Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

N.Y. Times Probed in NSA Leak Case
NewsMax ^ | February 7, 2006 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 02/07/2006 8:45:35 AM PST by Kaslin

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez revealed Monday that the Justice Department is still investigating the leak of national security secrets to the New York Times concerning the NSA’s controversial terrorist surveillance program.

The possibility of criminal charges looms for the suspected leakers, as Gonzalez vowed to file charges if warranted by the findings of the investigation.

Gonzalez offered the information in response to questioning by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was there testifying on the constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program that tracks communications to and from the United States.

"The department,” Gonzalez said, "has initiated an investigation into the possible crimes there.” But he refused to go further.

"Consistent with our practice,” Gonzalez continued, "I’m not going to talk about an ongoing investigation … But we will look at the evidence and if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution.”

Sen. Grassley evinced indignation toward the unknown leakers. "We do not hear as much public outcry as we did with the Valerie Plame case,” he noted, adding that case "was a two-bit nothing compared with this issue – with this information … being leaked to the press.”

The leaker and the New York Times could be subject to prosecution under the federal espionage law.

One section of that act prohibits authorized persons possessing "information relating to the national defense which … the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States” from passing the information onto unauthorized persons.

Another section prohibits disclosure of classified communications "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.”

If charged, the Times would likely assert the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press as a defense. The case would present an important and as yet unresolved question of constitutional law.

Though the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot suppress publication of classified information before the fact, it has not examined whether government could impose criminal sanctions for publication after the fact.

One section of that act prohibits authorized persons possessing "information relating to the national defense which … the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States” from passing the information onto unauthorized persons.

Another section prohibits disclosure of classified communications "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.”

If charged, the Times would likely assert the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press as a defense. The case would present an important and as yet unresolved question of constitutional law.

Though the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot suppress publication of classified information before the fact, it has not examined whether government could impose criminal sanctions for publication after the fact.

Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: charlesgrassley; grassley; leakprobe; nsaleak; nsaleakprobe; nytimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: martin gibson
I say, it's a joke, son...(using my best Foghorn Leghorn voice)

/s = sarcasm

21 posted on 02/07/2006 9:19:49 AM PST by liberty_lvr (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Arrest Rockefeller, throw him in jail, case closed.


22 posted on 02/07/2006 9:20:46 AM PST by golfisnr1 (Democrats are like roaches, hard to get rid of.>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Make Pinch feel the pinch.


23 posted on 02/07/2006 9:20:51 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Look, we've even got a pool of highly qualified, motivated people ready for selection to "pull the switch" on whoever it is needs to be punished executed for treason in this case.
24 posted on 02/07/2006 9:21:30 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So should we just ignore this? I don't like this

We've ignored just about every single other case of treason in the past 30 years. Why should this be any different?

25 posted on 02/07/2006 9:21:52 AM PST by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

Did you catch Leaky Leahy lecturing Gonzales on how no one is above the law? Grrrrrr...


26 posted on 02/07/2006 9:53:04 AM PST by talleyman (Kerry & the Surrender-Donkey Treasoncrats - trashing the troops for 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

In this country these days, there is no treason. It is just freedom of speech or persecution of the people who question the direction of this administration, dontcha know?


27 posted on 02/07/2006 9:54:47 AM PST by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

"Book'em Danno!"


28 posted on 02/07/2006 9:55:35 AM PST by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Gonzales said, "... we will look at the evidence and if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution."

Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.

Two different cases, leaker is not the same as publisher. But note Gonzales' strong language, "if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution." No equivocation, no political calculus, only that if the evidence is sufficient, prosecution will follow.

18 USC § 798. Disclosure of classified information

(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-- ...

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; ...

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 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; ...

(d) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law--
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).

The NYT article is there for all to read. If the publication was of "classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States," Gonzales has asserted that there WILL be a prosecution. Therefore, if there is no prosecution, either Gonzales was not telling the truth, or the evidence does not support a conclusion that the NYT violated the statute.

Prosecuting the leaker is a different prospect, as at this point we don't have a clear name of the leaker.

29 posted on 02/07/2006 10:06:20 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"N.Y. Times Probed in NSA Leak Case"

Hoping for a full body cavity searching "PROBE."
30 posted on 02/07/2006 10:16:21 AM PST by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1
Anyone who whips out a two year old letter "just at the right time" and any judge who almost immediately resigns from the FISA court "without a word" are two big clues.

The Spy scenario sure fits Rockefeller's famous memo to a "T".....the memo that was called "treasonous".

31 posted on 02/07/2006 10:42:12 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
Excellent Book!!

I'm reading it right now and just picked up her new one from the library during lunch

That woman hits the nail squarely on the head...

32 posted on 02/07/2006 11:55:29 AM PST by BlueMondaySkipper (The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Newsmax has missed the boat this time; political considerations will be EXACTLY what drives any coming prosecution.

The majority of Americans, in spite of a lot of inherent stupidity, realize the damage done by the publication of this vitally secret information, and want the program used in our protection.

Any leaker or publisher of said information is on very thin ice in assuming the public will side with them on this issue.


33 posted on 02/07/2006 1:53:12 PM PST by thelastvirgil ("When the roll is called in congress, they don't know whether to answer 'present' or 'not guilty'.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Maybe this would be one case that the Senate Judiciary Committee would finally hold in closed session. "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:20)
34 posted on 02/07/2006 2:50:43 PM PST by Pirate21 (The liberal media are as sheep clearing the path along which they will be lead to the slaughter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

BRING ON THE INVESTIGATION!!!


35 posted on 02/08/2006 7:33:27 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: auto power
I smell a Rockefeller & a Russert...

Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.

I'll be happy to donate some of my backbone into some cowardly republicans, won't you?

36 posted on 02/08/2006 7:38:36 AM PST by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are familiar bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

ABSOLUTELY.


37 posted on 02/08/2006 7:52:26 AM PST by auto power
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1

The Bush AG and Justice will NEVER really go after the lefty Dems that betray our nation. Never. Yet Jay Rock and Leaky Leahy should both be investigated. The NYTimes and Wash. Post should also be investigated. W stubbornly still believes in cooperation so he thinks that not prosecuting the Clinton criminality from the last 8 yr. term nor the lefty Dem anti-Americanism is just good manners. I love him but this attitude sickens me. There will never be any bureaucratic infrastructure reform if this Prez doesn't do it. The next Dem Prez will never attack it. I would even investigate State and some of the moles who work there. Leaks are not just Leahy's problem ; the Feds themselves undermine our national security.


38 posted on 02/08/2006 9:57:25 AM PST by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson