Oh the irony!

Straw man argument alert!

Just like your defense of warrantless wiretapping, you have constructed a straw man to defend Dear Leader. No one has a problem with tracking terrorist finances (or terrorist phone calls). The problem is unwarranted watching of American citizens' finances and phone calls. There is a difference, and its truly appalling that you ignore that difference. (Do you really believe that all Americans are terrorists? Even the non-liberal ones?)

Second, I question the very premise that the NYT story in any way hurt national security. As you helpfully pointed out, tracking terrorist finances has been an integral part of the WOT since day one. The President himself has mentioned this repeatedly. By mentioning this, is the President aiding terrorists? As evil as Osama is, he isn't stupid and its naive to think that he assumes we aren't watching all phone calls and financial transactions.

In the end, it really comes down to this: why are you such a coward? Have you noticed that those who oppose these programs the most (liberals) also happen to live in the places most likely to be hit by terrorists (large urban centers)? Have you noticed where the NYT is located? If we who walk the streets of NYC, DC, LA, and all major cities are willing to risk our lives to protect our freedoms, surely you bushbots in the heartland can stop cowering under the bed and start standing up for basic freedoms.

Whatever keeps subscriptions up...

Being tough on terrorists and spying on American citizens are different things. The Left gives all of you rightwing christian-fascists permission to spy on and capture all of the terrorist that you want. Just don't spy on American citizens and make sure you arrest real terrorists and not 6 ESE students from Miami. Peace

The Times editors aren't the only ones with a short memory. I saw a clip today of Mr. Bush announcing at a press event that we were begining surveillence on international monetary accounts. The date? September 24, 2001. He gave essentially the same information printed in the Times that he is now intimating to be treasonous. (He is allowing Rep. King to do the talking)

Is it okay when he says it, but not okay when the Times says it?

Perhaps Bush has just forgotten about the United States CONSTITUTION!

Leave it to the liberals to dodge the issue at hand and post comments that add nothing to the discussion.

Ash

Yes, it is ok when he says it, but not ok when the Times says it.

Bush can say and do whatever he wants to, remember he is the leader of your great country. You must trust him to do what is right. He is the supreme head of decision making, the decider, and he will make the rules. Do not question his actions; to do so is helping the terrorists. You are either with him or you are with the enemy.

Now, be a good American and put one of those Bush bumper stickers on your car. Mark might have some left over that he can let you have.

James,

good post!

Yes, The liberal Democrats care NOTHING for America, All they care about is ME poor ol ME. If they can get in the spotlight they will do it no matter what the cost is, that's all they care about is being so self-righteous, no matter what's at stake, EVEN if their own life is at stake, if they want to be in the lime light they will do it!!

LIBERAL = SELF AND NO ONE ELSE = DANGER!!

Jeremiah.

Um, Ash? There is a slight difference between Bush saying we will be following the money and the NY Times detailing step by step how we've been doing it. Hambali probably knew that the U.S. would be trying to track his money trail but didn't know how until the SWIFT program nailed him. Now the next Hambali (or whomever) does how how the U.S. is looking and will adjust his tactics accordingly.

The Times, in comparison, was calling for Bush to make the kind of effort that he ended up making, and is now trying to nail him for it. That's just the kind of flip-flop you'd expect from a newspaper that endorsed John Kerry.

Wow Canadian Observer, it's as if you didn't even read the thread and are utterly oblivious to what is going on. Typical for a left-winger.

As Ash pointed out, I saw the same clip, so I guess bush is a traitor for exposing government secretes.

Quick question for the wingnuts:

Where is your outrage for the WSJ?

I don't think New York has forgotten 9/11, but the White House sure has. It cut funding for anti-terrorist measures in favor of pork-barrel issues in Republican states. Who but a Republican would say there are no national landmarks in NYC and cut funding to they can spend money protecting the World's Largest Ball of String from terrorists?

You moonbats are such pathetic looooosers.

Bush announced a DOMETIC plan, the SECRET was the international wire transfer aspect to the plan.

So please explain:

1. How is it that tracing foreign financial operations violates any portion of US Law or the constitution? Please cite specifics?

2. What compelling public interest is served by revealing the existence of the this secret program?

3. How does the revelation of this program increase the security of the country or protect the rights of any american?

4. Why do you defend those who reveal state secrets that damage the security of the nation?

Blarney...did Bush reveal step by step details like the NY Times did?

Get back to us on that one....thanks.

At the time (2001) Bush announced it as a new federal program at the Treasury Department that monitored financial transactions by international terrorist operations. Sounds pretty much like what the Times reported.

