Redstate

you're gonna love Tuesday's ..

NYT TUESDAY: FBI WATCHED PROTEST GROUPS, NEW FILES SHOW // Surveillance, intelligence-gathering operations involved groups active in environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief...

ACLU CHARGES: 'It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to NSA to the FBI, to engage in spying on Americans'...source: Drudge

But they are on our side, remember.

Dear lord, Bush needs to push to get these leakers behind bars. Until he gets serious these same punks will leak more and more crap to the anti Bush media sources. I can just see the Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer's and the same cast of liberal news shows hammering Bush the next few weeks. Hopefully Bush continues his proactive approach on this.

always gets away with anything

...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...

What strategy can the government use to proove that the U.S. has been harmed or that foreign powers have benefitted from the publishing this information?

Blogosphere conjecture is one thing, proving something in a court of law is another.

As not having to show actual harm but the potential for harm. That would be relatively easy. How many leaks of secrets to the NYT do we get before our allies become a little less open sharing their intel with us?

Back when people were calling for Robert Novak to be thrown in the slammer ovre Valerie Plame Wilson a friend made this distinction for me:  It's illegal for someone in the governement to leak the information, but the free press is allowed to publsh what it likes.  The reason being that the press has no responisibility under the law to keep secrets but those in government (especially those given security clearances) do bear that responsibility.  So the Times may walk and leakers at the CIA, NSA, etc. face penalties.  Unless there is some "whistleblower" exemption of which I am not aware.

Perhaps someone can recall how this discussion was resolved previuously?

Are you saying that the leak of any secret information to the Times constitutes a crime? Or are you saying that only the leak of potentially harmful secret information constitutes a crime?

If it's the former, then one only has to prove that it was secret. If it's the latter, then one has to convince the jury that the leak was harmful. I think that's a big difference to the people trying the case.

Going forward the government could start shutting down media outlets because they were providing information that was "potentially" harmful to the US.

About time we one upped the The Sedition Act.

That is recycled pap, and the ACLU is so extreme and so bereft of credibility on civil liberty issues that this is clearly just a diversion.

They know they acted as poltroons by outing the NSA program to wreck the Patriot Act, and just want a distraction.

There is also the question of whether you could point to a pattern of behavior over time. That would be pretty easy to do with the NYT.

It does specifically say classified information... so the bar is higher than that.

Nothing would should we are serious about our rights like incarcerating the publishers of the most reputable newspaper in the world.

You might want to read a little further.

Nick's not giving the full story when it comes to this.

To cut to the chase.  The Times is not necessarily in violation of any law by publishing this information.  As a matter of fact it is LIKELY that they aren't.

It's OK to leak the information as long as the White House does the leaking. ;-)

The NSA leak has a lot more potential to be classified as whistle blowing because of the current consensious that this is illegal ( IANAL, but even Fox is having a heard time comming up with a legal justification for these actions ).  

Either way it just seems like a mess and I egerly await more information from this Administration to justify these actions.  I don't want to jump to conclusions, but currently they have done a poor job of communicating their reasoning to subvert the FISA or change the law.

This leak is almost an exact copy of one that happened earlier with UBL himself. UBL used a satellite phone. Unbeknownst to him, we were listening in. And then the New York Times published the fact that we were intercepting his satellite phone. Well guess what? He stopped using that phone.

We lost track of UBL, we lost the ability to overhear his communications, and the next thing we knew the twin towers went down.

Showing harm from these kinds of leaks will be easy.

I like how you are pinning the blame of 9/11 on The New York Times. That takes a special kind of deceit.

The NYT is hardly as reputable as you would like to think.  

You seem to think it would be ok for high ranking officials to be arrested for sllegedly spilling secrets, why would this be any different.  If they broke the law by outing classified material, then they get what's coming to them.

Bet you though Sandy Berger was just keepin them documents he stole for birdcage liner huh?

You operate under an obvious double standard.

VW

When did the New York Times become a high ranking official?

As for Sandy Berger I realize that he destroyed the proof that Bill Clinton struck a deal with Osama Bin Laden but what can you do?

Showing harm from these kinds of leaks will be easy.

Are you saying your strategy would be establish that historically leaks of classified information have done harm, and from there establish that this leak has the potential to do harm as well?

Or are you saying that it is inevitable that this specific leak about warrantless searches will do harm, and we just have to sit back and wait for the harm to happen so we can have our trial?

I place the blame on UBL, who financed its planning and execution. But there is no question that we were in a good position to have caught it in time, except for an act by the New York Times that had the effect of warning him that his satellite phone was not secure. He clearly had not realized that fact prior to the leak by the most reputable newspaper on West 43rd Street.

administration Needs to have a policy inplace where all employees are encouraged with money and promotions to spy and snitch on all other employees. that way anyone who leaks is going to be discovered and then deal with the leakers harshly.

 Secondarily, it would be to the publics advantage to have all federal empoyees living in a state of constant fear.

"Conclusions" is about 50 stories down. There is no "consensious" (sic) unless you spent all day shoveling in the DKos Krap pile.

Look, if you want to say that the New York Times tipped off Bin Laden regarding cell phones, so be it.  Personally I have a hard time believing that since Tom Clany wrote a novel about this sort of thing over 10 years ago.  

But are you seriously suggesting that Bin Laden was in direct contact with the 9/11 crew?  That is VERY hard to accept.

Let's face it...the NYT is not on our side in the War on Terror...they are actively working to undermine our war effort.

This will only end when the public gets mad enough to demand from the news media an end to this madness of subjecting the US govt to endless handwringing over every decision during time of war.

We need to demand that the media outlets cease to allow the NYT to dictate the media agenda.  It's not like the NYT has such a sterling record these days, anyway.

The NYT is a friend of the terrorists, and not of the US.

rationalizing and equivicating for the Kowardly Left?

I laugh when I see this latest "revelation" from the NYT.

Notice how the NYT confuses issues...the surveillance without going through the FISA court, and vague "surveillence, intelligence gathering activities"...including those approved by the FISA court.

Notice how any surveillance of these groups may be due to the fact that terrorist groups often operate under a front of a charity or similar group...often a left wing group.  There are several so-called Muslim charities working for poverty relief that are nothing but fronts for terrorist activities and funding.  But, hey, the NYT expects terrorist groups to register with names like "Terrorists United" or "Money for Bombs"...

Cool idea.

But I wouldn't stop there. I think the government should go through a rebranding effort - much like a can of soda or a 4-door sedan - and cast itself in its new image.

For starters we could start by calling the new government:

The Kremlin

and it's obviously doubtful you could get by the LSAT, much less basic rules of statutory interpretation Nick.  Try reading the rest of the statute as flyerhawk suggests first.  Then apply the rule that statutes must be narrowly construed so as to not create constitutional problems (here, the first amendment issue of freedom of the press comes into play) and you'll see there's....hmmm...oh yeah...ZERO chance the NY times committed any sort of crime.  Your hysterics are absurd to the nth degree.

I think we should start calling the liberal media and in particular, the NYT, "Pravda."

I shiver about the Dems and their allies in the liberal media, which functions as an arm of the DNC, actually having the potential to tie us up and hinder our efforts to actually prevent another terrorist attack.

