Posted on 06/28/2006 12:11:45 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
The battle of Midway Island was the turning point of the Pacific War. Victory at Midway was possible because the U.S. had broken the Japanese naval code. The Chicago Tribune spilled the beans in a story that ran under the headline: "NAVY HAD WORD OF JAP PLAN TO STRIKE AT SEA."
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was furious. He knew that if the Japanese read the story, they'd suspect their codes were compromised, and change them.
The president "initially was disposed to send in the Marines to shut down Tribune tower," wrote Harry Evans. "He was talked out of that, then considered trying (Chicago Tribune publisher Robert) McCormick for treason, which carried a death penalty in wartime."
A grand jury was empaneled, but prosecution was dropped because the Japanese were still using the Purple code, evidently having missed the story. The publicity from a trial would clue them in.
So Col. McCormick escaped prosecution. But with what the Chicago Tribune had done in mind, Congress in 1950 added Section 798 to the Espionage Act of 1917.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I sure hope the Bush Administration is gearing up and laying the groundwork for prosecuting the scumbag NY Times. And equally as important, I hope they nail the leakers. Gut-check time.
No way does a story get "missed" by the enemy in 2006.
I doubt that W will do this. He'll continue to chide, beg and plead for everyone to just get along and be nice. It's sad.
Indeed it is; BRING 'EM ON!
I doubt that it was "missed" during WWII either. For one reason or another, the Japanese didn't associate the story with the possibility that their code had been broken. As I recall the stories from History Channel documentaries, they were absolutely convinced that their codes just couldn't be broken. Their arrogance on that point turned out to be a Godsend for our intelligence efforts.
US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, § 793:
Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any… 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…
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
But to be honest about it I think Colonel McCormick would have cleaned Roosevelts Justice Departments clock in any trial.
Admittedly I'm biased. I'm a big fan of the Colonels (it's sad to see how far his paper has fallen-he must be whirling in his grave) and I absolutely despise FDR.
L
Not to mention, economically. The NYT's stock is still swirling done the crapper. Maybe the times could get a court appointed attorney???
Not considering the treasonous press is bound to ask the enemy "how they feel about that".
The NYT have released these stories; one by one, those in the know are explaining, in non-partisan rhetoric, why this is bad.
The NYT has even had to explain their position, while maintaining their arrogant stance.
The Congress has protested. The president is wisely avoiding the kneejerk response that would have resulted from him coming down hard on the free press, and is letting the situation play out in a way that people are coming around to HIS point of view, on their own, instead of it being shoved down their throats.
People forget that cases take TIME to be put together; last I heard we were still building a case like this from a previous leak.
This is the right way to do it, though I know that's a minority view around here, because it's getting public opinion to come around AGAINST the NYT, instead of making them a victim--which they and the rest of the lib media know how to play like a piano.
One thing about being a Bushbot...I can read the president very well, and he is not about to let this slide. He will, however, make sure that whatever course he takes is effective.
Didn't somebody once say that you should never battle with an enemy that buys ink by the barrel?
You make a strong point.
The NY Times is like the mischievous imp (with his glasses on) who taunts the big guy until the big guy swings back. Then the imp cries, "But you can't hit a guy with glasses on!"
Perhaps by ignoring the Slimes as far as prosecuting them is concerned and instead letting public opinion play out, the damage to the Times will be deeper over the long run. I can see that.
Actually, I am more interested in seeing the scumbag leakers from the Democrat Party, the State Department and/or the CIA exposed, prosecuted and jailed (or hung).
Yeah, but that was back before the good guys had all the bandwidth in the world for free.
Which is more effective: Having the President attack the free press...or having people see more and more evidence that convinces them one particular press outlet is working against all of our interests?
Which scenario would in the end have the best results for us all?
Ping
Whatever the poltical/tactical considerations are, the fact is that if we want to have a law against treason, then we had better be willing to enforce it. failing to enforce the law will ensure that it becomes a dead letter; a virtual buggywhip law.
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.