Is there a difference from me telling barney has a bank account and me telling you what his access code and account number is?

Barney -- Just one question. Does the law making it a crime to reveal classified information, if that revelation damages national security, contain and exemption for the news media?

Please just answer yes or no.

Bush 9/24/01: "We know that many of these individuals and groups operate primarily overseas, and they don't have much money in the United States. So we've developed a strategy to deal with that. We're putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice, we will work with their governments, ask them to freeze or block terrorist's ability to access funds in foreign accounts. If they fail to help us by sharing information or freezing accounts, the Department of the Treasury now has the authority to freeze their bank's assets and transactions in the United States."

"..We've established a foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks."

Don't you just love that last part?? BUSTED

Bush 9/24/01: We've established a foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks.
It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions.
We're also working with the friends and allies throughout the world to share information. We're working closely with the United Nations, the EU and through the G-7/G-8 structure to limit the ability of terrorist organizations to take advantage of the international financial systems.

BUSTED!!!!

Bush 9/24/01: We've established a foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks.
It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions.
We're also working with the friends and allies throughout the world to share information. We're working closely with the United Nations, the EU and through the G-7/G-8 structure to limit the ability of terrorist organizations to take advantage of the international financial systems.

BUSTED!!!

I posted this in the Snow Letter one and I'll repeat myself here.

There's a huge difference in saying in generalities how we're going to do something and another entirely to explain in depth. Anyone with a basic understanding of communications knows this.

For instance, if I were to ask a SWAT team leader what he was about to do he'd probably say, "Go in there and get the bad guys while saving the good guys." (Yes I'm being simplistic) But if he was to say, "Well we're going to enter through the south enterance with team one in 35 minutes while at the same time team two will enter throught he roof enterence" etc see the difference?

We can bring up more examples if you'd wish but in the end we shouldn't have to. While I don't go as far as Matt and the others in saying it was treasonous I will say it was in bad form. It seems irresoponsible and reckless to constantly release classified information and I suggest we fully find and prosecute all these leakers we've got in the government no matter who they are.

Barney, Barney, Barney.

You can do better than that when constructing strawmen.

The answer is twofold:

When the President announces that we will be monitoring financial transactions he can do so without being guilty of revealing classified information because he is the ultimate authority in classifying and de-classifying information. If the President wants to de-classify the information and release it he can. The NYT, on the other hand, has no such authority. They can claim it is in the public interest all they want. But if they are in the possession of classified information, they have no authority to release it. To do so is a crime.

Secondly, all that the President did in 2001 was make the statement that we would be tracking financial transactions to detect terrorist activities. He did not disclose the specifics of the programs. A good analogy would be the President announcing that we will be encrypting communications between Government Agencies, without revealing how we would be doing the encryption. The mere presence of the knowledge of our tracking of financial transactions is not damaging to our efforts to detect terrorists. Detailing how we are doing the tracking is damaging.

Get it now.

"There's a huge difference in saying in generalities how we're going to do something and another entirely to explain in depth."-Gozer

Seriously. This whole debate subject reminds me of a quote from "Aliens"-

"Did IQ's just drop sharply while I was away?"-Ripley.

*Chuckles*

Hehe good quote Freedom. :)

"Did IQ's just drop sharply while I was away?"-Ripley.

Only on the left side of the ship....lol

Not only are the democrats protecting bin ladens phone calls into our country, now the dems want to protect bin ladens banking privileges. What side are the dems on. The dems have lost my vote for good.

You all know this is just pre mid term election posturing. this administration is so seedy that any news about them will be bad news. 2 years 6 months

"Barney -- Just one question. Does the law making it a crime to reveal classified information, if that revelation damages national security, contain and exemption for the news media?"

I believe that law only applies to those who work in the government. There is no law that says it's illegal for newspapers to print classified government information.

Many people keep pressing for prosecuting the NYTimes... on what charge exactly? Treason? Not a chance in hell that will fly.

If you guys really want to 'stop' the NYTimes, you're going to have to blow it up, like you've advocated. Have fun being terrorists.

Democrats and the New York Times are begging for another 9-11 type attack. They think it will result in the democrats regaining power. We all know that's all that matters to them.

Did any of you bushbots actually read the article? (I know its long, but try to make it all the way to the end.) There aren't any specifics in the article at all. The program is described as searching the database of a consortium of nearly every financial institution in the world. That's basically what the President said we would do post-9/11.

Can any of you bushbots please explain how an article confirming what the President already said is hurting national security?

