Posted on 06/30/2006 6:57:31 PM PDT by lancer
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 empanelled, 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. It reads in part:
"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits...or publishes ...any classified information...concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States...shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Section 798 applies specifically to what the New York Times did last December, when it published a story revealing that the National Security Agency was listening in on calls from al Qaeda suspects abroad to people in the U.S.
Last week the New York Times struck again, revealing details about how the U.S. tracks terrorist financing through the SWIFT banking consortium in Belgium.
Because of the worldwide publicity these stories generated, there can be no doubt al Qaeda is aware of them, and will change its practices because of them.
"You have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers," wrote Lt. Tom Cotton, an Army officer stationed in Iraq, in a letter to the Times. "The next time I hear that familiar explosion...I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance."
"Without money, terrorism in Iraq would die because there would no longer be supplies for IEDs...and no motivation for people to abandon regular work in hopes of striking it rich after killing a soldier," wrote Army Sgt. T.F. Boggs in another indignant letter to the Times.
We spend tens of billions of dollars each year on (often not very good) intelligence. But all al Qaeda needs to buy is a subscription to the New York Times.
President Bush indicated in remarks Monday he is as angry at the Times as FDR was at the Chicago Tribune. The question is, will he do anything about it?
The reason why President Roosevelt dropped his prosecution of Col. McCormick doesn't apply. Al Qaeda can learn nothing more from the publicity of a trial than it knows already.
The administration has sound legal grounds for prosecuting the Times under the Espionage Act, Gabriel Schoenfeld argued in a lengthy essay in Commentary in March. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said last month this was a possibility.
Newsday columnist James Pinkerton thinks the Times should be prosecuted, but that the Bush administration lacks the political courage to do so.
For the sake of the nation's security, the Times must be prosecuted, most especially its Editor, Bill Keller. (Google "Bill Keller" + "treason" and you'll get close to 40,000 hits.)
Our policy of going only after the leakers (and fitfully at that) obviously hasn't worked.
Prosecuting the Times also could be good politics. Americans are, at best, ambivalent about the war in Iraq. But solid majorities support the steps the president has taken to protect us in the broader war on terror.
For instance, shortly after the Times exposed the NSA intercept program, a Rasmussen poll indicated 64 percent of Americans supported it. Only 23 percent were opposed.
Ordinary Americans are furious with the Times both for what it has done, and for its arrogance in doing it. And journalists don't have much popularity to lose. In a Harris survey in March, only 14 percent of respondents expressed a "great deal" of confidence in the press, while 34 percent had "hardly any."
In picking a fight with journalists over leaks, President Bush would be picking on one of the few groups in America less popular than he is, on the issue where he is on the firmest ground with the public.
Media uproar over prosecution of the Times would drown out other issues where the president is on shakier ground. This is a fight to be welcomed, not avoided.
Think again .. all kinds of stuff can come out in a trial
And the NYT knows it too ..
And here's a link to another article about it.
Disgusting!
Notice how RAT politicians are more concerned about 2nd hand smoke than they are about National security, and American lives?
bump for later
Doug, the questions and your answers are the funniest part of this very funny "auction." Good on ya.
Thanks. No one has even commented yet on the funniest or most ironic thing of all.
The should be a petition across the US to try this man or anyone ELSE with actions like him for TREASON!
Because the President says it is. That's good enough.
BTTT
Which said so president Clinton?
You prosicute and please let the Left Wing try and support it. Every one of them that is against it would be put on the side of the enemy.
Man stands up in a bar: "All journalists are a-holes."
Another guy stands up: "I resent that remark.
"Man: "Why, are you a journalist?"
Other guy: "No, I'm an a-hole." -
Borrowed from LS...
Send the Marines...I like that!
Look, President Bush wouldn't be destroying the First Amendment. No one wants Bush to request "prior restraint". Prior restraint is where the government has a censor in the newsroom to approve copy.
If there was prior restraint during the Clinton years, you never would have heard of the blue dress. It's the opposite of a free press.
Don't want to stop the New York Times from publishing anything. Get that? Nothing. They can print anything -- anything at all. But, and this is a big exception - they must be responsible for their choices.
For instance, lets say Keller wants to steal copywrited material - just wants to print it and doesn't want to pay for it. How do I feel about that? Let him print it. No prior restraint. Period. He has total freedom to print. Now, how do I feel about Keller getting sued for stealing someone's copywrited material? Great. Keller broke the law, and he has to pay the price. It doesn't take away any of his First Amendment rights. None.
It's the same if Keller rips off a freelancer - he can print the material, but a court will make him pay.
He has the right to print National Security classified information. He just doesn't have the right to do it without consequences.
Do you think Keller could blackmail advertisers by printing personal information about them in his paper? Well, he could print personal information about private citizens if he wanted to (I support his right) but the citizens would sue his pants off... and win.
And this situation? He should be arrested and tried in a court of law. We'll find out where the line is. Some editor in the future will know the price he might pay - but he'll still be able to print if his conscience requires. It could be done, but not easily. That's our way. Breaking the law has consequences, as it should.
It's crazy sending people to a newsroom to beg during time of war. Begging an editor not to hurt the war effort is obscene. And it's wrong. Everyone knows it. That's why there's so much anger about this situation. Does this make sense to you?
W is incredibly weak in standing up to the liberals. He almost asks for an ass kicking by the dems.
Kinda like the letters in the Jap code book weren't classified, but the FACT we knew the code WAS!
Freedumb of the press is no excuse for giving away national security secrets or procedures, classified or not!
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.