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.

[plain talk]

No. The President shouldn't touch it. It's the AG's job. But I agree nothing will happen.

[Bigg Red]

This whole NYT thing just makes me furious.

&&
Yes, it is infuriating.

[Bigg Red]

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

&&
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. (I guess that you can see that I am not up on the Constitution..)

[Cicero]

I agree that the President shouldn't be publicly seen to be dealing with it personally. That was clinton's error, constantly and vindictively intervening in the Justice Department's business to punish his enemies.

BUT, the president has a duty to advise and instruct his Attorney General concerning policy. It would be a poor government where the president didn't oversee, and correct if necessary, the work of his cabinet and other officers.

There are clearly both legal and political issues involved: Was it a crime? Would it be politically prudent to prosecute? Would prosecution likely succeed? What does duty to the country demand?

But in an overwhelmingly important case like this, the president has every right to consult with and, if he feels strongly, instruct his Attorney General how to proceed. Not to do so is dereliction of duty.

[Axhandle]

Suspend habeas corpus.

Set up internment camps.

Do public executions for treason and divulging classified information.

That will stop the leaks. The press will whine for a while, but they'll stop after they're imprisoned or interned.

What other choice do we have?

Attempts to crack down on the enemy are made public. Our Soldiers' jobs are made more difficult by the press being propaganda machines for the enemy. The left-wing in this country has firmly asserted itself as the faction that stands to gain from our losses and our enemies' victories.

I see no other way to win.

[khnyny]

Bump.