CJ,

Keeping in mind that the administration has been trumpeting the fact that it's doing everything it can in tracking the finances of terrorists -- and has said it's doing so by monitoring banking transactions -- what specific revelations in the NYTimes article will specifically help terrorists?

The NYTimes and the administration were in talks for 3 weeks before the publication of this article. Not once in those talks did the government give specific actions or investigations that would be comprimised by the revelation. They gave vague reasons such as it will tip off terrorists and will change their methods. But the administration has already admitted that terrorists know financial transactions are being tracked and they have already changed their methods.

The NYTimes weighed this against the public interest of knowing that the government's access to a vast amount of international banking transaction, many of which are no doubt Americans.

O.T. President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's special services to hunt down the killers of four Russian hostages in Iraq, the Kremlin said. "The president has ordered the special forces to take all necessary measures to find and destroy the criminals who killed Russian diplomats in Iraq," the Kremlin press service said.

Back on thread:
Come on, neorads. We know you're using the Constitution, just like the NYT, for your arguments because of your hatred for Bush and this administration. I want to laugh every time you say he or the right doesn't care about one of the most important documents in our country's history. You and I know that just isn't true. We believe in the rights it has given all of us, including the NYT. We just don't believe those rights should be abused, while at the same time threatening the security of the country, for an end goal ... Pulitzer Prize. If you actually believe the NYT devulged top secret information because the public had a right to know and not because they wanted another shiny award, I have some oceanfront property in Yuma I'd like you to take a look at ...

"If you actually believe the NYT devulged top secret information because the public had a right to know and not because they wanted another shiny award, I have some oceanfront property in Yuma I'd like you to take a look at ..."

Actually, Kimberly, I do. The most concrete evidence to support this that if a Pulitzer were going to be awarded for a story like this, it would go to the NSA story, which is a much more controversial program.

Sure, Pulitzers are a goal of reporters and newspapers, but make no mistake that in cases like this, the public interst of the story supercedes all else.

The safety of my family and friends is more valuable to me than my knowing about a top secret program.

The property sits on two acres, with a 2,400 sf 4 BR, 2 1/2 BA home ...

Kimberly, what exactly in the NYtimes story do you object being reported?

The fact that there is a program in which the US moniters international banking transactions?

Well, the president spoke about this program when it launched in 2001. The administraion has since regularly spoke about how it's doing everything in its power to track terror financing.

So, knowledge of such a tracking program is out there. Are there specifics in the story that you object being reported?

Kimberly

Tom is not intellectually capable of understanding. People like him must be marginalized or mocked or both.

The one thing that seemed missing from this debate was a link to the NYC article. you can find it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html

"The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database."
~"Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror" 2nd paragraph, NYT June 23, 2006

As a personal note, my concern with the program is that under this program personal warrants were not obtained, instead it was one warrant for several million people. Do we really have millions suspected terrorists in the U.S.?

The other concern I have is that while this program relies on a president's power to access bank records and other privet information in a time of crises, that time period is over and no congressional authority has been given.

As for the NYT I didn't see anything in the article that didn't amount to "The CIA is looking at your bank records, specifically large amounts transferred overseas, and is doing it in questionable authority." Which, except for the last part, is essentially what Bush said in 2001.

THIS is classic:

WHOLESALE TREASON....The New York Times story that exposed the Treasury Department's terrorist finance tracking program says it relied on "nearly 20" former and current government officials. The LA Times story on the same subject relied on "more than a dozen" sources.

Isn't that an awful lot of traitors in our midst? Why were so many people willing to talk about this? Was it because (a) revealing the program's existence didn't really endanger anything, or (b) they were concerned about its legality? Or both?

Kimberly's comment that "The safety of my family and friends is more valuable to me than my knowing about a top secret program" reveals a key difference between those on the side of secrecy and those who defend freedom of the press--the former group (people like Kimberly) simply don't CARE about abstract ideas such as "constitutional freedom." When it comes down to it, they're willing to make a deal with the devil--'as long as me and mine are OK, I don't care whether I'm free or not.' Kinda like the Chinese people. Who needs freedom of the press as long as Mom, Dad, Brad, Aunt Jane etc are OK?

It's really a very self absorbed, narrow--dare I say it--unAmerican, set of interests she expresses.

Democrats and the New York Times are begging for another 9-11 type attack.

Why in the world would they want another 9-11 type attack? The original 9-11 has give Bush and the Neocons all the fodder they needed to usurp powers that are unprecedented. NSA spying? "We're in a post 9-11 world" Financial record spying? "We're in a post 9-11 world" What's next? Seizing medical records. Credit card records. E-mail intercepts. "We're in a post 9-11 world".

