Its about time!! Go Peter..

Hey Peter you just as well add the alphabet networks to this list. They are just as guilty by reporting what the Times puts out.

The best possible thing to happen to the Times and the rest of the leftist media would be to get charged with a crime. I'm not saying it's not deserved, but I am saying they are begging for it. They want it to happen, desperately. They need to seem relevant again, and that would do it. The Kos Kids and all the anti-war freaks would protest for freedom of the press, buttons would start showing up on blogs, "Support the Free Press!" and even moderates would worry about the slippery slope and reluctantly sign on. Nothing would better solidify the "imperialist" Bush administration meme and the facts of the case would be lost in all the propaganda spewed out by the Times leftist fellow travelers.

Prosecute the crap out of the leakers, and absolutely shut the traitorous media out of everything they normally have access to. Treat the traitorous media like the most Insignificant Microbe of a blogger. Prosecuting them benefits them too much.

Prosecuting the NY Times is just what its owners and editors want. They could then relive the glory days of the Pentagon Papers, increase ciculation and rally the Left.

Besides, the Times has powerful allies in the MSM, Congress and the courts. Nothing untoward is going to happen to the Grey Lady---you can bank on it.

I agree with those calling relentless investigation, prosecution and punishment of ALL who contributed in any way to the NY Times...but not the NY Times. That IS what they want...do not give it to them.

But the morons who PROVIDED this information should do jail time...and that INCLUDES members of Congress if they are found to have been among the leakers (and my bet is that they WERE!)

Laura's right. That's what the MSM and moonbats want. Alternatively, put the reporters in jail until they cough up the names of the leakers then put the leakers away for a long stretch. Then let the reporters go free.

Otherwise, it's an lengthy First Amendment battle which will end in a likely MSM victory.

They deserve to be prosecuted. At the same time what if this IS a marketing ploy like the scratching post asserts?

Good link Jason. The Times ciculation #s seem to be going the way of the MSM in general. There shooting themselves in the foot and dont even see it.

If the Plame stuff was worth investigating and spending millions of dollars on, this is worth investigating.

I would rather see the people who are leaking the information charged, than the actual media, but at this point I wouldn't cry any tears if the media reporters found themselves behind bars.

WWFFD?

"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."

Who cares though. Really, we should listen to Kim. (Despite her history of terrible errors)

Does anyone at the New York Times, and other medias, as well as the duly elected officials in Washington, remember during the days of WWII the great saying "Loose lips sink ships"? Same holds true for troops fighting for freedom for others as well as for ourselves. The media should button their lips and cease being so nosey. The American public does not need to know everything or anything that is going on behind the scenes.

"The media should button their lips and cease being so nosey."

Hey Ginny, do you think the Constitution of the US should provide freedom for the press?

By 8AM Monday all reporters involved should be in front of a judge. If they refuse to identify the traitors that are providing the Top Secret Information lock them up on an open ended sentence. It they don't talk in 10 years they stay in prison if it becomes a life sentence that is their choice.
I see Specter is making the fact that he's also a traitor public.
What is going on in the Northeast? I think a chemical attack has already taken place on the water supply.
Murtha comes out and proves what everyone has been saying is true, he really is insane. Every know politician in the Northeast is showing the same 'insanity' traits. Just review the statements of the past week and you'll find Kennedy, Hanoi John, Dean, Specter, Clinton and a host of others showing the same level of insanity.

Time to remove these nuts from office, by force if necessary. They have set it up for hundreds of thousands to be killed in the U.S.
Do you really want to wait for the deaths to occur and then remove them?

Hey jp2, do you think the NYTimes should have printed the plans for the Normandy invasion before it happened?

Or is that protected 1st Amendment speech?

I detest Arlen Sphincter. >:-(

When this country is more concerned with the outing of a lowly CIA WMD analyst than it is with disclosure of programs that keep your children safe something is really screwed up.

Shouldn't the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal be charged as well?

If any newspaper or periodical, by false or misleading news causes any interference in the diplomatic action of the government ... or hurts the credit of the nation at home or abroad . . . and if the newspaper or periodical ... incites to crime or to class hatred ... or insults the nation, such newspapers shall be suppressed. From the decree enacted by Benito Mussolini in July 1924, establishing censorship of the press in Italy.

I hope other lawmakers follow Rep. King's lead and stand up to the New York Times and other newspapers who work to undermine our government's ability to protect us from terrorists. The editors of these newspapers must know that we will not tolerate their disclosing secret national security programs and operations, tipping our hand to our enemies, which puts the lives of our citizens, military personnel, and country at grave risk. Kim Priestrap.

The great historical tragedy was, of course, what constiitued information that could "hurt the credit of the nation". (Intentionally ambiguous language inserted by the Fascists btw, later covering... treason as well.)

You travel down a dark path my fellow Americans. Truly.

Our own great nation was founded in large part in reaction to the lack of freedom of the press in Europe at the time. Ever heard of John Peter Zenger? You should.

