WaPo: National Security Up To Editors, Not Government

Sweetness & Light ^ | June 27, 2006 | N/A

[Sam Hill]

This is an excerpt from a Washington Post article published back in March.

The piece concerned the onset of FBI investigations into the egregious leaks of national security secrets at that time, including the "CIA prisons" and the NSA's monitoring of Al Qaeda calls.

(This investigation probably lead to the the firing of the Washington Post's Dana Priest presumed source for her Pulitzer Prize winning articles on the "CIA prisons" -- CIA officer Mary McCarthy.)

But the comments expressed in the article by the Washington Post's executive editor Leonard Downie seem to perfectly exemplify the hubris felt by the Post, the New York Times and much of our media watchdogs:

Columbia University President George Rupp (left) presents Katherine Boo and Leonard Downie, Jr., of The Washington Post, with the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

White House trains efforts on media leaks

Bush administration targets sources, reporters under espionage laws

By Dan Eggen
March 4, 2006

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases.

Numerous employees at the CIA, FBI, Justice Department and other agencies also have received letters from Justice prohibiting them from discussing even unclassified issues related to the NSA program, according to sources familiar with the notices...

"There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors," said New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a statement responding to questions from The Washington Post. "I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad."

President Bush has called the NSA leak "a shameful act" that was "helping the enemy," and said in December that he was hopeful the Justice Department would conduct a full investigation into the disclosure.

"We need to protect the right to free speech and the First Amendment, and the president is doing that," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy. "But, at the same time, we do need to protect classified information which helps fight the war on terror." ...

Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Post, said there has long been a “natural and healthy tension between government and the media” on national security issues, but that he is “concerned” about comments by Goss and others that appear to reflect a more aggressive stance by the government. Downie noted that The Post had at times honored government requests not to report particularly sensitive information, such as the location of CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.

“We do not want to inadvertently threaten human life or legitimately harm national security in our reporting,” he said. “But it’s important . . . in our constitutional system that these final decisions be made by newspaper editors and not the government.”...

I didn’t know that the framers of the Constitution put the decisions concerning matters of National Security in the hands of newspaper editors rather than an elected representatives.

Did you?

[Sam Hill]

Related Articles:

• NYT Demanded Financial Tracking To Combat Terrorism
• Bush Calls Times Banking Leak "Disgraceful"
• Times Betrays Another National Security Secret
• The Times Admits To Lying About NSA Programs
• Times Claims Cheney Wanted To Tap In Country Calls
• The Media Is Lying About NSA's "Data Mining"
• Priest's Pulitzer Prize Winning Propaganda
• White House Goes After Treasonous Leakers
• The Times Sues Pentagon For Classified NSA Material
• W-Post Leaks More National Security Secrets
• Times To US: Drop Dead!
• Justice Department To Investigate The NYT

[Sam Hill]

Media hubris ping.

[NY Attitude]

This a$$hole should be made an example of by putting him in front of a firing squad. After all, Mussolini made the trains run on time after executing an engineer.

[Mo1]

WaPo: National Security Up To Editors, Not Government

The Hell It Is!

Kiss off MSM .. We didn't elect you to run our country

[Sam Hill]

But this is how you get Pulitzer Prizes for Public Service.

[pollyannaish]

I figured since I flamed you on the last thread, I'd at least ping you to this.

Perhaps it will offer you a little hope.

[Sam Hill]

The should at the very least be jailed.

There are laws against what they are doing, such as US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, § 793:

Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any… information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it…

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[Mo1]

The Pulitzer Prizes has the same credibility as the Noble Peace Prize

[Anti-Bubba182]

I don't know how difficult it would be to track down those who leak to the media and prosecute them, but that would be a practical way to proceed.

As much as it galls me, I don't see the media picking up the tab for these disclosures. They will scream 1st Amendment and get a pass. The government employees would not be protected for the leaks they make if there was any will to prosecute them.

[sarasmom]

Hubris?
Cured by a life sentence to Leavenworth, no possibility of parole.
This isn't a game, and the "repercussions" for those involved in sabotaging intelligence operations should be swift and certain.
I don't care who they think they are.
If you try to run with the big dogs,you must be able to piss in the high grass.
Despite their ignorant self-righteous delusions, ABCCBSCNNFOXNBC reporters are not "the peoples watchdogs".
And what I find extremely ironic, is that finally, news junkies like us have concrete reasons to respect our non-addicted peers, who have correctly and instinctively ignored the MSM for decades.