No, Another 9-11 type attack is the last thing Democrats want. To think differently is insane.

bloviator: Or maybe they were neorads who hate the administration just as much as you?

Tom, read the NYT's article. It gives explicit details on the program, none of which was discussed at any press conference by the administration.

In the 1930s, Martin Niemoller (a German) wrote

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out, I was not a Jew.
When they came for me there was no one left to speak out

"Tom is not intellectually capable of understanding. People like him must be marginalized or mocked or both."

This is classic. I want to talk about specifics. About how national security is being threatened, and my intellect is questioned.

Guess for some to respect my intellect I need to make accusations without backing them up with specifics.

kimberly -
from an earlier comment in another thread:

the details of the SWIFT program have been available on former State Department official Victor Comraes detailed Counterterrorism blog found here:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php

AND ALSO, additional detailed reports of US monitoring of SWIFT TRANSACTIONS OF TERRORIST GROUPS have been available to the public for some time on the United Nations’ website:

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267mg.htm

So the idea that this information was newly released to the public is 100 percent bogus. But don’t take my word for it – check out the links!

and finally kimberly, why don't you provide these explicit examples in the NYT you like to cite (without actually citing)...

Any and all Times reporters, editors, and executives should be verbally abused on-the-spot. These savages are the most un-American pieces of human filth this country has produced in decades.

kimberly -
from an earlier comment in another thread:

the details of the SWIFT program have been available on former State Department official Victor Comraes detailed Counterterrorism blog found here:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php

AND ALSO, additional detailed reports of US monitoring of SWIFT TRANSACTIONS OF TERRORIST GROUPS have been available to the public for some time on the United Nations’ website:

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267mg.htm

So the idea that this information was newly released to the public is 100 percent bogus. But don’t take my word for it – check out the links!

and finally kimberly, why don't you provide these explicit examples in the NYT you like to cite (without actually citing)...

"Tom, read the NYT's article. It gives explicit details on the program, none of which was discussed at any press conference by the administration."

Kimberly, I have read the article. Which details are you referring to?

Tom -
it's a classic tactic employed by some here who regress to name-calling and insults, either bc they have only a limited number of faxed sheets of right-wing talking points to reference, or they have no desire nor mental acumen to address the very facts presented.

"I believe that law [i.e., the Espionage Act of 1917] only applies to those who work in the government. There is no law that says it's illegal for newspapers to print classified government information."

Wow, Shipley, you really exposed your ignorance of both the law and history with that one! Contrary to your claim, in 1950 Congress specifically clarified the Espionage Act of 1917 to make it clear that it DOES apply to newspapers. The Chicago Tribune had published an article during WWII revealing that the U.S. had probably broken the Japanese naval code. FDR was so furious he actually impaneled a grand jury to indict the Tribune. (He dissolved it when it appeared clear the Japanese hadn’t actually seen the article.) In 1950, Congress wanted to make sure articles like the Tribune's didn't get published in the future, so it added Section 798 to the Espionage Act of 1917, which reads:

"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."

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bush_should_welcome_a_fight_wi.html

Based on its wording and history, this law CLEARLY isn’t just limited to “those who work in the government.” It specifically applies to publishers. So the bottom line is that the NY Times is NOT exempt from the Espionage Act of 1917; that its publication of details of the U.S. anti-terrorist financial monitoring program violated the Act; and that the Times absolutely should be prosecuted to deter it and other papers from disclosing further classified national security information during wartime.

Tom if there were no details and this is all on the up and up, why did the editor of the NY Times say he "agonized" over the decision to publish this story.

I mean if it was no big deal and everyone knew about it, why did the NY TIMES "agonize" over publishing it?

Get back to us on that one.

Oh, please, JPL, I'm sure you were well-versed on that piece of historical law well before you googled it this morning.

Yes, I was unaware of that law.

Fact is though, that much of the Sedition Act was repealed and NYTimes v. Sullivan rendered most of what was left void (I believe this was passed after this section was added to it). Also, the fact that not one administration since FDR has tried to prosecute the publishing of classified information under that law shows that there's a basic understanding that the press should have the right to publish classified information that is of public interest.

IF it was shown that the publishing of the information caused harm to national security, MAYBE there would be a case.

But, if no one here can give me an example of what was publish that endangered national security, i don't see how a case could be built in a court of law.

Warrior, because this story does deal with national security issues. Newspapers are always very careful when publishing stories of this nature. They felt it was OK to publish it. I haven't seen 1 good argument as to why it wasn't.

Anyone?