9-11 happened because Clinton was asleep at the wheel of national security for 8 years; if the Dems have their way, they will so tie our hands in the War on Terror that we will suffer far worse than another 9-11.

Any terrorist already knows there is a chance we are listening in to a conversation. Now all they know is that we may be doing it without a warrant. How does this compromise us in any way? How is this helping our enemies?

The leaker(s) to the NYT should be prosecuted; whether the NYT should be is another story.

Either way, the NYT is no friend of the USA in the War on Terror.

end to this madness of subjecting the US govt to endless handwringing

The public is taking care of that gradually by turning away from news businesses that act like that. The NYT's stock is down 45% over the last year, in an up market. So "Pinch" has paid dearly for his political activism. But that's for the public to decide, through the market.

Releasing classified information that is helpful to an enemy is something else entirely. Government does have a role in prosecuting that kind of behavior.

endless handwringing over every decision during time of war

"Every decision"? "Endless handwringing"? Some people find the lack of warrants to snoop on people to be profoundly disturbing. Also, if this policy is really no big deal, why are so many (on the right as well as on the left) so upset about it?

And as for your "demand" that the media outlets cease anything, we have a free press in this country. If you don't like their coverage, don't buy their paper and buy another. But we must never live in a country where people can force a press institution to do anything.

This story is hugely detrimental to the US in the War on Terror.

How So?  Well, let's keep in mind that the terrorists so far have been pretty sophisticated in studying our society and how it operates.  What if they assume that they wouldn't be spied on without a warrant, and that this gave them a window of opportunity in timing?  Now they know this not to be so...they need to ever more elusive and fast moving.

Of course, we aren't in the world of terrorists and spying and such, so we really can't conceive of the damage this has done.  Just like prior to 9-11, we couldn't conceive of the damage done to our national security through the Gorelick wall and other nonsense of the Clinton administration.

Yes, this is pretty much what I've been looking for for some time here.  Everyone here has been asking if what Bush did was legal, or if what the NYTimes did was legal.  I say that those questions will be answered by people who a) know more about law and  b) know more about the case than any of us here do.  What I want to know is (at least for the purposes of this discussion), was what the NYTimes did right?

The argument to prove that it was wrong must be centered around showing that they provided aid to the enemy, made the GWOT harder, something like that.  And, simply put, I don't see how this could go.  Terrorists now know that they can be monitored (or whatever) without a warrant.  How could that help them if they don't know if there's a warrant on them or not yet?

(PS: this is my first post.  Go easy on me.)

"Notice how any surveillance of these groups may be due to the fact that terrorist groups often operate under a front of a charity or similar group...often a left wing group.  There are several so-called Muslim charities working for poverty relief that are nothing but fronts for terrorist activities and funding."

I hear there are lots of Islamofascists running around in the "Catholic Workers group".

Seems like Abdul the Muslim would fit right in with the "Catholic Workers" group.

Better monitor those cats just to be safe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html

nonsense and you know it's nonsense. But it's more nonsense --- conicidentally their timing is perfect no :-)

I suppose they've had this in the can for a year too and it just became 'ripe.'

I don't find this spying to be disturbing at all; in fact, I find it to be reassuring that our govt is active in the War on Terror.  I'd be disappointed if the govt were doing this.

It's not like they've done this to ordinary Americans; they're doing this to people with known connections to Al Qaeda.  I don't mind that at all.

I'd rather have a govt aggressive in going after the terrorists, than one that is passive like Clinton was.

You'll have to say more about this "window of opportuninty in timing."  

Let's say you're a terrorist.  You don't know if there's a warrant out for you or not.  Case A: You know that the US will not spy on you without a warrant.  Case B: You know that the US might spy on you without a warrant.

What's different?  What can alter the timing of your actions?  

and you'd see that if the terrorists were as smart as you give them credit for (in knowing about our society) then they'd see that the FISA statute allows for searches without warrants in timeframe emergency situations.  Unfortunately, Bush didn't do the other half where you have to get retroactive approval for it.  So no, this doesn't harm at all, because Bush can still do the warrantless searches, it would just be nice if he went with the law and got a retroactive warrant like he's supposed to.

of weeks and lose his moral compass but he could past the LSAT. Just because you call yourself the "Press" doesn't absolve you of criminal acts. The NYT long ago lost any allegiance to the ideals of this Country and while it will not be prosecuted it should be derided for the scum bag it has become.

retroactive approval changes anything. The bell has been rung.

It seems you either go suddenly like nobody even knew you were dying and you're just gone.

Or you can be sick for a really long time and your friends watch you wither and as time goes on you get sicker and sicker.

Seems the Old Grey Lady is going the way of the latter. It has gotten to the point that if it is in the New York times it is dubious, not truthful.

Was to get the Iraqi elections off the front page and fast!

The elctions are an unmitigated success of the Bush policy and the Bush doctrine.

There is no way a self respecting part of the defeaticrat machine is going to allow for a full exploration of the implications of yet another piece of evidence that Pres. Bush has been right.

After all, these are the same MSM 'journalists' who support but 'false but true'.

The NYT does not care about terror attacks, does not care about national security, and certainly does not care if a bucnh of deluded Americans are off helping Ayrabs play at being civilized.

The only thing that counts for the defeaticrats is that they can declare this war a failure and that any action they take making that failure happen is justified.

The NYT did wrong regardless of the legality. GWB did right regardless of the legality. This is the problem with liberals. They have no core values so they can't tell wrong from right.

and that something is whether or not you followed the law or not.  If you do it one way, you obey the law; if you do it the other, you don't.  If the statute didn't require the retroactive warrant, then there wouldn't be anything to discuss (except maybe whether the statute was unconstitutional on its face, but that's another matter).  That obeying the law thing must get pesky when you're president though...

First, this latest revelation has nothing to do with the spying without warrants issue...but the NYT hopes that readers confuse the two.

Second, this is really nothing new...this story in other forms has been out there, and in fact, the documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act.  Hardly keeping it secret.

Third, esp. after 9-11, there was reason to suspect all types of groups, including those engaging in overt acts of "civil disobedience."  Let's face it...some of these left wing groups do have ties to some rather suspicious organizations...and terrorists could certainly piggyback on these demonstrations of "civil disobedience" to create havoc and destruction.  It's no different than what the Dems did at their DNC Convention in Boston where they kept demonstrators far away from the convention, and in a heavily secured area some referred to as a "cage."

After 9-11, it was only natural to have a very strong reaction and approach homeland security with a very strict eye.  I'd rather be too strict than too lax and have another attack.

apparently abraham lincoln and Leon both lack moral compass as they are/were attorneys, which is what you clearly insinuate.  That comment pretty much reveals everything I need to know about your worldview and views of anyone who goes to school to better themselves (like Leon, whose analysis on the statute today was pretty decent, even if I ultimately disagree with his conclusions).

You are exactly correct...this was a timed hit piece on Bush designed to take public attention off of the success in Iraq.

If things had been a disaster, do you think the NYT would have run the story, or saved it for when things were going better for Bush?  Remember their bogus story on election eve last year with the missing explosives in Iraq?

I really hope the NYT goes bankrupt.

