[Anti-Bubba182]

A long piece with a lot of background on the history of the Espionage Act and how it applies to the NY Times.

[dinok]

I think the New York Times owner and the editorial staff should be in prison for divulging national defense secrets in the middle of a war.

[edcoil]

Lets hope so. Based on news reports, their publishing the story has hurt the country.

Course, Sandy Burger stole TS documents and only got a slap on the wrist

How bad can hurting your country cost these days?

Not alot according to the government.

[Hardastarboard]

I do know that if promoting socialism was a crime (and it SHOULD be, given its record of destroying wealth, societies, and lives), the NYT would have been banned a long time ago.

[MarkL]

And when enemies of this country begin quoting dem talking points, you need to seriously think about charging the dems with it as well!

Mark

[jecIIny]

That is a fascinating article. Thanks for posting it. The kind of reply it deserves would be outside the scope of a post on FR so I will have to confine myself to a few very basic points.

1. The Espionage act of 1917 is still on the books. But a mountain of jurisprudence both predating and postdating the Pentagon Papers case in the early 70's has left its constitutional viability very much in doubt. Also Congress has passed other espionage laws since then which would at least on the surface appear to have rendered the 1917 version effectively nullified.

2. In those days, severance (a now common practice) was not done with legislation. This was in an age when the courts very rarely interfered with federal legislation. Consequently if any part of the act were declared constitutionally null it would invalidate the entire act. It is almost inconceivable that the Espionage Act in its entirety could withstand judicial scrutiny.

3. Politically it would be extremely divisive to try and bring the Times up on charges. And I am not even talking about the Democrats. That kind of move would likely split the Republican party and the conservative movement. The simple truth is that a very sizable percentage of American conservatives are political and even social libertarians. They would rebel against any attempt to revive that now moribund law.

4. It is likely that any effort to revive the law would bring out very ugly facts about the way the Wilson (a Democratic) administration abused its powers and became something very close to an authoritarian regime in this country. There would almost certainly be a discussion over the sister legislation of the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act. That could make an ugly situation even worse.

In conclusion, the article is fascinating as an intellectual and hypothetical discussion on the possibility of reviving an arcane law. But as a matter of practical reality, it is not happening. The Espionage Act is a dead letter.

[angelsonmyside]

bump for later read

[rockabyebaby]

Has the New York Times violated the Espionage Act?

Is the Pope Catholic?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thread on today's hearing:

CIA Chief Says Wiretap Disclosure Damaging (Democrats nervous)

[Grampa Dave]

Since the Nam mess and post Nam mess, the rats in DC and in the MSM have viewed what we see as treason as being good Americans.

Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of this bs.

[Bender2]

What in the world did you say in post 1?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[eureka!]

marking

[bray]

Maybe the Old York Times was protecting themselves rather than President Bush for the past year withholding this story. With their team of lawyers they have to know they were breaking the law but decided to go ahead to pump the book and hurt Bush. Too bad for them the American people agree with Bush!

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[HP8753]

Not since Richard Nixon’s misuse of the CIA and the IRS in Watergate

The "usual suspects" didn't seem to make much noise when the Clintoons were using the IRS in an attempt to intimidate their political enemies.

[Fruitbat]

You'd swear that the NYT was run by muslims.

[pissant]

Answer: yes. And they are treasonous as well. Lynch pinchie.

[Cboldt]

To begin with, there can be little argument over whether, in the case of the Times, national-defense material was disclosed in an unauthorized way. The Times's own reporting makes this plain; the original December 16 article explicitly discusses the highly secret nature of the material, as well as the Times's own hesitations in publishing it. A year before the story actually made its way into print, the paper (by its own account) told the White House what it had uncovered, was warned about the sensitivity of the material, and was asked not to publish it. According to Bill Keller, the Times's executive editor, the administration "argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security." Whether because of this warning or for other reasons, the Times withheld publication of the story for a year.

I still don't see the damage. The surveillance in question can be done under a secret warrant (FISA court order), or without a secret warrant (uder an order signed by the Atty General, without reference to and concurrance of a FISA or other court). The fact that the surveillance could be done with a secret warrant means that it can be done - it was already known that the surveillance could be undertaken.

The fact that this same sort of surveillance is done without a warrant discloses exactly waht, that would benefit an entity who aims to avoid detection?

No technical capability is disclosed, as was in the Jap fleet disclosure by the Chicago Trib in WWII, and by the KH-1 satellite picture filched by Morison. All the NYT has done with the so-called "NSA spying program" story is disclose what amounts to a "legal policy."

[neverdem]

bfl

[aculeus]

BTTT

[wolfcreek]

I suspect this is why the Libby trial has been moved until after the 06 elections. There's going to be a lot of dirt uncovered in that trial which, may be used for future prosecution.