Hugh Hewitt just made an interesting observation:

“No major media outlet in the United States has ever knowingly, and over the objection of the United States government, ever published classified information that could assist the nation's enemies. Period. What the New York Times has done --and the Los Angeles Times copied-- is without precedent….”

SOURCE: http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/the_times_two_m.php

How about it, Ash, Barney, Bloviator, Shipley, et al. -- Is Hugh Hewitt right? I.e., can you come up with even a SINGLE instance in which a major U.S. media outlet has EVER knowingly, and over the U.S. government's objection, published classified intelligence info that could assist the nation's enemies???

nice work tom.

once again - nary a mention of those inside the admin who FURNISHED the information in the first place (about 20 or so sources so says the NYT and about a dozen, so says the LA TIMES).

you'd think everyone here would be happy to be living in china or russia (oh - except when it comes to GUN ownwership!)

JPL,

So you advocate the government telling the media what it should and shouldn't be printing?

"Oh, please, JPL, I'm sure you were well-versed on that piece of historical law well before you googled it this morning."

Don't be an ass, Shipley. Not everyone is as ignorant as you. I'm a lawyer with over 27 years' experience, including as a prosecutor. I've been closely following the national security leak stories and researching the relevant statutes for the past 3 years, ever since the Valerie Plame story appeared, again with the NY Times' outing of the NSA surveillance program last year, and most recently with the Times' outing of last week. Anyone who's done ANY basic research in this area is well aware of the Espionage Act of 1917.

"Yes, I was unaware of that law."

Obviously. Unfortunately, your ignorance has never stopped you from pretending to be an expert.

“Fact is though, that much of the Sedition Act was repealed….”

…which MIGHT mean something if the NY Times were to be charged under the Sedition Act. But it’s IRRELEVANT to Section 798 to the Espionage Act of 1917, which is STILL very much on the books.

“…and NYTimes v. Sullivan rendered most of what was left void…”

...which ALSO might mean something if the NY Times had libeled a public figure. (In Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that a newspaper can be forced to pay damages for libeling a public figure, but only if it printed the libel knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard as to its truthfulness.) But the case has NOTHING to do with whether a newspaper can publish classified intelligence information, nor anything to do with the Espionage Act.

“Also, the fact that not one administration since FDR has tried to prosecute the publishing of classified information under that law shows that there's a basic understanding that the press should have the right to publish classified information that is of public interest.”

Bullsh*t. What it shows is that no newspaper since FDR has been arrogant and stupid enough to violate the Espionage Act. Until Pinch Sulzberger came along, that is.

“IF it was shown that the publishing of the information caused harm to national security, MAYBE there would be a case.”

The problem here is that you can't possibly KNOW all of the government's evidence until trial. And I assume the government DOES have evidence showing damage to national security, or else it wouldn't be condemning the Times so publicly. And assuming the government has such evidence, it should indict the Times.

JPL,

Did you see this part of Hewitt's post?

"If it is a war -and it is-- and if the disclosures helped our enemies --and they did-- Congress should draft, debate and vote on resolutions condemning the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times by name.

The First Amendment protects the press in most of its operations and from almost all prior restraints on publication.

But not from deserved criticism from the genuine representatives of the people."

Even he admits that the law protects the NYTimes in this case. He's calling for what amounts to a censure, not prosecution.

As to the question of whether or not there's been a similar instance in US history, I'd have to research that, something I don't have time to do today.

"But the case has NOTHING to do with whether a newspaper can publish classified intelligence information, nor anything to do with the Espionage Act."

I have to go back and read this case, but the decision gave the press wide-ranging freedom in what they print. Again, I don't have time to do much checking into it now, perhaps tonight. But I do believe NYTimes v. Sullivan is relevant here.

"And I assume the government DOES have evidence showing damage to national security, or else it wouldn't be condemning the Times so publicly."

As I said before, the government had 3 weeks to persuade the Times not to print the story. They didn't say, if you print this, these operations will be comprimised. They didn't cite or say specific investigations would be comprimised. They spoke in general terms. Which leads me to believe they probably don't have any concrete evidence that caused much if any damage.

Again, please answer my question as to what specifically that was printed do you object to?

jpl - do the 20 or so inside sources have protection under the whistleblower act? what if the information disclosed has already been available in the public domain (as has been well documented)? would the government (particularly this administration) be willing to go to trial in the first place? would not the fear of exposing further activities that contravene the laws of the united states be reason enough for the AG to avoid such a trial?
why should media outlets be subject to a double standard when it comes to reporting government leaks from inside the administration?
just asking....

essentially what we have here are indivduals who advocate government censorship and control over the media. that is how I understand it. alarming...