All this talk over retroactive approval of surveillance is a joke.  

First, you have 72 hours to do so.  If you read Byron York's piece in National Review, you'd get a hint of the bureacratic hurdles in filing this in 72 hours time.  Does anyone really think that there is any bureacratic mechanism in American Govt that allows for a super quick reaction to terrorists?

It's damn hard to jump through all of the bureacratic hoops in 72 hours.

You can think of me as one of those liberals who strongly believe that there is a right and wrong; I think you'll find that most who profess to believe in moral relativism will retract any interesting form of relativism once you press them, but that's another issue.

So, yeah, let's put legality aside; the chips will fall there based on the law and the skill of lawyers.  Where are those moral arguments you alluded to?

a right and a wrong, they just have no clue how to tell them apart.

The NYT has to be Osama bin Laden's best friend in the War on Terror.

The terrorists can only win, well, by terrorizing and breaking the will of those they fight...namely, us.

And who is leading the charge in this country to defeat our will to fight the War on Terror?  The NYT.  If they had their way, we wouldn't even fight the War on Terror...we wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan, we wouldn't be engaged in the Middle East in Iraq, we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, we wouldn't be doing anything differently from what Bill Clinton did during his 8 years, which led to 9-11.  That's the NYT for you...they don't want us to fight...period.  Of course, they'd deny that, but mention anything we do to actually and tangibly fight the War on Terror, and they are steadfast against it.

obeying the law is hard so we're just not gonna do it argument?  Sorry, not buying

that first year hard part is already over

it's obviously doubtful you could get by the LSAT, much less basic rules of statutory interpretation

That would sort of depend on whether I was trying to pass an LSAT. What I was trying to do here was get people to talk about frog marching the New York Times. You're just sore that we're not talking about impeaching Bush anymore.

Try reading the rest of the statute as flyerhawk suggests first. Then apply the rule that statutes must be narrowly construed

Nyaa, you do it and explain it to me. It's time for you guys to do some work. I'm merely pointing out that the New York Times broke the law here and they need to be frog marched for it.

Your hysterics are absurd to the nth degree.

Opinion are like Democrats. Yours and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. One of the reporters on this story has a book coming out on this subject. He stands to profit personally from releasing this classified information. Freedom of the press? I think not. Does the Times have a deal to serialize all or parts of this book in its pages? I don't know, but I think we need to find out. Maybe they had a pecuniary interest in releasing classified information too. More freedom of the press? You try to sell it. I don't think you can.

Just to explain a couple of key terms for those of you who have never dealt with classified government information and who have not bothered to do your homework before sounding off, I provide this excerpt from an Information Classification White Paper produced by DoD. (Read it yourself at http://iase.disa.mil/information-classification-whitepaper.doc ).

(Emphasis added)

"2. CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Classified information shall be classified at one of the following three levels: Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret.  Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify classified information.  

(skip)

2.1 CONFIDENTIAL

Confidential shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.

2.2 SECRET

Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.

2.3 TOP SECRET

Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."

The question is not whether "one has to convince the jury that the leak was harmful". By definition, classified information causes harm if disclosed. The question is how much harm? Based on past experience, I would say that the existence of and details about this program are probably classified at the TOP SECRET level.  I do not recall ever seeing a document that could be useful to an enemy in discovering information about specific US data collection techniques that was not classified at that level. Sanitized output reports are sometimes classified at a lower level, so that necessary warnings can be communicated to operational folks with lesser clearances, but they do not contain any details that could betray an active human or technical intelligence program.

My surmise is then, that by definition, the leaking of this information to the NYT "reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security". And for that, I hope they fry the individuals who knowingly violated their clearance.

to actually go through with the bet, I bet that not only could I sell it, but I could even sell it to J. Scalia.  Arguing pecuniary interest is a foolish line of attack as papers by their nature have a pecuniary interest in releasing ALL their information, and that is irrelevant to any point.  The press is about releasing information, their intent (short of provable intent to undermine the U.S. government) is pretty much near irrelevant.

see nos. 1 and 4 in link

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/16/22446/549/13#13

and then I guess you could add

bush - wrong

opposite of bush - right

tbone - listening to these libs on war makes me less in awe of Hitler and napoleans's conquests of the lib countries of Europe. I mean I think a beer gut mens softball team could win a war against the lib weenies.

There is a good blog award out there for a blogger to pair up NYT false claims - the museum bs after the fall of Baghdad, the explsoives lie prior to the election, now the NSA.

What other false stories ahs the NYT ran up the flag pole as hit pieces on our President and this war?

Abu Ghraib as reported by the NYT - the idea that it was a general policy and frequently happened was totally false.

The abuse at gitmo - totally false.

The secret prisons appears to be false.

Of course Katrina was falsely reported to keep African Americans on the democrat plantation.

The list is actually papearing to be pretty long.

This is food for a lot of thought.

existence of and details about this program are probably classified at the TOP SECRET level

What?  The program is "they are wiretapping communications"  This is top secret? What child doesn't know about wiretapping? Anyone who watches a mob movie for 10 minutes know that the government can/will listen in to conversations in an attempt to stop crime and terrorism.  So that was no secret to anyone.

So we're back to the warrants. The only thing revealed was that Bush specifically authorized no warrants for some searches.  So what exactly in the "existence of and details about this program" was top secret?

If you try to hijack my thread about frog marching the New York Times into yet another thread about impeaching Bush, I shall boot you to the Moon.

your moral compass. Glad to hear it was hard. At least you must of had one. Seriously, Leon and Thomas know that's part my lawyer gigging sctick. I knew you were a law student type and it should work, so don't take offense about that. On the other hand, you are totally knicker knotted about the rest of it. PS second year is easier, it's mostly about bill padding.

we can't let the real story creep into Nick Danger's absurd misdirection play of "SLAY THE NYT!"  I'll quit with this issue here, but good luck getting any of the MSM, even Foxnews, to pick up on the nonsense in this thread.

I just love it.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/16/22446/549/5#5

to some of your old posts, I realize that I jumped the gun on that one.  I enjoy a spirited debate though, hence my desire to tangle.  Anyway, if I can just get through environ. law in a couple days, I'll be doing a lot better (and some post exam jack daniels always helps).

Well, now we've got them dead-to-rights leaking classified information. I want to see the Justice Department go after these guys. I'd send a hundred FBI agents in there tomorrow to take the place apart trying to find out who leaked this stuff to them.

Flora, fauna good. People bad.

Frog march the entire political staff of the Times to a federal court house right now.  They don't deserve a trial.  The whole idea that they should be able to mount a vigorous defense is pre-911 thinking of the worst sort.  Throw them all in jail.  They are traitors who deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison.  Maybe send them to Gitmo instead.  I am enraged that they had the gall to leak these secrets.  We are at war, on two fronts -- GWOT and TWOC -- and they have undermined serverly, irreparably.  They are not patriots, they are barely Americans.

that way everyone can win

is why journalists, lawyers and used car salesmen are held in such high regard ...

That the legacy media has a different agenda is not a new finding.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling,(make that leaking in this version), is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]"

...of how this leak is "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"?  

I've been looking for an answer to this for some time, and all i've found is snark.

