So The New York Times Believes It Is Above The Law?

This evening I came across Thomas's post regarding this reply to a column written in the Opinion Journal. That column took the New York Times, and the media in general, to task for their gross negligence applying to the release of official secrets within our intelligence agencies. Thomas cited the entire piece in his post; I'll not repost it here, but I would like to address Mr. Keller's poor mind.

And I mean that kindly, but the man clearly doesn't understand the gravity of the situtation. Someone within the government passed classified records to them. Whether it was done so verbally, or "hard copy" records exist, it doesn't matter. The fact is that the information in question was passed to them. WHOEVER did that knowingly and willingly violated their oaths of confidentiality. But in doing so, they violated United States law. Specifically, 18 USC 798 in relation to the unlawful disclosure of classified material: (Emphasis mine)

(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.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

The New York Times did take the information they obtained--information they were told--was classified or secret. In other words, they weren't supposed to have it, but the definition of the law. That can be determined simply by reading the reaction they claim they received from the administration. That response was simple, but clearly understood. "Please don't publish that for reasons of national security," or something like that. The New York Times acknowledged that in the original article (which is archived at the Times; the link is through someone who posted it on their site). They went ahead and published it anyway. As with the leaker, they also did this knowingly and willingly. So, we have, under the definition of the law, two crimes.

The leaker and the Times should be charged for violation of 18 USC 798 for divulging classified information. This information was classified for a reason. There are obvious reasons for why certain things are kept this way. If you delight in hunting down conspiracy theories, then only the Lord knows what you believe. But if you actually think, rather than thinking that you think, like the "moonbats," then it's sole purpose for remaining secret is simple.

Our enemy is less likely to know about it. An old World War II poster that Thomas and Marcie often cite is "Loose lips sink ships." That, unfortunately, is our lot in life with a society as open as our own. Those who argue this fact fail to remember that you are reading this on a blog. A blog shares personal thoughts and day-to-day information--like a public diary, for some. We are quite open. If the public knows about this, then it's highly likely that our enemies do, too. Anyone who has ever ventured to a message board, a chat room, or a blog can't deny that some things are spoken of quite openly. Just think back to when the New York Times story appeared, and the uproar across the 'Net, and ask yourself if we can keep a secret.

There is no precedent that's available to proverbially predict prosecution in such a case. The last media vs. government court case was the infamous Pentagon Papers case. But that case fields no real precedent. The high court simply ruled that the government couldn't prevent the New York Times from publishing the material involced in the papers. But that isn't what this is about. The administration didn't try to stop them. They asked to reconsider publishing the story. They did it anyway.

This is new territory for jurisprudence. We're on "virgin turf," as my associates would call it. But, in the eyes of the law, and it's appropriate interpretation, the New York Times is just as culpable as the person who leaked them the information. They both revealed national secrets. No argument to the contrary can be made. And for those that contend otherwise, this is the National Security Agency we're talking about here. These people don't talk. They know the gravity of the burden they carry. At least, they should, but with the CIA shenanigans lately, that is debatable.

Regardless, the question as to whether they committed a crime should not be there. Classified is classified. Period. It's not up to us to determine what should and shouldn't be considered secret. It's up to the people privy to that information. And for the people out there that think that's a stupid concept, think again. That's simple logic. They know. I don't. End of story.

But Bill Keller would like to have us believe that the New York Times, or virtually any media outlet, is above the law. That they should have a voice in what gets released that's a secret. That they should be above scrutiny and reproach. I disagree. They have a responsibility with material such as that which falls into their hands. They should take into consideration what they have in their possession, and remember that its revelation could very well get people killed. The people who are a part of this operation rely on the secrecy involved. If they're discovered, and possibly kidnapped or blackmailed, it compromises the entire operation. There comes a responsibility with such information, and the New York Times feels it's above even that. They can report what they wish, when they wish, for whatever reasons they wish.

They're wrong, and they're long outvoted by many legal scholars arguing this right now. The reason why this is as voracious right now is because of one man: Hugh Hewitt. (An apology for Thomas forgetting to cite him. He was in a rush.) He's created quite the firestorm, and has discussed this minds on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Of course they differ on the key issues--that being, is the New York Times culpable in this story? Can they be prosecuted?

That answer has yet to be determined, but I understand the sides to the argument. If you don't prosecute, or at least get the journalists up in front of the grand jury, the government looks weak, and unable to maintain the most sensitive secrets. If you do prosecute, and the information released was sensitive, there's nothing to stop a release of MORE information. It undermines the point of keeping the operation a secret. Something the government doesn't want to do, either way. So the question remains as to whether or not the administration will go after the New York Times.

As to whether they can? Of course they can. Under the definition of the law--how it's worded and understood--yes, the New York Times journalists and editors involved can be prosecuted.

Mistress Pundit