During the Civil War, both the Confederacy and the Union sought to prosecute journalists for printing information they felt was irroesponsible, and attempts by the War Department to suppress such stories went pretty much ignored. Such incidents have been addressed in the courts throughout our history. (The proper forum for such issues to be dealt with in a democracy.)

n 1931, the Supreme Court, in Near v. Minnesota, for the first time declared almost all forms of prior restraint to be unconstitutional.

In World War II the Office of Censorship, under the direction of Byron Price, expanded upon techniques developed by George Creel's Censorship Board of World War I. The new office supervised (1941-45) the most comprehensive censorship in U.S. history. Compliance was voluntary, however, and was based on the office's suggestion to editors on topics to avoid. Because Price and his assistants were respected journalists themselves, newspapers and journals cooperated. Similar cooperation was accorded to the Office of War Information, which controlled the flow of news from government agencies. As a result, the government rarely took punitive action.

Old Time Religion,

Like I said, going after the NY Times would be a waste of time and money and only increase the Times' circulation and prestige.

During WWII Amrican newspapers "voluntarily" withheld classified inofrmation, but then they actually supported the war effort and did not seek to subvert it.

Nice rhetorical trick, quoting Italian fascist censorship policies. Does Bush = Mussolini?

BTW, Lincoln did order the arrest of the publisher of the N Y World in 1864 for the publishing of a fraudulent Presidential decree.
He was subsequently released.

Normandy vs. the Bush administration going through private bank accounts? Do you really want to go there?

You don't HAVE to defend everything they do, do you?

Nice rhetorical trick, quoting Italian fascist censorship policies. Does Bush = Mussolini?

Um. No. I never said that nor do I believe it. Nice rhetorical trick? No trick to it. It's fact. And, the similarities are for everyone to see for themselves. Just because it's a hard truth doesn't mean it's a "trick".

A rhetorical trick would be, oh, something like this: "Does Bush = Mussolini?", since it was not implied, nor was it stated, but you slipped it in there anyway.

Again, for clarity: the two quotes were simply examples of similar thinking. That's all. And, ummm... the second quote was by Kim, not Bush, so how you actually make that HUGE jump in logic is pretty astounding actually. ANd, no, I'm not calling Kim a fascist either. The statements are remarkably similar though. That's all I'm saying.

Kim's remarks are merely words. Mussolini's were backed up with action. Therein lay the difference for those confused.

I'm a life long Republican who is simply more than a little tired of all the hate rhetoric that is not backed up by anything real. It's all nonsense.

So, when are we going to start locking up Liberals? Is that what it has come down to?

I'm old enough to remember a time when being a Conservative was like being a leper. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now when we do it to them.

It's extremist in the worst sense of the word.

Come on people! Look at that jump in logic that was just made with absolutely no basis for it.

I took a quote from a law enacted by the Fascists and compared it to one made by Kim and Smitty replies with: "Does Bush = Mussolini?" The quote was not by Bush, it was by Kim.

Does Kim = Bush?

Lord help us if this is the rational thinking that personifies the Conservative movement.

Let's just forget all about the fact that the law was broken. Move along, folks, nothing to see here...

Which law was broken? Can you cite it please?

mantis,

Yes, they should be as well.

The WSJ may be off the hook, at least as far as I'm concerned.

http://patterico.com/2006/06/25/4774/direct-your-anger-at-the-nyt-and-lat-not-the-wsj-for-leaking-classified-information-about-a-successful-anti-terror-program/

JP2 and OTR:

If these 2 ----what ever they are --believe what they are saying they got to be 2 of the dumbest %$^%^# on the planet. No one could be that dumb and be human.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Old Time Religion -

The NYT probably have immunity from prosecution under the First Amendment. Other special groups with legal immunity are foreign diplomats and the Kennedy family.

The leakers however, presumably holders of various classified document clearances, may be in trouble.

Espionage Act
June 15, 1917, ch. 30, 40 Stat. 217

Espionage and Sabotage Act of 1954
Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1261, 68 Stat. 1216
Short title, see 18 U.S.C. 2151 note

maybe Section 798 of Title 18, the so-called Comint statute

And UCMJ, if applicable

I'm sorry the google key on your keyboard is broken.

From Power Line:
(The Times and the Law)
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Subsection (b) defines the critical terms of the statute; suffice it to say that I believe they are clearly applicable to the conduct of the "nearly a dozen current and former govenment officials" who spoke to the Times. Their violation of the statute is a felony. Because their disclosures to the Times were illegal, these current and former government officials sought the promise of confidentiality from the Times to protect their identity.
[...]
Assuming that the terms of the statute apply to the leaks involved in the NSA story, has the Times itself violated the statute and committed a crime? The answer is clearly affirmative. The statute makes knowing and willful "publication" of the proscribed information a crime. Moreover, under the basic federal aiding and abetting statute -- 18 U.S.C. § 2 -- in willfully helping the leakers publish their disclosures, the Times is as culpable as they are and punishable as a principal.