Don't believe in a free press, do you? Or do you think that this shocking publication (that the government is wiretapping) doesn't deserve the protection of the first amendment?

Methinks the timing of the article was when the Senate would approve the Patriot Act revision.  That makes much more sense - they made a big splash just before the vote.

I think the fact that it came out after the Iraq election was coincidence.  

And the fact that it came out 10 days before Risen's book is published is a bonus for both the NYT and Risen.  It will be interesting to see what other claims Risen has, and if the NYT publishes them also.  This may be only the first of many claims about Bush, the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.

Terrorists might think they're in the clear if they think a warrant is necessary?  

Good grief.

If they were such students of American law, then they'd know that any warrant could be issued retroactively and that they're extremely unlikely to get a heads up warning from the NSA saying "hey, we're spying on you."

Though I must say it's delightful all this sputtering and spewing about the NYT.  I thought you guys liked the NYT what with all that feel-good stuff about Chalabi and WMD.  

Must have been a May-December thing.

you'll like.

More snark

Guess what's in your stocking?

Oh, you don't suppose the government was evesdropping in an attempt to learn new coordinates for the war on christmas, do you?  How devious.

Especially since others have been asking and debating the same question on this and other threads with no clear answer.

You can try to declare it "stupid" but that doesn't explain anything.

I hope you are only a conservative trying (a la devil's advocate) to defend the US Consitution.  But, alas, I fear you are a misguided liberal. Free press is one thing, intentionally pulling this stunt right around the time of the elections and GWBs speeches is another.  It smacks of childish whining... sneaky passive aggressiveness.

I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal.

wThe original poster called for the entire political staff of the NYT to be jailed for this article.  I then asked if he a) did not believe in a free press or b) if he did, did he think this article did not deserve those protections? What's your take on his post?

Assuming your post to be true: "childish whining... sneaky passive aggressiveness. " You call it a "stunt" etc.  Fine. Label it, denigrate it, disagree with it all you want.  My question is, "Does the first amendment protect them?" Yes or No?

If you are going to condemn the NYT for this, then you must also Condemn Bob Novak for leaking Plame's name and identity as a CSA agent.

Make no mistake, if you do not think that these spy tactics on Americans are way over the top and a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment and the built-in checks and balances of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of The Land, then you are no conservative!  "Conservative" used to mean that you were for limited government, and this is very quickly spiraling out of control into an Executive branch that is limited only by the brashness of its own agenda, Constitution be damned.  This is not what I voted for!

which part is "stupid"?

and will anyone actually answer the question?

Now you're talking!

But don't stop there. We should also pass laws that authorize arresting all Democrats, and imprisoning them for crimes against the throne!

That will place about 50% of the population in prison and immediately solve all the Bolshevik entitlement programs!

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one, so once we have our Kremlin government and Pravda media, we definitely will need to change the title of President to Tsar! And speaking out against the "Tsar" will be akin to acting against the "throne" - an imprisonable offense.

"Thought", I think we're getting somewhere! Keep the ideas coming!

Hear hear. About time someone else said this.

My father was in Army Intelligence. Before that, his father was in the OSS. These men had a clear and consistent sense of patriotism, of duty, and of abiding the law. Even with what stakes they faced in a greater, clearer conflict; they at all times taught me that adherence to the law is noneogtiable. If you cannot finnd a way to achieve your aims within in a position of power, you violate the sanctitiy and responsibilty people have put in your care.

Moral relativism can be appreciated; the discourse in our country which all too easily falls into high pitched shrieking extremism on both sides negates any attempts to truly observe what's going on with any complexity. I'd like for most liberals to try and get their heads around Thermopylae, the story recounted by Herodotus in his Histories.

I'd also like for my conservative brethren to pull their heads out of their rears and stop thinking that loyalty to a poltiical party is the same thing as having Conservative values. Maybe you all ought to read Julius Caesar.

Conservative values to me mean fiscal responsibility, clear moral values, a sense of justice and fairness, the quashing of any attempt to violate or censure a free press (one of the absolute fundementals this country was conceived under and the very thing we're supposed to be fighting for in Iraq), and respectfulness of Americans rights to bear arms and their privacy.

I also, as a Conservative, believe in the entrepreneurial spirit as exemplified by all Americans who work hard fairly to get ahead with their own businesses. That's not the same thing as having a company like Enron and the culture that followed in the wake of senior citizen abusing dorks who ran that shop.

Bush is definitely the CEO president. Power grabs, doublespeak, and an absolute display of dishonesty combined with arrogance and disconnection. I have never in all my life seen a president who seems so out of touch with what's going on, and I mean that from the bottom of my Montana raised heart. The news in the past few days has disgusted me to the point of not wanting to be silent any more.

I am a proud Conservative, who ignores all the specious ranting on cable news and looks at things as they are. Our country is in bad shape. Our deficit is collosal. Our army is weakened and stretched thin. Many of these soldiers coming home are not happy nor are they well looked after in the combat zones, which you can squarely blame on the Democrats but that doesn't fix the problem.

And with all of Bush's constant woe and lying now we have a public starting to turn against our Conservative majority and starting to think that yes, a pullout and troop reduction is in order.

We have no choice but to commit to Iraq now until it is over. But again, the liberals will not read Herodotus, and most of my fellow Americans who think alike are all so busy happy that Republicans are in power they haven't stopped to think about the corrupt, bloated sellouts those people are.

"after 9-11, there was reason to suspect all types of groups, including those engaging in overt acts of "civil disobedience.""

So, does that mean the federal government should have been monitoring pro-life protestors? Pro death penalty protestors? How about anti-immigration protestors? Should the FBI have been monitoring all the groups protesting on behalf of Terri Schiavo?

Or are we just talking about all groups engaging in overt liberal acts of "civil disobedience"?

And I'll just say this again because I find it hysterical:

"Catholic Workers group"?

Anyone want to defend the FBI monitoring these guys on the grounds that terrorists may have infiltrated them?

Catholic. Workers. Group.

Thought, can you confirm how many FISA warrant applications were unsuccessful over the past 10 years?

I'm hearing it's an exceedingly low number, but am wondering if you came across any hard data about how restrictive the bureaucratic hurdles are.

Maybe Byron York referenced in the article you mention. I don't have a link to his article, however.

Any data on the number of warrant applications that were rejected?

Catholic. Workers. Group. is supposedly being monitored, but there is a radical and virulently anti-American left wing of the Catholic church.

Maryknoll. Fathers. for. example.

And does any "shield" law protect the identity of leaker(s) who knowingly violated the law by disclosing highly classified information?

yes it does, but just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.  It takes some self-discipline and discretion to be mature and moral.  Yes, they had a right to print it.  No, they had a moral duty to protect this country and they knew that doing this was another in a long string of left-engineered stunts designed to embarrass this nation, divide this nation, and ultimately, endanger this nation.

This is RED STATE, not Kos or some Howard Dean fan site.  This is a site that is specifically for conservative ideas.  As you have shown in your posting, you have a very liberal view.  Stop trying to be an agitator and go to some left wing website and be with your own.

The NYT is an advocacy organization, they care nothing about the factual news, and they have an agenda that they push in their news stories as well as their editorials.

