrifice and courage.”
It seems that if a war can’t be successfully prosecuted and wrapped up in the year following an election, then any military action towards completion of the war is seen by the left as political use of the military. That leaves the left in the position of hoping for military failure while showing steadfast support for the troops. Obviously, most of the left doesn’t have a problem with their two faced position.
Sorry Mike, wrong on both counts. THere is ample case law on this matter. Are you an attorney? If not, just make that remark to one and you will get a nice laugh. Sorry, but that is the truth.
You very clearly do not understand, nor have read, the Espionage Act.
READ the Pentagon Papers decision. Blackmun is more than clear that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that the media is no more protected from national security law than you or I am.
All that has ever been said is that the PREVENTION of publication cannot be done. And it was not done here.
Again, you are not entirely correct. The government can definitely NOT “punish” newspapers for printing a story. Where you get that idea is beyond me. Maybe you just made it up. But, I think you are just re-interpreting the secondary clause from Powerline: “a majority of the justices clearly contemplated that the Times could be held responsible for any violation of the law involved in publishing the stories.”
A basic reading of the Constitution is what gave me my ideas. Where you got the idea that the media is protected from laws that the rest of the country has to follow is a little baffling.
In the end, what you seem to be advocating is that the government be allowed to decide what should and should not be published in the press.
Nope. I do not advocate prior restraint.
I advocate the media being held responsible for what they decide to print.
Alas, as I noted above, this story is not new.
The existence of financial data mining programs, including Operation Greequest, has been available to the public for a number of years on the government webiste @ usinfo.state.gov under International Information Programs > USINFO > Topics > International Security > Response to Terrorism > Shutting Down Terrorist Financial Networks. Here is the link.
Then care to explain why it was on the front page if it was “common knowledge”? I had never heard of the program and, unlike you, I actually know what’s going on.
Not a news story at all. In truth.
Again, though, if a source, a LEAKER, gives you a “scoop”, you print it. You run with it.
Let me guess — you don’t recognize how the first sentence here and the second sentence are completely at odds, right?
-=Mike
Mac wrote: he odds of three independent news organizations posting the same story at the same time are astronomically remote.
Wrong. News outlets all subscribe to numerous wire services. And in todays online enviornment and wireless subscription services, much like RSS feeds, news items are fed over the system to hundreds of outlets and services around the globe.
Your assumption is flawed and rooted in a basic misunderstanding of how news items are posted, and how outlets share stories and wire services. The NY Times for example, is its own news syndicate. Nearly every news outlet in the world subscribes to it. And, each news outlet has a different relationship regarding “breaking news” in regard to the NY Times Syndication and wire servies. For example, both the LA Times and the WSJ use the NY Times wire service (amongst others) and it is not uncommon, being that all three papers are in competition (an important concept for you to grasp Mac.) and if they believe ir know that a story coming over the NY Times wire is important and they understand that the NY Times is going to lead with it, they may lead with it as well.
Either way, the “timestamp” which you seem to think indicates some type of conspiracy is simply an indication of the story post time. And, it may be the same (or it may not be the same) from paper to paper if the story is from a common service, say the NY Times service for example. It does not prove any type of conspiracy.
Anyway, your statement that the post times were the same is incorrect.
Three news organizations all published essentially the same story at the same time and none cited the other as the source.
Most likely because the source was not “each other” but the LEAKER. And, yes, that would mean the stories would be similar, if the LEAKER is telling the same story to multiple news outlets. Again, not uncommon in the news business at all. Multiple news outlets can be working on the same story at the same time. You can BET on it! And, as I’ve noted before, this particular story is not really news at all. The information has been out in the public domain for a long time. (See the link in my post above.)
Nor would “same time” posts be uncommon. But, in this case, you are dead wrong on that count.
The LA Times published at 12:06 PM PDT, June 23, 2006. The NY Times published in the evening edition (posted prior to 6PM) on JUne 22, 2006. A day prior.
The WJS published in between (as I recall, since I do not have a subscription to it and can not source it.) and the AP went wire with the story around the same time as the LA Times.
It took a normal news cycle 12 – 24 hours, from first post to wire.
It’s rather obvious that all three papers had the same information, most likely from the same source.
