NY Times and intelligence leaks

[SacTown Chronic]

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!

[scaeagles]

I find your theory to be plausible, actually.

[Gemini Cricket]

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

So why isn't Bush investigating who leaked the info? Why shoot the messenger by targeting the NY Times?

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?

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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

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?

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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

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!

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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?

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Now certain politicians are saying the NY Times is being treasonous.

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?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'll defend someone's rights, even if I think they're idiots for exercising them. Do I think it's "right" to publish classified information that has clear national security information, as in Alex's Zarqawi example? I suppose not. But neither do I think it's criminal or teasonous. Just stupid. I think the only situation where I'd change that tune is if the paper were actively seeking to find classified information (e.g. paying classified informants, obtaining classified docs by illegal means, etc.). Otherwise, if someone with classified status comes to them, then the legal consequences should be on the person doing the leaking.

[Alex]

So we, as citizens of this country, have no obligation to assist the government in keeping the secrets it is rightfully keeping?

The obligation is purely on an amorphous concept of "the government" preventing 1.2 million federal employees from saying things to the press that they shouldn't?

I agree that the legal responsibility falls to the leaker. But I allege that moral responsibility is shared by both parties. I doubt you'll ever see legal charges against any publication because of this story but I also have no problem with trying to turn public opinion against them for having printed the story.

Again, I don't feel that treason was committed, but it sounds to me like you feel it is impossible to publish information with treasonous intent.

[Alex]

obtaining classified docs by illegal means, etc.

I didn't notice this, but by definition classified information will be received by illegal means. There is no legal way to give classified information to a reporter without first declassifying it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Again, I don't feel that treason was committed, but it sounds to me like you feel it is impossible to publish information with treasonous intent.

I think we actually agree on this point. Like I said, while I don't think it's criminal, it's possible for it to be ill-advised, stupid, and "wrong".

And by "illegal means", I meant along the lines of paying a janitor to swipe documents, or flat out breaking and entering. Anything other than someone with classified information choosing on their own to approach someone without clearence to leak info.