It's rare that I see a comment that so perfectly mirrors my own here.  All too often it is just the partisan screaming that fills the ears rather than dialogue.  Even though I've been here almost from the very beginning I very rarely post because any dissent here is seen as treason.  This thread is a perfect example.  It seems my party is leaving me.  Thanks for giving me hope that the process is not yet complete.

It does not protect speech that is seditious, for example. This particular bit of speech did exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. I would prefer that this speech be punished under law, with due process. That's because, if the New York Times doesn't knock it off, and continues to pretend that they are above the law with respect to classified information, they will end up getting some of our troops to think in terms of street justice. It would be very easy, for example, for a bureau reporter in Baghdad to be taken under fire, especially if he's meeting with known militants. "Accidents" and "unfortunate events" happen in war.

...but how is what going on unreasonable?  I'm re-reading the original New York Times article and it states clearly that "the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages" and that the agency "still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications."  The monitoring seems to be based on information from the captured computers and cell phones of terrorists.  The phone numbers and email addresses may be that of people in the US, and the quicker that person is captured, the better it is for all of us.

The 4th Amendment denies the government can do unreasonable search and seizures, but I don't see that here.  The timeframe with regards to how quickly information can be lost is very, very small, especially with the technology available, and a delay can lead to disaster, maybe even another 9/11.  The NYT piece states that the judge of the FISA court, Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, said the NSA material could not be used in seeking warrants.  So what we have here is a judge that could possibly be hindering the efforts to stop potential acts terrorism in the US, while we are at war (for some unknown reason not presented in the article).  

The President's Constitutional Article II, Section 2 authority as Commander-in-Chief requires him/her to act accordingly, especially during wartime.  Had information gathered with this method not allowed to be used and another major terrorist attack occurred, the people would be screaming for Bush's head, and rightly so.

With deference to the comment about the OSS and WWII, the times and technologies are much different and more advanced than they were then.  As an example, when a Nazi agent would enter this country, he was, for all intents and purposes, on his own to complete his missions.  If he was suspected of anything, the time needed to get all the appropriate warrants would not have significantly hindered the efforts of authorities in tracking down and arresting the agent.  That isn't the case today.  An entire operation, including command and control, can be communicated from thousands of miles away and with an ability unheard of in WWII.  Time is of the essence, especially during wartime.  Instead of referencing Julius Caesar, a more appropriate read would be Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

The reason you rarely post here, you flippin' drama queen, is that you are trolling for the libs, and doing a really bad job of it. Seminar posters using liberal talking points are easy to recognize.

As for spas12, having a macho-he-man screen name doesn't improve your trolling skills.

Nothing would should we are serious about our rights like incarcerating the publishers of the most reputable newspaper in the world.

To paraphrase Denis Leary, I have two words for you:

JAYSON *&^%$#@! BLAIR!

should have been shut down as a Soviet front in the 1980s or earlier. It was really active in funneling money to the Sandinistas, the commie guerillas in El Salvador, and with CISPES in the US.

I don't know what it's done lately but I certainly don't have any objection to it being watched.

...has engaged in sabotage of US strategic weapons systems, among other things.

They also headed up the Sanctuary movement, which has helped give us our massive illegal alien problem by getting local governments to cease LE cooperation with immigration officers.

As a Catholic, I can only view the Catholic Worker movement as being engaged in constructive treason.

"Anyone want to defend the FBI monitoring these guys on the grounds that terrorists may have infiltrated them?"

Yes. The "Catholic Workers Group" is a hard-core, anti-American, Marxist organization that uses the Catholic Church to provide a figleaf of respectability for their sabotage of American defense systems, espionage on behalf of hostile powers, smuggling of illegal immigrants of unknown provenance, and generally behaving in a fashion that should be rewarded by having them dance Danny Deever.

"The first amendment does not protect all speech/"

Thank you.  That was my point, not that "I don't believe in a free press" -- I do -- or that I'm a "misguided liberal" -- I'm not.  What the Times did is simply not protected by the the First Amendment.  End of story.

They list among their favored affiliations a link to the International Action Center. And, of course, they're still doing their standard School of the Americas screeching.

Nuff said.

Balfour should take a closer look at them -- he might be interested in joining up.

How is what the administration is doing different than what Argentina and Chile did in the 70s?  They were under the threat of internal terrorism and they  took action.

How is what the administration is doing different than what Argentina and Chile did in the 70s?

We're not executing hundreds of people without due process of law because we dislike their politics, for starters...

We have no objection when the FBI monitors the Klan.  We don't object when they monitor the various separatist militia movements.  We don't object when they monitor suspected mafioso.

So why should we object when they monitor groups with dubious reputations, histories of bad behavior and odd allegiances?

Ass poohbah and others have said, the Catholic Workers Group is neither affiliated with the Catholic Church or actually for real workers.  So they are a Group with good naming concepts.  Why should they be sacrosanct from observation in your mind?

Some people don't like that sort of thing.

...is good for the old gray goose.    

I like how you are pinning the blame of 9/11 on The New York Times. That takes a special kind of deceit.

Oh, spare me.  Nick is pointing out the risk of the media compromising sources and methods.

I work in the intelligence community.  Once a source for information is gone, we may never get it back.  EVER!!!  The bad guys may switch to a means of communication we can't crack.  The HUMINT source feeding us the info might disappear.  His friends, seeing him disappear and not wanting to be next on the list, choose not to talk to us.

If the NYT compromised some critical intelligence sources, which then went away--and those sources might have given us info that could have stopped 9/11--then, that would be a bad thing, wouldn't it?  I'd gladly seen the NYT staff lose a few Pulitzers and Peabodys, if it meant we could have kept the Twin Towers and the, oh, three thousand people who were in them.  But HEY...that's just me.

Flippant thinking of the kind displayed in your quote (italicized above) shows a special kind of lazy and unrealistic thinking.

Fortunately, the American voters have removed those who are driven by such thinking (Democrats) from power.  We are much safer for it.

The Argentine government considered them terrorists, remember? There is no due process of law when dealing with terrorists.

loser.

I've been known to have blackouts at times in my life but I'm real sure I haven't had one in a decade or so. When did we have the coup? Who are the generals on the junta?

Just joking.

You've been previously warned by another editor for content-free posts. This continues that tradition. Find other people to bother.

He's alright,for the most part.  He's not like most of the lefties that come here with their little GoodWillHunting Talking-Point-O-Matic diatribes.  Yes, he quibbles a bit, and he likes to whittle his points down as he goes, but he will engage you in constructive conversation if you are willing.

can call for desperate measures.

the most reputable after Weekly World News.

...is a little different from "this specific leak", so I'd go with your first option.

I don't know when your Grandfather or your father served, however I believe that you would find that they would be just as appalled at this leak as most reasonably minded people are, especially as applied in their work frame.

It is quite clear that most average liberals do not work for the government otherwise you would be screaming all the more about your privacy being violated.  In today's world if you work for the government you do not have the expectation of privacy while using a government computer on a government network.  Everything including email, chat, netsurfing, documents, keystrokes et al are monitored and/or recorded.  This makes it easier to catch the bad guys and anyone serious about working for the government has no problem with this.