You want to wear a tinfoil hat? Start here: The LEAKER.
READ the Pentagon Papers decision. Blackmun is more than clear that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that the media is no more protected from national security law than you or I am.
Ummm. Mike. The Blackmun statement on the Pentagon Papers is part of the DISSENTING OPINION. Not the DECISION. Dissenting opinion is just that. Opinion. The decision is THE LAW.
You do know the difference, right?
You say you don’t support “prior restraint”, which is the imposition of a restraint on the publication of information before the information is published, but rather you “advocate the media being held responsible for what they decide to print.” Which one is to surmise, you mean that the media should be prosecuted for printing information that the government decides warrants prosecution. Interesting. Sounds rather familiar to me actually.
A basic reading of the Constitution is what gave me my ideas. Where you got the idea that the media is protected from laws that the rest of the country has to follow is a little baffling.
THe media is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as warranting protection from just this type of attack. THe citizens of the US are given their own special protections as well. The press was singled out for very specific reasons, as noted in the Deciding Statement of the Pentagon Papers case.
Eugene Volokh has written some sage advice to fellow conservatives on this matter, which I agree with:
And, those who would control the press via prosecution post publishing are headed down a dark path which has been seen before.
Then care to explain why it was on the front page if it was “common knowledge”? I had never heard of the program and, unlike you, I actually know what’s going on.
[…]
Let me guess — you don’t recognize how the first sentence here and the second sentence are completely at odds, right?
Actually, it is rather simple. They aren’t at odds at all. But, since you know what is going on, even though you had never heard of the program, why don’t you tell us all what is going on Mike?
I’ll wait.
It seems that if a war can’t be successfully prosecuted and wrapped up in the year following an election, then any military action towards completion of the war is seen by the left as political use of the military.
The President (same guy claimed he had no interest in “nation building”) has far more than a year.
Just which war are you talking about: Afghanistan or Iraq? We’ve been in both places more than a year.
What gives Republicans the heebie-jeebies is that if Clinton had screwed up this royally with as many dead American troops as we have in both countries, he’d be in a Federal penitentiary. And yet you continue to back every illegal wire tap and erosion of civil liberty… to what end, exactly? And for how long?
Nixon decided to pull out of Vietnam after how many years? Ten? Fifteen, if you count our “advisory” role with the French. And there are still those Republicans who believe: if we only stayed a little longer….
The question you and other posters have not answered is how Republicans could have been decrying Democrats for cutting and running — while the Commander-in-Chief’s leading general is putting together a plan to do just that: pull out — during the Midterm elections. Much of this ratcheted Republican rhetoric is designed to cover sheer embarrassment.
From Justice White concurring statement on New York Times Vs. United States:
in·vi·o·la·ble Pronunciation (n-v-l-bl)
adj.
1. Secure from violation or profanation: an inviolable reliquary deep beneath the altar.
2. Impregnable to assault or trespass; invincible: fortifications that made the frontier inviolable.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin inviolbilis : in-, not; see in-1 + violre, to violate; see violate.]
Old Time Religion
I don’t know what your source was for that information, but it’s wrong. The NYT, LAT, and WSJ, and only these three, posted the story to their respective web sites in the evening of June 22. The AP then picked it up and other news organizations started posting the story. Bush and others have even been asked why they are criticizing the NYT and not the LAT or WSJ for running this story at the same time. Their answer was that they had been working with the NYT for a month before and even had Treasury Secretary John Snow meet with the NYT editors to explain why they should not publish the story. The NYT confirmed that yesterday.
The fact is that once the NYT posting this story to their web site, the LAT and WSJ quickly posted similar stories credited to their own reporters with no citation given to the originating source. In the news world, that means they didn’t just get it off a wire service.
What I heard on the network news last night was that reporters from the LA Times and Wall Street Journal got wind of this story days before the NYT posted it. Apparently, there are leaks within the NYT itself. This was not the result of a common wire service source as you have been claiming over and over.
If the advertisement managers of these three news organizations communicated directly with each other about advertising rates, they would be in violation of anti-trust laws. Yet information about a classified program passed between these news organizations. You seem to think it was a common leaker who risked exposing themselves to thee news organizations. Maybe they were that stupid or maybe there’s another explanation. If the NYT is ever prosecuted, then I think it’s important to find out how the information about a classified program leaked between these three news organizations. The NYT editors would probably like to know that themselves.
