Posted on 06/30/2006 12:50:30 PM PDT by Reagan Man
"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."
So said President Bush of The New York Times' revelation of a secret U.S. program to monitor the international cash transfers of suspected terrorists. "Disgraceful," added an angry president.
Vice President Cheney assailed news organizations that "take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people."
Of the Times' decision to expose the secret program, House Speaker Dennis Hastert says: "This is not news. This is something that has been classified; something that is top secret."
Treasury Secretary John Snow wrote Times editor Bill Keller, "In choosing to expose this program despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle ... the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorist program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails."
The U.S. government has thus declared that what the Times did was reprehensible, and rendered aid and comfort to the enemy.
But if Bush believes that, why hasn't his Justice Department been directed to investigate these crimes against the Espionage Act and acts of treason in a time of war?
Rhetoric aside, the core issue here is this:
Does Bush believe the Times committed a crime in exposing the secret financial tracking program and the secret National Security Agency program to intercept U.S. phone calls of suspected terrorists -- for which the Times won a Pulitzer? If he does, why has he not acted?
Why has he not ordered Justice to dig out the disloyal leakers and prosecute their media collaborators, who refused White House requests not to compromise these vital programs? If Bush believes what he is saying, why does he not do his duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?
Asked if the White House would retaliate against the Times, Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live."
Nice statement, but the Times' response is: We did reflect, Tony, and we decided to publish. An unstated corollary is: And what are you going to do about it?
The answer so far is that the Bushites are going to do nothing other than fulminate and pound the Post and Times. Bush has every right to do so, and the tactic is effective, for even opponents of the war do not believe journalists are above the law and enjoy special rights to expose security secrets to sabotage any war effort they no longer agree with.
On this issue, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is right. He has called for an investigation of the leakers of these secret programs and criminal prosecution of the editors and the publisher of the Times:
"The time has come for the American people to realize and The New York Times to realize we're at war and they can't just be on their own deciding what we declassify, what to release."
Editorialists at the Times and The Washington Post and their kennel-fed columnists and "media critics" are trotting out all the bromides about "the meaning of the First Amendment," "the people's right to know," "the role of the press in a democratic society," etc. And it is a slam-dunk prediction that more Pulitzers and People's Hero awards, like the ones Walter Duranty and Herbert Matthews collected for the Times, are ahead.
Behind the Times' defiance of the law surely lies a gnawing need for redemption. For the Times has been through a bad patch. First, it was revealed Jayson ("Burning Down My Master's House") Blair had hoked up three dozen stories and smoked them right past the Times' editors, who were blinded by the brilliance of their black prodigy. Then, there came the revelation that editor Howell Raines directed the paper to run three dozen stories on the human rights atrocity at Augusta National, where some good ole boys had conspired to keep the girls out of their tree house. After that, there was the Judith Miller fiasco, where the Times stood firm -- then folded in the face of some really big-time fines.
Keller and publisher Arthur Sulzberger appear to have decided the way to recapture lost credibility is to publish national security secrets, as in the Pentagon Papers days of yore.
And, thus far, for all their huffing and puffing, the Bushites have blinked. But this cannot stand. For appeasement will beget new acts of arrogance and aggression by the Times, and other newspapers, until a White House finds the courage to demand that the Times, too, obeys the laws and respects our national security secrets, even if it means putting Bill and Art in the Graybar Hotel for a spell.
Mr. Buchanan is simply tiresome. A case with carefully researched evidence has to be made and that doesn't happen in a week.
I'm afraid I have to chalk ou up as a nutter.
Your debunking is contrary to what I know to be true and is undoubtedly based on uninformed and faulty reasoning.
Typical harpy. I ask you to debate the issue of the article, you respond with ad hominem. I criticise Bush, you cry foul. All you can offer is endless whining, crying and bitching. Carry on.
Do you beleive that Congress did not pass, and the President not sign into Law, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, Section 798 of the US Code?
But, in fact it did and he did. The law 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.