I am sure most liberals would be as surprised to find out that the corporation they work for has similar measures in place.  

The above fact makes it all the more irritating when Democratic or Republican Representatives and Senators scream about rights to privacy and protection for our nations enemies.

Anyone who has truly looked not only into the NYT article but also into the many related stories can see that the spying was not conducted on the Average American Citizen, so the righteous indignation is bull.

The fantasy of your oppression really quickens the pulse, eh?

Balfour, take a walk.

I'm with Poohbah. Taking Orders does not exempt one from prosecution for treason.

...and obviously a member of the Technicality-Based Community.  He can tell us all day long why the NYT technically did nothing wrong and should not be punished.  He could probably make a pretty good case for OJ and Robert Blake, too.  Let's see how this plays out in November 2006.

They are doing their job.  They are letting the people know what they find out.  It's their job.  And judging by the level of anger, they must be doing it well.  Here's a little secret, don't want the world to know about your top secret programs?  Don't tell the press about them.

If you do tell them, don't be so amazed they printed it.  It's the people with clearance that are charged with keeping quite, not the free press.

Now there's a remake of A Christmas Carol I'd love to see: Bush as Scrooge, Nixon as Marley, Reagan as the Ghost of Christmas Past, FDR as the Ghost of Christmas Present, Lincoln as the Ghost of Christmas yet to come.  I'll get back to you on Cratchett and Tiny Tim: I'm having difficulty coming up with non-mocking choices.

I know, I know, I shouldn't be doing their work for them - but is it too much to ask that if we must get agitprop from the Other Side that it at least be interesting?  If nothing else, it'd stop my rampaging italicizing...

Provided that we also get to witness the frog-marching of a contingent of CIA-employed traitors as well.  You know, the ones leaking classified information to the press?

Hang 'em all high.

Is the FBI monitoring and wiretappping the Klan without a warrant?

Because if the Bush Administration feels they need to monitor the Catholic Workers or PETA or Greenpeace or whatever, so be it.  

No one on this board has been able to offer one plausible reason why they should do this without a warrant.

...the entire staff of the NYT has probably already been fitted for hairshirts with customized neck padding for jack boot application.  Do we really want to listen to preening journalistic sanctimony as they go into high dudgeon about this attack on their exalted status?

Bushitler I guess someone can call the Times Pravda.  Speaking of hysteria that was some post.

If there was any justice in Argentina, Madonna would have been "disappeared" for the whole "Evita" thing.

The real beauty of this whole story is that the dems have still not learned the lesson. They will be seen as impeding the war on terror. Bush will be seen as doing his best to protect Americans.

It's the old Iran - Contra thing. Reagan maybe skirted the law, but it was done in the interest of freedom and was the right thing to do. Reagan had to do it that way because of the obstructionism of the left wing. (Sound familiar?)

If the dems keep this up, 2006 will be a great year for the republicans. Bush is doubling down his bets on Iraq for a reason. We're winning.

See comment #27 & #48: aside from being concurrently reported on in the NYT, there's no obvious connection between the two activities, particularly since they're being run by different agencies.

who left trails of neon arrows pointing to the "secret" airfields, and who virtually painted "CIA" in five-foot block letters on their "secret" airplanes.  The press didn't even have to work for that story, which means they wouldn't have found out if a minimal amount of deception had benn used.

...and fail to see it for the Pyrrhic victory and PR debacle that it was for them. I hear Daniel Ortega is trying to make a comeback.  Maybe this would be a good time for more Dem congressional junkets to Nicaragua.  

is a great newspaper or trash is irrelevant.  It IS the most reputable newspaper in the world, at least American newspaper.  

Examples must be set; about two-dozen exemplary prosecutions would suffice.  Even if conviction proved difficult - although, given the text of the statute, it ought not be - merely driving a few of these partisan hacks into penury would be immensely salutary.

If the constitution is a living document the law in general must certainly be as well.  Consequently we must remind ourselves that although the law applies to some of us, to others it is reshaped, revised, and reborn every day, both living and mutating constantly.  As the situation demands, as the NY Times demands.  There is a greater good which we Lilliputians can only squint at but which surrounds Pinch Sulzberger and Maureen Dowd like an aura,an emanation of consumate wisdom.  This aura does not touch Bob Novak, the Washington Times,Rush Limbaugh, or Fox news.  What we dullards see as an almost crazy hypocrisy the wise see as sanctity.  Liberals, they're great.

So should we simply shut down our media because they might leak sensitive information?  

Personally I don't buy that the New York Times compromised anything by releasing that Bin Laden's communications were being monitored.  If they did then Bin Laden may be the dumbest terrorist who ever walked the planet.   I know there are reports of it but there is absolutely no way I'm going to believe that Bin Laden was communicating with Atta & Co directly.

In the Hollywood version, Cratchett will have an attorney:

"When John Kerry is president, people like Tiny Tim are going get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

If a person is really so mentally challenged as to actually ask that question, they are hopelessly stupid. However, in reality, the question is only being raised by Bush haters to make an argument. Why respond to stupid questions raised by either idiots or the disingenous? Which are you?

will be good if this keeps up.  Also, have you noticed that the President's approval numbers are climbing?  I gotta think that part of it is due to the fact that he is FINALLY taking his case to the American people.  

When President [INSERT NAME OF NEXT DEM PRESIDENT] invariably does something shady and then frog-marches Richard Alies, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, et al. out of Fox News HQ in NYC after they report on the leak.

that any domestic monitoring was done without a warrant.  You've got oranges mixed in with your apples.

along with the editors who sat on it for a year, knowing that the information was highly classified (they said so), should be subpoenaed by a Federal Grand Jury.  If they don't give up their sources they should sit in jail until the GWOT is officially over.

And, FWIW, I favor Rykers.

Will you and the Democrats apply the same standard for President Bush?

To cut to the chase: President Bush is not necessarily in violation of any law by authorizing this activity.  As a matter of fact, it is LIKELY that he is not.

I was at least heartened to see a poll last night that showed 53% of Americans support President Bush in this attempt to protect Americans over the Defeatocrat/NYT apologists who would rather preserve the civil liberties of terrorists.

"the information was classified" don't you get?  No one is suggesting that the NYT be "shut down".  The suggestion, or in my case the demand, is that the Feds enforce the law as it relates to leaking classified information.

I don't care if the Times reporters and editors do jail time - although it's ok if they do - I want the people who leaked it sent away forever.  I'm talking about CIA, NSA or any other official of the Fed that had access to the information, both the wiretap program and the European detention program.  Those people signed confidentiality agreements when they got their clearances.  They are specifically briefed on the law regarding leaking classified information.  They need to do jail time, serious, nasty jail time.

let the government prosecute them.

However if we are going to play hardball with leakers they do to do so when someone leaks classified information that is politically beneficial for the administration as well.

It could be a Sesame Street script.  The issue with respect to the leak is not the specific information leaked.  It's the fact that the information in the leak was classified, probably Top Secret.

A clearance does not give the clearance holder the right to decide whether the information can or should be released.  It does not give the holder the right to any judgement about the information.

You ask "exactly" what was "Top Secret"?  All of the information on the page.

in tossing reporters into jail.  I don't even want to see MoDo or Richard Cohen jailed.

