Is the NY Times in violation of Title 18, section 798 of US Criminal Code?

The Weekly Standard ^ | June 27, 2006 | Navyguy

[navyguy]

Is the NY Times in violation of Title 18, section 798 of US Criminal Code?

When the New York Times revealed specific information about the classified US program to track terrorist connected funds, did it violated the US Criminal Code, Title 18, section 798?

You be the judge...

Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, Section 798 states...

(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.

... read the full statute (the Comint Statute, passed in 1950) here...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=section%20798&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html

NOTE: I searched FR and didn't see any previous posts on this so my apologies if this is a repost.

[doug from upland]

Mocking the treasonous New York Times...come and ask a question --- http://cgi.ebay.com/Osama-thank-you-card-sent-to-treasonous-NEW-YORK-TIMES_W0QQitemZ220002307068QQihZ012QQcategoryZ367QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[navyguy]

Wow! Thanks for pointing this out! You're WAY ahead of me.

Unfortunately, our Jello Government will pontificate about this, but they are too coward to prosecute.

Time to start making some phone calls.

[afnamvet]

Well stated. I agree 100%.

[BluH2o]

But will our wobbly government have the jewels to prosecute?

No ... the Bush administration are non-confrontational when it comes to domestic issues. They are completely bamboozled when it comes to the liberal mainstream media in this country ... they roll over every time.

[afnamvet]

All the ones I can think of are dead.

[Mia T]

bump!

 

When the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will....

READ MORE

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)
by Mia T, 6.27.06

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[airedale]

Quick answer based upon what you posted is probably no unless the program falls under communications intelligence and I don't think it does.

[dandiegirl]

"and by condoning and excusing their actions, the President of the United States is becoming complicit in their treason. He is assenting to it. He is encouraging them to do it again. He is failing in his sworn duty to uphold the law and defend our country against its enemies."

You should send this comment to the White House.

[plain talk]

Are you saying the President should directly get involved in this? Seems the Attorney General and Justice dept should be taking the action.

[NautiNurse]

Seems the NY Times is aching for attention with this act. Keller's response was incredibly arrogant. At a minimum, the NY Times and their sister publications, including but not limited to the Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune, should lose their press credentials to the White House and Capitol Hill.

btw--The Standing Committee of Correspondents Chairman (reponsible for credentialing press for the US Senate) is Susan Milligan of the Boston Globe. With five committee members, Reuters we never met a terrorist until they killed Zarqawi has a spot with Tom Ferraro, New Orleans! Times-Picayune's Bill Walsh, Portland Press Herald's Bart Jansen, and Sue Davis from CongressDaily. fyi--the NY Times Company owns About.com.

Oh...and the NYT stock value over the past two years:

Who are their biggest advertisers?

[TheLion]

Since nobody seems concerned, we will only encourage more of it. Someone needs to put the screws to this asap!

[Bigg Red]

Not punishing the leakers has only emboldened the Dems to leak more.

&&
Exactly, Wristpin.

(ark_girl, that's not very lady-like language.)

[Gone GF]

And the WST gets off? They published the same morning.

[Gone GF]

Make that the WSJ. Sorry.

[Bigg Red]

And by condoning and excusing their actions, the President of the United States is becoming complicit in their treason.

&&
What can the President legally do in this instance? Is it not in the purview of the DOJ to investigate such matters?

[ark_girl]

Sorry. I guess I've watched "Office Space" one time too many.

This whole NYT thing just makes me furious.

[navyguy]

That's a fair and valid point. But I pick on the NYT ehre because, unlike the WSJ, the NYT has a running track record of revealing classified programs. I agree that the WSJ and the LA Times should also be punished, but the NYT in particular should get it due to their record.

[Cicero]

The President is the chief of the executive branch. It is within the scope of his office to order the Justice Department to investigate.

Can you imagine Bobby Kennedy refusing JFK's instructions? Or Janet Reno failing to obey an order from bill clinton? As it happens, the AG is a crony of Bush's, so I don't imagine he would resign if Bush instructed him to go after the Times. But resignation would be the only way he could avoid doing what the president instructed him to do, in a matter concerning national security and the welfare of our country.

[Cicero]

Yes, the President should get involved. It is not only a criminal matter, it is also a matter of high stakes politics. The AG would be remiss in his duty if he did not consult the White House before proceeding with a case of this importance.

Members of the cabinet and high officers in the administration regularly consult with the president, and certainly should do so in a case of this importance.

Indeed, i am sure they have discussed it. And I'm almost sure they have agreed not to pursue it. Not because there is no legal basis, but because they are fearful of the political consequences.

Wrong decision.