The New York Times: Not The "Defender" Of Liberty
Much ado has been made regarding the New York Times recently. It has a lot to do with the fact that they have now published two news stories revealing clandestine operation on behalf of the federal government used suring a time of war. The first--the NSA terrorist surveillance program--was revealed in December of last year. That program was tracking the phone calls and phone records of al Qaeda terrorists in the United States. It also tracked their e-mails, and their participation in chats/message boards on Islamic websites supporting our enemies. The New York Times sounded the alarm on a program that the courts--the FISA court of review--had already addressed. In re: Sealed Case is the most definitive case we have regarding the collection of intelligence, under executive branch powers. The president is the "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed services. As the NSA is a part of the intelligence community, including military intelligence, and falls under that provision of the Constitution. So, the New York Times' assertions that this program was illegal is completely unfounded.
Last Friday, the New York Times did it again. The revealed the existence of another classified program. That one, under the auspice of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) tracked the financial and banking records of suspected al Qaeda individuals. This program was legal, specifically targeted our enemy, and provided us with yet another weapon against such an elusive adversary. However, the New York Times, and the LA Times, saw fit to disclose this program. In doing so, they basically closed this operation down. Our enemy is aware of this program now, and like they did with the NSA program's revelation, there is no doubt they are changing their operational procedures.
The question remains: What to do with this recent breach of national security? The kids--Marcie and Thomas--have done a good job of presenting the right side of the argument. The New York Times, despite pleas from the federal government, ran the story anyway. This is the seocnd breach, and as far as we, at The Asylum are concerned, this is the last straw. It is time to prosecute those responsible for this revelation; no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
18 USC 793 reads:
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 USC 798 reads:
(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, the kids have caught all shades of hell over their stance. Their critics have e-mailed them telling them that there is no way to possibly prosecute those "presumed guilty" on this issue. I beg to differ. The New York Times reporters--James Risen and Eric Lichtblau--and the New York Times Executive Editor--Bill Keller--are quite prosecutable. The First Amendment does not, in any way, shape, or form, protec them from prosecution for either infraction of the law, stated above. They can be charged and prosecuted. The caveat being, of course, that if they are willing to hand over their source we might be willing to reduce, or even overlook, their prosecution and sentencing. Were I the one prosecuting this case, I could get a conviction with my eyes closed.
And that is another subject I would like to address. Further critics of the kids who proclaim this is treason. It isn't, and I can explain why .......
The New York Times has shown, produced, or uttered nothing that dictates intent. Their "intent" was not to inform our enemies of this program, but rather to hurt the administration with its revelation. Their sole goal was to hurt President Bush and the administration. That is political in nature, and virtually protected by the First Amendment precedents set. However, their "freedom" ends the moment they choose to reproduce classified material on their news pages; and not just any page, but the front page--exposed for all the world to see. The New York Times may concede stupidity when the question comes up regarding whether our enemies can read their paper, but they can't claim ignorance in the revealing of either program.
The New York Times reporters and editor can face prosecution, and they should. Nothing will stop the New York Times from ever running stories like this again like a finely-tuned, well-thought-out, and supremely-executed prosecution can. If they are not held to account for their actions, they will continue to publish stories like this.
And the next one could lead to the deaths of our soldiers. I don't wish to see that. I'd prefer to see someone punished for their crime in an effort to stop it from happening again. Thomas and Marcie are clearly on the right track. Instead of criticizing them, maybe a few people ought to try thinking throught this rather than reacting with the emotionally-driven response I have seen in forwarded e-mails.
Mistress Pundit
Much ado has been made regarding the New York Times recently. It has a lot to do with the fact that they have now published two news stories revealing clandestine operation on behalf of the federal government used suring a time of war. The first--the NSA terrorist surveillance program--was revealed in December of last year. That program was tracking the phone calls and phone records of al Qaeda terrorists in the United States. It also tracked their e-mails, and their participation in chats/message boards on Islamic websites supporting our enemies. The New York Times sounded the alarm on a program that the courts--the FISA court of review--had already addressed. In re: Sealed Case is the most definitive case we have regarding the collection of intelligence, under executive branch powers. The president is the "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed services. As the NSA is a part of the intelligence community, including military intelligence, and falls under that provision of the Constitution. So, the New York Times' assertions that this program was illegal is completely unfounded.
Last Friday, the New York Times did it again. The revealed the existence of another classified program. That one, under the auspice of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) tracked the financial and banking records of suspected al Qaeda individuals. This program was legal, specifically targeted our enemy, and provided us with yet another weapon against such an elusive adversary. However, the New York Times, and the LA Times, saw fit to disclose this program. In doing so, they basically closed this operation down. Our enemy is aware of this program now, and like they did with the NSA program's revelation, there is no doubt they are changing their operational procedures.
The question remains: What to do with this recent breach of national security? The kids--Marcie and Thomas--have done a good job of presenting the right side of the argument. The New York Times, despite pleas from the federal government, ran the story anyway. This is the seocnd breach, and as far as we, at The Asylum are concerned, this is the last straw. It is time to prosecute those responsible for this revelation; no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
18 USC 793 reads:
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 USC 798 reads:
(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, the kids have caught all shades of hell over their stance. Their critics have e-mailed them telling them that there is no way to possibly prosecute those "presumed guilty" on this issue. I beg to differ. The New York Times reporters--James Risen and Eric Lichtblau--and the New York Times Executive Editor--Bill Keller--are quite prosecutable. The First Amendment does not, in any way, shape, or form, protec them from prosecution for either infraction of the law, stated above. They can be charged and prosecuted. The caveat being, of course, that if they are willing to hand over their source we might be willing to reduce, or even overlook, their prosecution and sentencing. Were I the one prosecuting this case, I could get a conviction with my eyes closed.
And that is another subject I would like to address. Further critics of the kids who proclaim this is treason. It isn't, and I can explain why .......
The New York Times has shown, produced, or uttered nothing that dictates intent. Their "intent" was not to inform our enemies of this program, but rather to hurt the administration with its revelation. Their sole goal was to hurt President Bush and the administration. That is political in nature, and virtually protected by the First Amendment precedents set. However, their "freedom" ends the moment they choose to reproduce classified material on their news pages; and not just any page, but the front page--exposed for all the world to see. The New York Times may concede stupidity when the question comes up regarding whether our enemies can read their paper, but they can't claim ignorance in the revealing of either program.
The New York Times reporters and editor can face prosecution, and they should. Nothing will stop the New York Times from ever running stories like this again like a finely-tuned, well-thought-out, and supremely-executed prosecution can. If they are not held to account for their actions, they will continue to publish stories like this.
And the next one could lead to the deaths of our soldiers. I don't wish to see that. I'd prefer to see someone punished for their crime in an effort to stop it from happening again. Thomas and Marcie are clearly on the right track. Instead of criticizing them, maybe a few people ought to try thinking throught this rather than reacting with the emotionally-driven response I have seen in forwarded e-mails.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:47 PM
1 Comments:
Good to see you in print once more. Good blog. I agree with Thomas and Marcie. And I agree with you. The ball is in the Attorney General court. It's time for him to act and not procrastinate. The law is clear, the facts are undisputed. Criminal indictments of the editor Keller and the two reporters, Risen and Ligchtblau are a given. I would subpoena each of them to appear before the grand jury. Their lawyers will advise against it. The defendants will claim "freedom of press." But as you point out, this isn't a freedom of the press case. They might judge shop and find a liberal judge that would dismiss as a matter of law but there would be appeals and that would be nearly as good as a trial. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home