(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 terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
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;
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(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).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853 (b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524 (c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
Now, just how do think this law does NOT apply to the New York Times, its editors and publishers, in the face of what appears to be a face-front slam dunk word-for-word application to their actions, even allowing for a government seizure of the buildings, paper, presses, delivery trucks and all other physical assets of the New York Times used to facilitate their violation.
Or do you believe this law to be unconsitutional?
If that is so, I have to tell you that your reasoning on that issue would have to be very unique and ingenious to have even the slightest plausibility. Legal consensus in NOT on your side.
Your projection complex is getting worse; please seek help.
If you read the entire article its obvious, Buchanan is as outraged by this whole deal as most conservatives are. He has offered solutions. Pat suggested the DOJ get involved, sooner then later. Pat has agreed with Cong Peter King in getting the investigative ball rolling, NOW. Pat pounded the NYTimes, Keller and Sulzberger. Many legal and political experts believe the President is being timid in his early response. Pat's position on this issue is held by many Americans. There have been plenty of times where Buchanan has been way out of line. This isn't one of them.
Still lost for any substantive responses I see.
When you have something relevent to offer, let me know. Until then, whine, cry and bitch all you like.
Wha does Pat actually KNOW about what the administration is actually doing? Does he expect a minute by minute press release about what DOJ is doing? Please. The very idea is ridiculous.
It is quite obvious from Tony Snow's comments on O'Reilly that the administration is working on the best way to combat this. Whining from people like Buchanan is simply opportunism.
My opinion is that in about a month we will see some serious action...AFTER the administration has their ducks in a row.
Panic isn't pretty. You are demonstrating that point.
BRAVA !
Panicked! Sorry you disappoint you. I never posted to that Freeper. As for "nopardons", she can defend herself. So mind your own business. As for Buchanan, he's entitled to his opinion too. You don't agree with it. So what!
I sure don't get tired of people becoming aware of your tricks, Reagan Embarrassment.
No -- which is probably a point in my favor. Would you consider Laurence Tribe to be an authority on Federal laws that cover the illegal dissemination of classified U.S. intelligence information?
Why don't you call his show and straighten him out?
The last time I corresponded with Mr. Levin (right here on FreeRepublic) he came across as such an ignorant fool about the matter in question (the Dubai Ports World issue) that I found myself questioning the legitimacy of his legal credentials. Based on his posts here on FR and his conversations with callers on his radio show, it was readily apparent to folks like me that he had no idea what the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) is, what Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 was, and how this law was modified under Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (also known as the "Exon-Florio Provision" of the law).
It must have pretty humiliating for Mr. Levin to learn that he had gone out on a limb with rabid, partisan Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, and silly, ignorant Republicans like Michael Savage Weiner and Rep. Peter King to criticize the Bush administration for its actions in the Dubai Ports World case . . . only to find out later -- from people here on FR and callers to his radio show with no legal training whatsoever -- that the Bush administration had done exactly what was called for under the Federal statute in question.
So while Mark Levin is usually right on target on most issues, his "constitutional lawyer" act means absolutely nothing to me.
This IS my business, you panicked Buchananite! I am in the business of defending the President from nit-wits!
In case you haven't noticed, this is an open forum, which means I can post to any thread I want, even if you don't like it!
LOL! Panic! Panic! Panic!
CNN Story about Iyman Faris Plea Agreement
And as it turns out, I was absolutely right after all. The U.S. Justice Department couldn't possibly prosecute the New York Times for "leaking" information in 2005 about a "top secret NSA electronic surveillance program" that was actually described quite extensively in the U.S. Justice Department's court documents related to the Iyman Faris case in 2003.
See #117. I don't think I can make it any more clear to you.
Disruptor said what?
No, but I do believe this law to be completely irrelevant in this case. How can the New York Times possibly be prosecuted for knowingly and willfully communicating "top-secret" information that meets any of the conditions set forth in that law when this information was already revealed in a document released by the United Nations four years ago?
"The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."
(Report to United Nations Security Council, 2002)
Go back and look at my last post regarding the so-called "top secret" NSA electronic surveillance program. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
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.