What I want is for people who leak classified information to be found, arrested, jailed, tried, convicted and serving very, very long prison terms.

based on a leak of confidential information, put him before a Grand Jury.  If he won't give up his sources, put him in jail.

However, could you please cite an example of that happening?  I'm not being combative, I just can't think of one.

I would say that infamous Feith memo would be a good start.

the president and agency heads control the rules for classification. They can declassify and release information legally where a leaker cannot. This is more than a superficial difference.

With the NYT story, Rumsfeld or Negroponte or Bush could have declassifed the info and released it as a leak or otherwise completely legally.

There would never be an instance where "classified" info would be leaked by the administration while still classified. It could very well have been deliberately declassified to make their case but it is also legal to do that.

details of it, but if it was classified, prosecute.

that would suggest that our government is either willing to declassify sensitive information purely for politics sake or that we have a classification system that is really out of whack.

Thought? Did you track down the data yet?

I'm looking for the .... zzzzzzzzzzz.

So the MUSLIM terrorists have infiltrated the CATHOLIC Workers Group.

I got it. Just wanted to make sure we all had that clear.

Makes sense to me.

Hypothetical situation:: So if the government creates some new "secret police" program, in which its members are allowed to kill or arrest people without due process, and declares its very existence top secret, no newpaper should be able to publish a story on it?

Another hypothetical: Say that the government takes a non-secret program, like the current TSA searches when you fly on an airplane, and adds a Top Secret element to the program that includes mandatory searches for all Muslims, Hindus, and anyone who looks Middle Eastern in any way.  Known program, secret detail.  Again, do you believe that no newspaper should be alllowed to publish a story on it?

How can a free society ever stop excesses of its government if it's not allowed to talk about it? How can we even know if there has been an excess of government if we can't a) find out about it by b) talking about it?

If you are unable or unwilling to answer the question "how was this leak harmful" then say so.

I've been reluctant to conclude that the NYT could be found quilty of a crime BUT...

I sure would like to see subpoena power used to discover their motives. If it was any combination of the above, then it is at least immoral and contradicts their press objectivity claims. In that the motive is subversive to CiC powers and a deceitful use of media power, perhaps it is illegal too, but I don't know enough of the law to say so. Common sense would tell me so though.

As to any claims of the reputablitly and objectivity of the NYT, they should be considered in light of A Measure of Media Bias. NYT news pages come out 23.7 left of center (on a 100 point scale). Of the news pages examined by this measure, surprisingly only the Wall Street Journal is farther to the left. The study excluded editorial pages.

Nothing more frightening to me than the willingness with which the average American citizen will willingly give up their rights and allow the Constitution to be tarnished, when fear is their guiding principle.

Let's get real for one second here. Name a historical conflict in which any nation has ever succeeded in winning a war against a terrorist enemy.

Do you think for one second that this great nation under any circumstances would ever, ever become a Muslim state in which all women wear burkas and we all bow towards Mecca every morning? Do any of you seriously believe that at some point Al Qaeda are going to send over an army of some 2 million trained and equipped soldiers in air drops to invade and secure our country and force their way of life upon us?

That's not how terrorism works. Al Qaeda will never win. That's the sad fact. They will hurt us, and wound us, and kill us, but there isn't a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockeysticks that Western civilization will become a Muslim orthodoxy. I mean seriously. No instead we're stuck with this constant level of threat. Anyone with a cursory interest in history will have to admit that the march of Western civilzation is towards, for better or worse, a more secularized, scientifically enlightened society. It's what makes us better than them to be blunt about it. And it's totally inevitable. What that has to do with being fiscally responsible, opposed to such ridiculous government interference as affirmative action, and protecting our citizenry's right to express and bear arms - nothing.

It's why a secure, democratic Iraq is worth it. It's about basically getting them to wise up and live a little freer and smarter so that somewhere in the Middle East a non Middle Ages mentality can flourish. Something the liberals will never understand out of cowardice and unwillingness to do hard work.

So with what's going on, which none of us are actually able to comment upon without knowing who the wiretaps were actually placed upon, let's imagine an even scarier scenario... How would you like it if...

The totally incompetent President Bush establishes a standard by which the executive branch of government gains exceptional powers that it itself can define without oversight from our representatives or courts. In his second term the war on terror is not won though great gains are made in Iraq thanks to our soldiers, because wars on terror are not winnable as he himself stated once. In 2006 Democrats make gains and majorities. In 2008, someone like Hilary Clinton gets elected president and the war is still on.

Now HILARY CLINTON HAS THE SAME POWERS. Someone shrewish enough and creepy enough to complicate federal government and really go to town with that stuff. Sleep on that one soundly if you can. At least King George is too out of it to abuse his powers, but setting a precedent in future for other presidents to gain independence is totally against what this country was founded upon; our rights, our freedoms, our privacy from government, and the lack of a monarch.

"So the MUSLIM terrorists have infiltrated the CATHOLIC Workers Group."

Some of the "CATHOLICS" in the "CATHOLIC Worker Movement" hate JEWS with the sort of intensity displayed by MUSLIM extremists.

And the Catholic Worker movement has sent money to Islamic "charities" that support Islamist terrorists.

We made common cause with Stalin against Germany. One may debate the wisdom of strange-bedfellowdom, but to deny its existence is willful stupidity.

I would like someone to explain to me, and I am sure someone will try to explain how.

How does the announcement that we are spying on terrorists without warrents, hurt our ability to spy on terrorists?

If we are getting secret warrents from secret courts before, how is this any different?

What do the terrorists know now, that will help them avoid detection?

Please do not bring up Osama Bin Laden's satalitte phone, that is not a fair comparision as that was a specific person and method.  This announcement is not comparable.

Remember, the NSA can spy on someone for up to 72 hours without obtaining permission and they have only turned down 5 warrents so far.

Thanks.

Andrew

How does the announcement that we are spying on terrorists without warrents, hurt our ability to spy on terrorists?

It tells the terrorists that we're listening to communications with their operatives here in the US, and that we are using that data to roll up their networks without visible activity before the FISA bench.

What do the terrorists know now, that will help them avoid detection?

They now know that a lack of activity before the FISA bench is no longer any sort of I&W for electronic surveillance.

Communications intelligence should always be handled with extreme caution, as it is the sort of information that risks exposure every single time it is used.

although the two most recent examples should not have been.  I would not, and didn't suggest putting reporters on trial for publishing it.  I want the leakers put on trial.

And in the instances you've cited, yes, arrest the leakers.  Put them on trial, I suspect the result would be a quick "not guilty" and a revolution in the first instance.  With respect to second, [pause to yawn] I'm good with that one.  As a matter of fact, I'm good with adopting the ElAl security standards for flights.

By the way, the first example you cite is too silly for words.  Did you purloin it from Jay Rockerfeller?

Suppose the staff of the New York Times conspired to defraud the US government of many thousands (or millions, if you want) of dollars.

Would people that then advocated that the whole lot of them be frog-marched into a federal prison be guilty of not believing in a free press?

Then why not for a much bigger felony, which has the potential to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives?  If people can be thrown in jail for defrauding the government of money, then why not for defrauding the government of information it's using to keep all of us safe?

