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.
I see things haven't changed much at the Times.
Thanks for that link, upchuck. They'll pay for this.
Unfortunately, I believe you are right. I don't have much confidence. I sure get frustrated with "our side" because they do not seem to have the stomach to fight these dirt bags. I wish it was different, but I think you are right.
You're welcome. And I certainly hope they do. In spades.
This treason stuff, just like the Criminal Aliens problem, has been allowed to get waaaaay outta control. And the longer it goes on, the harder it becomes to rein it in. We need to get started yesterday.
Sharing classified material does not fall under the First Amendment.
You've been smacked around enough. Hopefully you got your answer.
Great. So I'll go back to an earlier post and present the only two possible scenarios here:
A. The GOP leaders who have claimed that the New York Times has broken the law are totally full of sh!t.
B. The Bush administration knows damn well that the Times has broken the law but has simply refused to uphold the law.
Which do you think is the case here?
"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)
OK -- so let's try this again . . . How can the fact that the U.S. has been using the SWIFT database be considered "classified" when it has been in the public domain since 2002?
See #49.
I didn't say that the Prez would destroy the First Amendment; I said he would be remembered as the President who "tried"....
Believe me the Dems and the libs would try to paint him in such as way to convince the ignorant and uninformed American electorate (which is the majority) that that was what he was trying to do.
See Post #51.
Will do. I'm sending it to the folks in my e-mail address book right now.
no dems
Thanks. It has been bid up to $47 already; that money goes to FR.
OK , how can we find Kellers home address and phone number?
I say hang the SOB ..The Times is a leftist propaganda rag and has been for years. Not even close to being an objective newspaper.
Can a skunk change its stripe? Nope.
He's not even going to 'try'. Hopefully he'll be remembered as the President who stopped vile members of the press from committing treason.
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.