My thoughts on the specific issue of tracking banking transactions and the NYT's bean-spilling is that it's much ado about nothing. Bush's ridiculous comments about how revelation of this program puts America at risk strikes me as protesting too much. I mean, really, any American over the age of twelve knows the government tracks the financial activities of any and all suspected criminals. Any terrorist too dumb to know this probably lacks the financial resources to even catch the government's eye and is best suited for wearing the dynamite vest.

Most likely the leak came from the administration itself. Election year and all that rot. Bush gets to rail against the liberal media while at the same time the public gets a harmless peek into the inner workings of a hardon terror administration. Win-win, baby!

I find your theory to be plausible, actually.

A number of people from within the Administration divuldged this info to the NY Times. So why isn't Bush investigating who leaked the info? Why shoot the messenger by targeting the NY Times?

Also, I hope this is clear to everyone how this issue is out there to take focus away from more pressing matters. This issue, the gay marriage issue, the flag burning issue are all being used to distract from failures in Iraq and is in spin mode to rally the GOP supporters. It's as simple as that.

Not trying to be snarky (seriously), but has there been an announcement that that there would be no investigation?

The NY Times knew the program was classified prior to publishing it. They are not innocent.

I know something about you. Someone told me a secret about you. I pronounce this to the world. Who are you mad at? Most likely the friend who told me and me for making it public. You aren't going to excuse me, are you?

What I'm saying is, why is the focus on the newspaper and not the 20 people who went to the paper? Why isn't he coming out saying that he'd find out who leaked the info?
They aren't innocent, but I'm glad I know about this program now. In fact, if the phone tapping story wasn't leaked we would have never heard about it. I'm someone who likes to know what's up.
Now certain politicians are saying the NY Times is being treasonous. Talk about McCarthy-esque!
It's not the same. It would be more like if I knew a secret, let a lot of people in on it and 20 of them leaked the story to you. If your job in the hypothetical situation was to report the news, you're doing your job... Of course I'd be mad at you, but I'd be madder at the 20 people I thought I could trust to keep my secret.
Then again, I wouldn't be doing anything shady that would cause a lot of controversy to begin with.
:)

trea·son n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (emphasis mine)

Would not reporting on (and leaking, for that matter) a classified program on the surveillance of terrorists who wish to bring harm to us be the very definition of treason?

I find the act of questioning our government about as far from teason as possible. One of the things that used to separate the American ideology from the rest of the world is that information is not dangerous, information is not illegal, information is freedom. That's the beauty of the freedom of press, that's the beauty of the freedom of speech (which was written into the Constitution in order to protect our right to question our government, not Howard Stern's right to talk about vaginas).

It may be that all of these programs, including the wire tapping, turn out to be perfectly legal and justifiable. What angers me is Bush's attitude that to even question whether they are or not is inherently unamerican. As far as I'm concerned, it's about as American as it gets.

Good lord, GD. There is a huge difference between questioning the government and revealing classified programs. Any cries of treason for questioning if we should be in Iraq are ridiculous. Cries of treason for revealing classified terrorist surveillance methods? Certainly not.

This is WAY beyond questioning the government.

Certain information most certainly can be and is dangerous. Loose lips sink ships and all. There is a reason certain things are classified.

But it's gone beyond cries of treason for revealing the information. Bush has urged people to drop lawsuits that came up after the program was already leaked because "it might risk national security." Sorry, bub, but just because you want to continue to sneak around doesn't mean citizens have to give up their right to protect their freedoms.

I believe anyone who has classified clearence that leaks classified information should be prosecuted. But I don't believe the people who receive that information have any obligation to keep it a secret once it's been leaked. If Bush can't inspire his people to work with him on this oh-so-vital programs, that's a problem he has to deal with internally. It's not a problem that or should be solved by going after the messenger.

Without addressing the merits of that argument, that steps beyond the original scope of what I was addressing, being whether or not the revealing of classified information in his instance could be considered treasonous. It is not unreasonable to suggest it.

As far as dropping lawsuits.....any discussion of this classified program would reveal more methodology, I would suspect. What is wrong with urging anything anyway? And as previously mentioned, bank records have already been ruled on by the SC to not be privileged information.