"Even he [i.e., Hugh Hewitt] admits that the law protects the NYTimes in this case."

Read Hewitt AGAIN, Shipley, this time carefully. He's simply repeating the well-established principle that the law protects the press "from almost all prior restraints on publication." This simply means that the government is almost never entitled to ENJOIN a newspaper from publishing something IN THE FUTURE. Instead, the government usually has to allow the newspaper to publish first, and then to try to punish the newspaper for breaking the law LATER. After-the-fact punishment of a newspaper happens ALL THE TIME, particularly when a newspaper libels someone, violates someone's privacy, publishes an obscenity, or infringes someone's copyright, trademark or right of publicity. The post-publication punishment can take the form of civil damages (as in a libel case), an injunction against further publications (as in a copyright infringement case), or a criminal fine or jail (as in an obscenity case). Similarly, the after-the-fact punishment for publishing classified information can be either a criminal fine or jail.

So that's all Hewitt's saying here. His citing the rule against prior restraints has NOTHING to do with whether the Times has broken the law. He's only talking about whether prior restraint is available as a remedy, which it usually isn't.

But Pinch Sulzberger can be fined or sent to jail.

Looking at this... WOW... how is this country ever going to get back from the brink it's on if both sides of this divide can't agree on even THE FACTS.

Let's all play a game of "what we agree on."
I know... fantasy. Still, There must be some facts and truths in this story, yet no one can even agree to that. One side will quote this law and the other will say it's been repealed while the other side says that's not even the right law.

Bottomline, the NYT could be prosecuted if the gov't wanted it to. But the gov't won't because it's not interested in fueling that fire.

I'd LOVE to see a post on this site where ONE person who claims to be a liberal, when referring to themselves, they say "THEY", not me or we. Check their posts... all the "barneys, TEOs, etc," they speak as if they aren't a liberal or Democrat. If they aren't then what are they. They aren't interested in 100% truth, so the only answer is they are out to hate on Bush... regardless of what it is.

Grow fins: You missed my point entirely and my earlier post on this thread. NYT said they ran the article because it was the publics' right to know. I think you need to grow some new brain cells instead of fins ...

Tom and Bloviator: I'll check out those links and compare them to the NYT article. For now, I've gotta work.

"jpl - do the 20 or so inside sources have protection under the whistleblower act?"

Very doubtful, especially since the program outed by the Times last week was perfectly legal.

"what if the information disclosed has already been available in the public domain (as has been well documented)?"

It would depend on how much of the information had been previously disclosed, and how widely it had been previously published. So far you've failed to prove that the details were already public knowledge, though I will take a look at your links when I get a chance.

"would the government (particularly this administration) be willing to go to trial in the first place?"

Fear of exposing other classified information would be a good reason to avoid prosecuting the Times. (Indeed, that's exactly why FDR dissolved the grand jury that he'd called up to indict the Chicago Tribune during WWII.) But your assumption that the administration must be hiding other illegal conduct simply reveals your tertiary BDS.

"why should media outlets be subject to a double standard when it comes to reporting government leaks from inside the administration? just asking...."

You mean the double standard created by the U.S. Constitution itself, which says the President, and not the publisher of the NY Times, gets to decide which information is "classified" and when to declassify it?

Interesting how the administration feels free to release secret intelligence for political purposes, or whenever it wants to toot its horn to make you think they are making progress in the "WOT". Yet, if the NYT publishes the very same info, it's "treason!"

Bush: "We're tracking financial transactions to pursue the terra'ists!". Republican reaction: applaud now!

NYT: "They're tracking financial transactions to pursue the terrorists". Republican reaction: Treason! Bomb the NYT!

Face it - "National security" is important to the Bushicans only insofar as it is their most cherished political weapon.

Still, busbots, the underlying question remains: In what way did the publication of this story damage national security?

As has been demonstrated, the general concept AND the specific existence of this program have both been previously disclosed, including by the President himself. This story goes no further than to describe the program as one that searches the databases of nearly all the financial institutions in the world. Besides verifying what President Bush said before, what exactly did this reveal to terrorists?

We liberals await your learned response, busbots.

"lying bunch of scumbags" (in the words of another blogosphere pundit) about describes their actioms when presented with the following line of questions:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT REFUSING TO EXPLAIN WHY OFFICIALS DIDN'T URGE JOURNAL TO HOLD BANKING STORY.

I just got off the phone with a spokesperson for the Treasury Department, and she's refusing to explain why Treasury officials didn't demand that the Wall Street Journal hold off on publishing the story about the U.S.'s secret financial surveillance program, the way they demanded it of the New York Times and the L.A. Times.