Go read the definition of 'classified', 'secret' and 'top secret' in another comment.  Can't get any more obvious than that.

And before you go off on how the government decides what's classified, I'd point you to the Freedom of Information Act, which can and does review and declassify information on a regular basis, as requested and needed.

The definition of 'classified information' is that it would be harmful to the security of the United States for it to be released.

If you can't take the time to read, don't harangue others for snark.

requiring demonstrable facts and I'll see what I can do. Ask a stupid, rhetorical question and I'll deride you like a fool.

No one is "shutting down media outlets" for any reason.  Other, perhaps than the NYT etal are losing money because they don't compete well.

And no one is upset about information that is "potentially harmful".  The problem here, which you seem to consistently ignore is one of leaking CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.  Information gets classified because if it is made public, harm may be or will be done to national security.  It's not really complicated.

The other side of the coin is that, historically, the government tended to "over-classify" documents.  That's why information classification has a sunset provision built into it.

I resent your lumping used car salesmen in with lawyers and journalists.  

Cry me a river.  If you want your side to decide what gets declassified and what doesn't, try winning an election.

Or do what everyone else does (everyone except the NYT, which thinks of itself as above the law): try filing under the Freedom of Information Act.

vigorously, you won't have to prosecute the Times.

is the act of omission by the Times.  They sat on this story for a year.  I doubt that it was revealed to them and then put into a drawer.  They obviously worked on it in the intervening time period.  

There is not one shred of information in the story, a quite long story at that, that accuses the President of violating ANY specific statutes or Constitutional provisions.  I wonder why?

...if you do not prosecute the New York Times, you will most likely not get the leakers' identities.

And if the New York Times is not prosecuted, and does not receive appropriate punishment under due process of law, then the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq may "accidentally" impose a little street justice.

"Oops. That journalist sure picked the wrong day to interview that terrorist. Man, JDAMs don't leave much for the Graves Registration folks."

You impanel a Grand Jury to investigate the leaks.  You call witnesses - reporters, editors, Senators & their staffs, people who had access to the information - and you give them transactional immunity in exchange for their testimony.  In the case of people who have direct knowledge, you hold them in contempt if they refuse to cough up their sources.  They go to jail until they reveal them.

You are not assaulting "freedom of the press" because they are free to publish what they want to.  You don't charge the Times or it's employees.  You find the leakers and boil them in oil.  Preferably at a temperature approved by John McCain.

"You impanel a Grand Jury to investigate the leaks."

Worked real good with Plamegate, eh?

"You call witnesses - reporters, editors, Senators & their staffs, people who had access to the information - and you give them transactional immunity in exchange for their testimony."

And, if the reporter doesn't cough up the sources?

"In the case of people who have direct knowledge, you hold them in contempt if they refuse to cough up their sources."

Oh, wow.

"They go to jail until they reveal them."

Or until the grand jury's term expires.

Bottom line: this reporter and his editors disclosed classified information to unauthorized persons, as well as received it from persons unauthorized to disclose it to him. In my book, that's enough to indict, try, convict, and imprison for life every single person involved, from the pressmen who ran that edition to the publisher. The corporation that owns the NYT should be forfeited under civil asset forfeiture laws, along with the personal property of the corporate officers and the aforementioned newspapermen/women, even if liberal juries acquit them.

A few thousand treasonous fat cats having to find the nearest St. Vincent de Paul shelter would (a) have a salutary effect on newspaper editors contemplating constructive treason, and (b) teach the fat cats a thing or two about the social ills they currently prattle on about from inside the cocoon of their gated community.

....And my point is made.

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

opr find a career as a fiction writer.  In fact, what is your pen name!  kidding

btw

got a new link opn eastman re birth citizenship

bogusosity

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/12/94611/939/91#91

also see links re the best articles I found on the wiretapping power

http://www.nysun.com/article/24610?page_no=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR200512190
1027.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoo20dec20,0,4832707.s
tory?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200512201139.asp

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_20_05_JKE.html

which does not speak well for journalism ...

the bad guys know that an operation got shut down, or one of their operatives is busted you still don't want them to know how it happened.

So should we simply shut down our media because they might leak sensitive information?

You are just being plain silly now.

I see no reason the think that bin Laden was not aware that we could intercept his satphone. I submit that there are a great many people who think that cellphones and satphones border on magic and don't realize that they can be intercepted.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke

"If you are going to condemn the NYT for this, then you must also Condemn Bob Novak for leaking Plame's name and identity as a CSA agent."

Sorry pal, but Novak did nothing wrong.  Valerie Plame was not a covert agent.  This had no effect on national security.  It's just a trumped-up fake scandals from the masters of sleaze on the left.  Wilson was working for French intelligence.  Libby and others were just trying to stop him.  There was no ill-intent, just an effort to set the record straight.  

in terms of reputation.  Everyone but the most partisan leftists mocks the old fat gray waddling widow.

paper if it were printed on soft, 4X4 squares and delivered in a handy 1000 sheet roll. At least, like Levis, it would get better with use.

For having nothing to do with it. This is about secret information they shouldn't have had posession of being released to the public, not sedition.

Is there any limit on what they could print? What about force location and strength? Plans for nuclear warheads?

It certainly is...

1.  Contrary to your opinion the average American citizen is not willing to give up their rights as codified in the Constitution.   Nor do they consider the president acting within his authority to protect said citizens under the Constitution during time of war.  
   
   
2.  There is no historical war against a terrorist enemy.  Until the United States declared the GWOT the closest comparison would be Israel's fight against Arab terrorist, but it was not at that time a declared war.  Why do you think there are fewer terrorist attacks in Israel now?  Every other instance of counter terrorism attacks were in response to a terrorist attack and this method did not detour future attacks and doing nothing has been proven embolden the terrorist.
   
   
3.  Do you truly not understand the nature of terrorism and Islamic terrorism in particular?  
   
   
4.  Do you honestly think Al Qaeda is the only terrorist element that Islamic extremist will deploy?  Islamic extremist are not interested in overtly over throwing Western civilization.  They seek to win by using terrorism to undermine Western Governments and the pacification of western populations.
   

Something the liberals will never understand out of cowardice and unwillingness to do hard work.*

*Your comment: it was out of place in your rant so I moved it to where it made more sense.

4.5.  Anyone with a cursory interest in history will have to admit that the march of Western civilzation is towards, for better or worse, a more secularized, scientifically enlightened society. It's what makes us better than them to be blunt about it. And it's totally inevitable.

What planet do you live on?

It's why a secure, democratic Iraq is worth it.

One of the two things you said that makes sense.

5.  So with what's going on, which none of us are actually able to comment upon without knowing who the wiretaps were actually placed upon...

The second thing you said that made sense, but then you had to put the qualifier on it.

let's imagine an even scarier scenario... How would you like it if...

Until we the people actually know every detail, unlikely due to National Security Concerns, you cannot make a case for the president abusing his powers as you pointed out yourself.  Given all the information currently available it is a very safe conclusion that the president did nothing illegal and is not abusing his powers.  If you are so concerned that Hillary Clinton will abuse her powers if elected then I would suggest that you do everything in your power to ensure that she is not elected.