The New York Times Still Doesn't Get It.

The Times today decided to not only run one of the most nutter editorials they've run in months, but also one that basically throws down the gauntlet in front of the attorney general. All I have to say is I hope the board enjoys that paycheck because they sure as hell didn't earn it in this piece. And for the last time (once more with feeling) GET A LAWYER TO FACT CHECK THEM! These yo-yo's can't seem to grasp laws on the book, and how they've been interpreted.

It's hard to say which was more bizarre about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's threat to prosecute The Times for revealing President Bush's domestic spying program: his claim that a century-old espionage law could be used to muzzle the press or his assertion that the administration cares about enforcing laws the way Congress intended.

It should be noted right now that the Times is referring to the Espionage Act of 1917. Since then, that law has been amended and changed. Much of it is still intact in 18 USC, Section 798 which states:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Now as I read that law, I'm wondering where the Times sees that journalists, media outlets, and newspapers are excluded from being held accountable for not only having classified material in their possession, but when they report it, as well.

Mr. Gonzales said on Sunday that a careful reading of some statutes "would seem to indicate" that it was possible to prosecute journalists for publishing classified material. He called it "a policy judgment by Congress in passing that kind of legislation," which the executive is obliged to obey.

Mr. Gonzales seemed to be talking about a law that dates to World War I and bans, in some circumstances, the unauthorized possession and publication of information related to national defense. It has long been understood that this overly broad and little used law applies to government officials who swear to protect such secrets, and not to journalists.

But in any case, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Bush have not shown the slightest interest in upholding constitutional principles or following legislative guidelines that they do not find ideologically or politically expedient.

Mr. Gonzales served as White House counsel and as attorney general during the period Mr. Bush concocted more than 750 statements indicating that the president would not obey laws he didn't like, or honor the recorded intent of those who passed them. Among the most outrageous was Mr. Bush's statement that he did not consider himself bound by a ban on torturing prisoners. Mr. Gonzales was part of the team that came up with the rationalization for torture, as well as for the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' e-mail and phone calls.

Um, can I ask for citations regarding that? Because I have heard him clearly state that the "president isn't above the law." That would mean that obeying laws he didn't like was mandatory; he can't pick and choose them, and he hasn't. Like their congressional counterparts, they throw accusations around, and have no proof to back it up. Like the chatroom "lawyers" and "congressional office aides" that I run into, they never provide facts to an argument. Only speculation and accusations that can't be proven.

If Mr. Gonzales has developed a respect for legislative intent or a commitment to law enforcement, he could start by using his department's power to enforce the Voting Rights Act to protect Americans, rather than challenging minority voting rights and endorsing such obviously discriminatory practices as the gerrymandering in Texas or the Georgia voter ID program. He could enforce workplace safety laws, like those so tragically unenforced at the nation's coal mines, instead of protecting polluters and gun traffickers.

The Voting Rights Act is upheld, and fully enforced. Complaints to the government after the 2004 election amounted to nothing; the government couldn't find a single, reputable case of voter infringement. While the gerrymandering in Texas is as the Times accuses, they can't deny that the Democrats worked the districts in similar fashion when they had the power. The workplace safety laws regarding the coal mines are also true, but to a point. When the state safety inspectors have dropped the ball, yet given the mine the OK to begin again, you're going to hold the feds responsible? And he isn't protecting polluters or gun taffickers. This is purely nutter sentiments regarding old talking points. They almost seem to add that as an afterthought; "Oh Yeah! We forgot this!"

He could uphold the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture, instead of coming up with cynical justifications for violating them. He could repudiate the disgraceful fiction known as "unlawful enemy combatant," which the administration cooked up after 9/11 to deny legal rights to certain prisoners.

First of all, the "unlawful enemy combatant" comes from a direct interpretation of the Geneva Convention. These people captured were not wearing a uniform, had no banner displaying their affiliation, and the country they wer fighting in stated they weren't recognized by the government in place. These three provisions have to be met before any sort of protections come under POW stipulations. And we're not torturing anyone. Ask John McCain what sort of torture he endured in the Hanoi Hilton. That, my friends, is torture. Sleep deprivation, environmental controls, reading a frelling Harry Potter book; that's not torture. Abuse at Abu Ghraib, yes (and I'm surprised they didn't mention it or Gitmo), but it's not torture.

And he could suggest that the administration follow Congress's clear and specific intent for the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: outlawing wiretaps of Americans without warrants.

Why is it that these monkeys miss the fact that the Patriot Act trumps FISA? It doesn't give the government free reign to do whatever the hell it wants in terms of surveillance. But it does provide for the fact that we will have to use unconventional and questionable means at times to keep an eye on our enemies here. Sealed Case, which is the only precedent in this realm of jurisprudence (regarding warrantless surveillance, and the government's right to do so), stated that the president had the ability to do this. And it also chastised the FISA court for reaching back to the Clinton Administration, and re-erecting the wall dedicated to keeping military and law enforcement from talking to each other in regard to intelligence. The Patriot Act tore it down, and even the newly-repassed and watered down Patriot Act maintains those provisions.

These people are really grasping at straws with editorials like this. It's sad. Really, it is. It's sad to see a formerly well-trusted new outlet stoop to new lows. But with the Times, are we to expect anything less?

Publius II