This is interesting, because Tony Snow said today that the Treasury Department's press office could explain this. But now they're clamming up.

In this story from today's Editor and Publisher, reporter Joe Strupp wrote:

When asked why the administration had not asked the Wall Street Journal to hold off publication as it had with the other two papers, Snow said he did not know, referring such inquiries to Treasury Department Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tony Fratto. (Emphasis added.)

So -- what the heck? -- I called the Treasury Department's public affairs office. When told that Snow explicitly said that the Treasury Department could answer these questions, Treasury spokesperson Molly Millerwise nonetheless declined. Asked why no officials had urged the Journal to hold the story, she said: "I can't speak for what Tony said...I don't want to get into the particulars of any discussions."

This is key because the administration has apparently decided to focus all of its criticism on the New York Times for publishing the story, even though it appeared in the LA Times and the Journal, too. The question is, If publishing this story was such a danger to national security, as the administration is now claiming, why didn't they urge the Journal to hold off, too? There may be a valid explanation, but for now, neither Treasury nor the White House are saying.

--Greg Sargent

EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE NYT STORY IS THE LEAKER. THIS IS UNLAWFUL...IF IT IS NOT PUNISHED...GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WILL CONTINUE TO REVEAL CLASSIFED INFORMATION. DRAW THE LINE ON THIS BS...AND STOP IT NOW!

"Interesting how the administration feels free to release secret intelligence for political purposes, or whenever it wants to toot its horn to make you think they are making progress in the 'WOT'. Yet, if the NYT publishes the very same info, it's 'treason!'"

Congratulations, Aarontime, you're finally making progress in understanding how the world actually works! Yes, that's right, the U.S. Constitution gives the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and NOT the publisher of the NY Times, the power to decide which information is "classified" and whether, when and how to declassify it. I know you liberals don't like that, but that's just the way it's been for over 200 years.

It's kind of like the way government has the right to print money, but if YOU did it, you'd go to jail for counterfeiting. Which isn't a bad analogy for Pinch Sulzberger. He thinks he has the authority of the President of the U.S., but he's just a little counterfeit.

"Interesting how the administration feels free to release secret intelligence for political purposes, or whenever it wants to toot its horn to make you think they are making progress in the 'WOT'. Yet, if the NYT publishes the very same info, it's 'treason!'"

Congratulations, Aarontime, you're finally making progress in understanding how the world actually works! Yes, that's right, the U.S. Constitution gives the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and NOT the publisher of the NY Times, the power to decide which information is "classified" and whether, when and how to declassify it. I know you liberals don't like that, but that's just the way it's been for over 200 years.

It's kind of like the way government has the right to print money, but if YOU did it, you'd go to jail for counterfeiting. (Which isn't a bad analogy for Pinch Sulzberger. He thinks he has the authority of the President of the U.S., but he's just a little counterfeit.)

"once again - nary a mention of those inside the admin who FURNISHED the information in the first place (about 20 or so sources so says the NYT and about a dozen, so says the LA TIMES)."

Who wants to bet that those "sources" are all career bureaucrats and all Democrats with an axe to grind against the Bush Administration?

Any takers on that bet? I hope like hell they go after the leakers and they are HUNG from their balls.

Steve

Are you seriously this dense? If the thousands of overseas banks no longer wish to participate in this SWIFT program because of the outing of this program, how does that NOT hurt our national security?

We conservatives would like an answer on this please. Thank you kindly.

Fallout from the New York Times' treason which may damage America's national security has begun:

UK "Civil Liberties" Group Seeks to Block SWIFT

So you libs argue that what the NYT(and others) printed on their front page is no news, that everyone knew all about this money spying since Bush first spoke of it on national T.V. back in 2001, that there is absolutely no NEW information written or exposed to the citizens of the world. Right? Then let me ask you: why did the NYT drudge out something that is old news that everybody already knew about? Isn't that a waste of front page real estate space? Why write something that everybody knows in detail about? Why the redundency? On their front page no less. Hum??? You libs still want to use that argument?

Murtha responsible for urging Times to run story? Sure looks like it

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657424/posts

And here we have yet another wedge issue just in time for the midterm elections. First, demonize the press, in particular Bush's biggest critic, the NYT. Conflate news reporting with treason and giving aid to the terrorists. Try to enforce an antiquated law- The Espionage Act, which hasn't been used in how long? Next, conflate Democrats with the NYT---they haven't condemned the story as loudly, they haven't called for prosecuting the leakers, they may even be the leakers! Therefore the Democrats are guilty of treason and giving aid to terrorism just for promoting an atmosphere where a free press flourishes! The talk radio hosts and Republicans are falling all over each other to call for censure and revocation of access to the W.H. and Congress. Hatred of the NYT will galvanize the base at election time. You guys are soooo predictable.