[Candor7]

Its interesting that everyone expects the Attorney General to indict the New York Times. I would take no indictment as a very ominous sign if I were a reporter or editor for the New York times.

Our nation is at war with Islamofacists, The New York Times has been conducting a defacto espionage operation which has put the country and its soldiers at risk on several occasions. The president and the NSA have the authority and duty to protect the American people. In doing so, launching a counter espionage operation against the New York Times would be justified and legal. The president or the AG have no duty to indict the Times or its editors.We all expect that because the Dems have done the legal dance on the chests of so many good Republicans: Libby, Rove, Delay, Limbaugh, and the list will go on. Republicans might do things differently. What would a counter espionage operation against the NYT look like, conducted by the NSA? 1) The dissemination of true false information or disinformation designed to traduce the paper 2) The placing of agents as employees with the times, to perform tasks which would interrupt work at the NYT 3) The use of highly exotic computer viruses to wipe the hard drives of computers after copying the hard drives and sending the data to a secure server. 4) The use of computer viruses and other methods to remove financing options from the various banks used by the NYT. And there are many , many more. Read section 2.9 (b) carefully of the executive order which is the guiding document of the NSA. Executive Order 12333 -- United States Intelligence Activities December 4, 1981 **************************************** 2.9 Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States. No one acting on behalf of agencies within the Intelligence Community may join or otherwise participate in any organization in the United States on behalf of any agency within the Intelligence Community without disclosing his intelligence affiliation to appropriate officials of the organization, except in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such participation shall be authorized only if it is essential to achieving lawful purposes as determined by the agency head or designee. No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where: (a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or (b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power. *************************************** There are people who work at the NYT who are not United States persons, and the paper is composed primarily of individuals who are not conducting themselves as United States persons, but as agents of a foreign Islamofacist movement. The Attorney general may authorize a covert operation within the NYT according to 2.9 , and it would obviate 2.9 (b) anyway. I am sure our president would like to proceed with an indictment of the Times, which is just what the Times Owner and editors would like. It is their reason for actually going against Mr. Snows imprecations, they want the publicity of a martyrs trial which they would win before a liberal judge,all the while accusing the administration of fascism. It may be that a counter espionage operation is in the works for the Times,we would see their computers begin to fail, their hard drives emptied, and their financial processing disorganized and nonfunctional, deadlines missed, and reporter credit cards non functional, travel plans disorganized. I would have no hesitation is recommending the administration to proceed with such a counter espionage operation. It should have been initiated some time ago, without the involvement of the CIA or the FBI. Then perhaps the NYT would get the message: Espionage against the USA does not pay. The president does not have to insist that the AG indict them. He has much better options at his disposal.

[SandRat]

Say WHAT?????!!!!

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"But this is how you get Pulitzer Prizes for Public Service."

Along with every other thnaks-for-your-contribution-to-the-liberaliztion/destrcution-of-America prize from the Nobel Peace Prize on down.

[NY Attitude]

From the words in the title, it appears that those words inspire revolution.

[SierraWasp]

"Did you?"

Why... heck no!!! What in the Sam Hill is up with these bad actors???

[Enchante]

I doubt that any of the framers would have had much hesitation in demanding the HANGING for editors who publish sensitive security info that would allow an enemy to kill Americans. We should HANG traitors, not give them prizes.

[Shelayne]

It may be that a counter espionage operation is in the works for the Times,we would see their computers begin to fail, their hard drives emptied, and their financial processing disorganized and nonfunctional, deadlines missed, and reporter credit cards non functional, travel plans disorganized.

Ooooh, I like it; I really, really like it...

Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Sam Hill]

"I doubt that any of the framers would have had much hesitation in demanding the HANGING for editors who publish sensitive security info that would allow an enemy to kill Americans. We should HANG traitors, not give them prizes."

In WWII the NYT would have been shut down and the top people there thrown in prison for at least the duration.

[Grampa Dave]