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.
It may not have been criminal, but it was totally reprehensible.
Your business is causing trouble. My business is speaking the truth. If some of you Bush cheerleaders choose to expose yourselves as obnoxious and arrogant jokers, so be it. This thread is a perfect case in point.
Oh get a big damn grip, and let go of your obvious animosity toward the President! This administration is LESS wasp than any administration in my memory, and that encompasses at least 6 Presidencies, including that of the first Catholic president.
Sure, anyone who doesn't agree with your agenda of division is a troublemaker and you're not really a disruptor whose whole intent is to cause friction at FR while you embarrass the name of Reagan. Sure, pravda, you speak pravda, alright!
Yeah, those conservative Supreme Court Justices just appeared out of nowhere. I'm SURE a Democrat administration would have appointed them./sarc
I'll never understand the folks who believe that something should be done NOW, even before information is gathered and an investigation is done, and if it isn't done to their satisfaction, they are giving up on the President right now.
You obtain evidence. You put the editor of the NYT under oath and ask him who was their source. If he involks the 1st amendment, you immunize him. Now ask. If he still refuses, put the son-of-a-bitch in jail until he is no longer in comtempt of court. That means he gives up the leaker. Now you have evidence. These New YOrk Times bastards need to be shown the heat, and they will see the light. No freeper would be treated any different. We just don't have a large newspaper to intimidate the adminsitration with. Buchanan is spot on on this matter.
The teenie weenies of the press must always try to diminunize anybody who does not match the journalism school idea of liberalism and peculiarity and perversity.
thanks Doug that is my thinking, who knows what is going on behind the scenes, this should be very interesting.
I was right on your girlfriend Miers, and I agree with Pat on the NYTs. Also Ann who has been trying to take them down for years.
What am I not right about now? I went through you posts of today (yesterday) to find out and didn't finish. Sweetypie, you've had a busy day.(:-}
PS, we agree on Nixon.
Right on the button, worth repeating for the denser among us.
You can't argue with a woman, especially on FR. Bless em all. Where is Abert+ when you need him?
The N.Y. Slimes has been contemptible and seditious for almost a century. But Pat is still just foaming at the mouth.
I had a busy evening refuting a lunatic, who knows NO factual history at all and keeps posting tripe.
We agree about something? Oh well, at least you know the factual history concerning Watergate and Nixon. That's a whole lot more than the weirdo I'm fighting does. Congrats! :-)
The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service are responsible for detecting and preventing money laundering schemes. Both the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (codified in 31 USC 5311-5332 and 31 CFR 103) and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56) require banks, money service businesses, and retail stores to report on financial transactions that have the potential for laundering money.
This includes reporting any transactions over 10K or which are 'unusual'.
In addition, there is FinCEN as well, not just a figment of the so-called 'black helicopter' set.
Telecommunications have been monitored through ECHELON and CARNIVORE since the Clinton Administration.
No news to those who have been paying attention. However, an old Connan Doyle line comes to mind, where the clue was the 'dog who did not bark'.
If the Times panics the enemy into even a brief shift in transaction mode and behaviour, this could provide valuable intel.
I have the feeling that not all leaks are completely unintentional. Otherwise, I'd expect the feces would have hit the rotary air shifter by now.
My bet is that at least some transactions have gone off the radar as a result of the Times' statements, and that alone is enough to track a lot of dots. Previously recorded connections follow. ymmv.
"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."
Well we only have your word for that. We don't know what your legal credentials are and you refuse to provide links to sources.
What I do know is that lots of people in Congress claimed that they knew nothing about the program and publication in the NY Times led to investigations and legal suits. So your claim that everyone knew about it and there was no "news" seems odd.
"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 cite Naom Chomsky while you're at it? Michael Ratner? Rachel Meeropol?
"The left has learned that Bush is all bark and no bite."
I share your frustration. The only thing is to keep up the pressure. We did get him to drop Harriet Myers. And we strengthened the spine of the House members on immigration.
Thanks.
No, you don't just have my word for that. If you click on the link I provided you can read all about it.
The fact that I have no legal credentials is apparently a point in my favor -- since it seems most lawyers these days are thoroughly incapable of thinking rationally.
Bush is weak and will never stand up to the NY Times. The conservative Prime-Minister of Canada stood up to them, but Bush won't even yank the White House press credentials. I am so tired of Bush and his weaklings and the Bushbots here that won't stand up to Bush and will kill the messenger instead.
Not really. Nobody does this, or has ever done it, and there is a simple reason why: the chances of OTHER secret material coming out in the trial, immunization or not, is too great a risk for the return. Did you, or Pat, ever once just maybe think the administration knows a few things you don't?
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.