Which raises the question: Does the First Amendment afford the Times immunity from criminal liability for its conduct? In New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)(the Pentagon Papers case), the Supreme Court held that it was presumptively unconstitutional for the government to restrain the publication of classified information. In separate opinions concurring with the order allowing the Times to continue publication of its Pentagon Papers stories, however, a majority of the justices clearly contemplated that the Times could be held responsible for any violation of the law involved in publishing the stories. For a scrupulous consideration of the Pentagon Papers case in this context, see Harvey Silverglate's Boston Phoenix article: "The Gray Lady in shadow."
-------------
Read the whole article, because this short clip from it is not a very clear explanation. It is however, enough to make it clear that just crying "First Amendment!" is not an ollee-ollee-oxen-free for the press.

The Power Line article was in relation to their previous violation, printing the NSA story, but it may also be applicable here. And even if it's not, we're still well within any statute of limitations for the first offense. At best, this new story just adds insult to injury. At worst, it's *yet another* crime.

The First Amendment does NOT give the press carte blanche to print anything it wants.

Newspapers do NOT have any 1st Amendment protections from prosecution of their violation of criminal laws.

If disclosing classified information in a letter is illegal, so is printing it in a newspaper. The state of the law from SCOTUS decisions protects the newspaper only from prior restraint of publication and/or confiscation of published copies.

That said, there is a practical immunity for those who break these laws. A criminal trial would likely bring even more secrets into the public view, further damaging national security, so even if they are slam-dunk provably guilty, they are not likely to be charged and prosecuted.

õ¿õ

Laura, 18 U.S.C. § 798 as written applies to the LEAKER/S, not specifically to the person who publishes the leak.

Read: Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information...

Read that first sentance closely: "Makes available to an unauthoriized person, or publishes..."

18 U.S.C. § 798 is written to apply to the LEAKERS. If you read the opinion on the Pentagon Papers case you cite, this is why, as you note: "the Supreme Court held that it was presumptively unconstitutional for the government to restrain the publication of classified information."

Jonah, I'm most aware of the both versions of the Sedition Act and Comint. Your condescencion is cute, but misplaced. Just because you just Googled it and discovered it, doesn't mean others haven't read them previously and understand them.

Both Sedition Acts and Comint were constructed to prosecute the LEAKERS.

We should be asking who in the Pentagon leaked classified information to the press.

Any sentient person will immediately understand though that an answer to that question will never be found.

Thus, the lemmings run toward the press.

I wonder why.

If disclosing classified information in a letter is illegal, so is printing it in a newspaper.

No. Not entirely correct. If a leaker writes the classified information in a letter, that is a crime. If that letter is then given to the press, it is not necessarily a crime.

And, here is the reason...

The state of the law from SCOTUS decisions protects the newspaper only from prior restraint of publication and/or confiscation of published copies.

Yes. Newspapers can not be restrained from printing information they believe is in the public interest, nor can that information be confiscated.

There is a line that is crossed. The same laws that protect the press when they publish photos of people and violate their privacy also protects the publication of information that may be classified.

Further though, as noted above already: Which raises the question: Does the First Amendment afford the Times immunity from criminal liability for its conduct? In New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)(the Pentagon Papers case), the Supreme Court held that it was presumptively unconstitutional for the government to restrain the publication of classified information. In separate opinions concurring with the order allowing the Times to continue publication of its Pentagon Papers stories, however, a majority of the justices clearly contemplated that the Times could be held responsible for any violation of the law involved in publishing the stories. Comtemplated. They did not rule, they contemplated it. WHich is an editoral statement actually.

Finally: This section is very important:

The term "classified information" means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The program revealed by the NY Times was not unknown. It had gone reported previously.

It's a slippery slope. It is illegal to disseminate classified information. Yes. But, if it gets to the press, and the governement knows it gets to the press, they can not restrain the press from publishing it. They have acknowledged that the crime lay with the person who LEAKED the classified information in the first place.

To expect any media outlet NOT to report information is just a joke. Turn down a story that EVERYONE will be talking about? Get real.

So, who leaked the information?

I feel the question will go unasked. And, for a reason.

Leaks serve the WHite House too. That much is fact.

I asked you first jp2 - simply answer the question.

Would you approve of the New York Times publishing the Normandy invasion plans?

>>>Normandy vs. the Bush administration going through private bank accounts? Do you really want to go there? You don't HAVE to defend everything they do, do you?
--Posted by: jp2 at June 25, 2006 07:44 PM

jp2 - No offense but seriously, are you borderline retarded? Exposing a national security program translates into death and a country made weaker by some "newsguys" decision about what he claims is the public's "right to know". I did not need to know this... But I'm glad the NYT is able to properly weigh national security against the need for a dig at an administration they disagree with.

Do you honestly feel t