H. Schulze,
Your original complaint was as follows:
Now you ask:
In case you hadn’t noticed, elections come every two years. Prior to the last two elections (2002, 2004) the left has been complaining about Bush using the war on terror for political gain and you are now making the same charge for the 2006 elections. That means that if a war can’t be successfully prosecuted and wrapped up in the year following an election, then any military action towards completion of the war is seen by the left as political use of the military. Do you get it now?
That’s a baseless charge. We lost more than double as many troops in a single day in WWII and no serious person expected the President to be charged with a crime. If the US had suffered nearly 3,000 civilian deaths from terrorist attacks under Clinton, it would be the conservatives who would have given him support to prosecute the war against terrorists. The same critics of Bush on the left would be criticizing Clinton regardless of his party affiliation.
First, no court of law has ruled that any of the wire taps are or were illegal. In fact, every court ruling that deals with similarly issues backs the President’s position. Second, the left has no moral standing to complain about erosion of civil liberties. It’s the left that has been at the forefront of eroding civil liberties for more then for 40 years.
It’s not the staying longer that counts. Unlike the French, we were not interested in staying, but only in defeating the communist north. The right move would have been for the U.S. to invade the North and established a legitimate government for all of Vietnam. That wasn’t doable during the cold war without facing down China and the USSR. That’s the lesson of Vietnam, that half measures don’t work in war.
We are going to face that same problem with Taiwan when China finally builds up it’s military sufficiently. Unless the US is ready to risk all out nuclear war, the best we can do is negotiate a gradual takeover of Taiwan by China. We should start that negotiation now and Bush knows it, but he can’t do anything because it would make him look like a traitor for not supporting the free people of Taiwan. It will likely be the next President who’ll face that challenge. Will you support them?
The answer is “so what”? Other generals likely have plans for invading Iran and others have plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq. Generals like to have contingency plans, that’s part of what they do. The President is Commander-in-Chief and anyone with half a mind realizes that cutting and running is the wrong thing to do. The war with Islamic Fundamentalism will be fought, if not in Iraq and Afghanistan, then in the US and Europe.
I am fascinated by the fact that the apologists for the NYT cannot bring themselves to admit that there are laws against revealing classified information.
Their arguments (such as they are) just completely ignore this inconvenient fact.
Bostonian, I’m fascinated at how much power the right-wing are willing to give our leaders.
Mac, you are incorrect. The NYT, LAT, and WSJ, and only these three, posted the story to their respective web sites in the evening of June 22. The AP then picked it up and other news organizations started posting the story.
The NYT posted at around 6PM on June 22. The LAT and the WSJ posted wire stories at that time. Later, both the LAT and the WSJ posted there own stories. And, again, this is totally common behavior. Far from being a “leak”, news outlets often lift from each other. That’s how it works.
The first thing EVERY reporter around the country does EVERY SINGLE MORNING is open up the NYT, the LAT and the WSJ.
You do understand that news outlets do get their news from EACH OTHER right?
What is fascinating to me is how this non-story has been given such import by the right-wing lynch mob. they behave just like the left-wing mobs.
Gee. I wonder if the President should be prosecuted for revealing the existence of a classified program?
You people have no clue how you are being led around by the nose like trained dogs.
Victor Comras covers how the “secret” program was well known.
And, MikeSC, just because YOU weren’t aware of it, doesn’t mean it was secret.
The President of the United States revealing the existence of “secret” programs in a speech on June 9, 2005 that was broadcast on C-SPAN and FOX.
Great. Tell the terrorists what we are doing. Traitor!
Hello? I live in the UK. I just saw the Daily Show and discovered this big story that has, quite frankly, passed the international press by.
What is the problem here? That the Times reported on a story THAT HAS BEEN IN THE PRESS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS?
How is that breaking news?
Could it be because you all don’t read the financial papers (Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Economist, etc.)? Get out more, read a different newspaper every day. The IRS and the Fed had press releases on this back when it began. I guess the “usual” media sources didn’t bother to pick it up. Every international accountant has known about it for the past three years and we all caution our clients not to do business with people who might ding-ding a red light.