Two famous radical lefties once said the following:

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter" Thomas Jefferson

"He who would sacrifice his liberty for security deserves neither" Ben Franklin
I have to agree with both of them!

Yep, kritter, with election prospects looking dire this fall, it's time for the GOP to trot out all their favorite strawmen, boogueymen, and faux "issues" to rile up the wingnut base: flag burning - oh my! Gays getting married - egads! NYT - mon deiu! Lots of brown people bagging groceries - ohhhhh noooooooooo!

Lions and tigers and bears - oh my!!

Be afraid, be very afraid! - the GOP will protect you!

You ask how this affects our national security?

Try this: Terrorists would be incapable of planning and executing any terrorist attacks, either here or abroad, if they had no financing. They need cash for purchasing weapons and explosive components, travel, flight lessons, bribes, etc. When we cut off their funds, they are impotent. Thanks to the NYT, they now know how we have been tracking their financing. We have been successful in disrupting terrorist attacks and capturing terrorists using this program. Now the terrorists will change their tactics for financing.

As SGT T.F. Boggs (USAR) wrote to Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, from Mosul:

"Your recent decision to publish information about a classified program intended to track the banking transactions of possible terrorists is not only detrimental to America but also to its fighting men and women overseas," Boggs wrote. "Terrorism happens here every day because there are rich men out there willing to support the . . . terrorist who plants bombs and shoots soldiers. . . . Without money, terrorism in Iraq would die because there would no longer be supplies for IED's, no mortars . . . and no motivation for people to abandon regular work in hopes of striking it rich after killing a soldier. Thank you for continually contributing to the deaths of my fellow soldiers."

And from LT Thomas Cotton, a Harvard Law School graduate who practiced law in Washington before becoming an infantry officer, from Baghdad:

The people trying to kill him and his men "require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs . . . You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here."

The blood of every US service member killed by a terrorist (insurgent, freedom-fighter, whatever you liberals want to call them) is on the hands of the NYT and all you liberal who defend them for committing treason.

By the way, those who gave the NYT the classified information need to be hunted down, arrested, tried, and if convicted, publically executed for treason.

Steiner -- You got a one-line response because I don't waste time responding to rambling, incoherent comments. Your new comment is marginally better, so I'll give you more than a one-liner this time:

"You take the liberty of defining national security yourself."

Nonsense. "National security" means the same thing to me that it means to all normal people -- i.e., the right not to be blown to bits by enemies of the U.S. like Mohammed Atta.

"Government monitoring of private transactions between private companies and private individuals is not national security."

What idiocy. If financial monitoring helps the government stop 9/11-type attacks in the early stages, then the monitoring definitely IS "national security." Only a fool would deny it.

"It is a violation of our civil rights, our right to privacy and diminishes our freedom."

More B.S. There IS NO "freedom" or "civil right" to keep bank transactions secret. U.S. banks have been required for years to report all transactions involving $10,000 or more to the government. The program that the Times exposed was set up to obtain similar information from foreign banks, on a purely voluntary basis. In no way did it violate anyone's "privacy."

"The opinion you quoted in Schenk v. US talks about utterances that will not be endured during time of war. It then lists specific types of utterances that won't be endured. Those utterances all refer to revealing military plans."

So what? The Supreme Court was simply giving examples of information that can be constitutionally subjected to PRIOR RESTRAINT. When it comes to troop movements or ship sailing dates in time of war, the Court suggested that the government doesn't have to wait until the newspaper has published the info to take action. But the New York Times case doesn't involve prior restraint. The fact that the Times didn't directly reveal "military plans" is therefore irrelevant. It's enough that the Times revealed details of a classified intelligence information-gathering operation IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. (It's interesting how you keep ignoring that fact.)

By the way, one of the specific laws the Times broke was Section 798 to the Espionage Act of 1917, which reads:

"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."

Note that this statute makes it a crime to publish "classified information...concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States," which is exactly what the Times has done.

"I will say again: A Western Union transaction is between a private company and a private individual, not involving the government or the military in any way. Do you see the difference?"

But the program that the New York Times exposed wasn't a private transaction; it was a classified government program set up to detect terrorist operations in the early stages. That program certainly DOES involve the military, or at the very least, national security, so your argument is just nonsense.

I will say again: You're not just an idiot, Stoner; you're a dangerous idiot, an idiot that could get me and thousands of others killed with your blinding Bush-hatred.