NY Times and intelligence leaks

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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".

So where do you fall on this particular instance? What makes it "wrong" (even if it isn't legally criminal) or not wrong in this case?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So where do you fall on this particular instance? What makes it "wrong" (even if it isn't legally criminal) or not wrong in this case?

In this particular case, it's just a bit sad. Desperate smear attempt with no apparant motivation other than to make the administration look bad. But I don't consider it much of a threat to national security since, "the government pays attention to international bank transactions" is hardly the headline of the century. If any terrorist didn't know that already, then they'll be dumb enough to be caught in some other manner.

[scaeagles]

It depends, though, GD. There is a difference between "The US can utilize financial information from international banking transactions to track known terrorists" and "The US is analyzing international finanacial transactions to assist in identifying terrorists".

The first was widely known. I do not believe the second was widely known at all, and that is the thrust of the program.

So to me, deciding what classified information isn't that important and which classified information is can only be made by those with the current authority to classify and declassify. Otherwise there is no such thing as classified.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

And yet, still not one mention of prosecuting the WSJ for doing the same thing that the NYT did. All I head from everyone in the administration and Right-wing talk shows is about what the evil NYT's did. Not one word anywhere about the conservative Wall Street Journal.

[Alex]

Not that I approve of the WSJ doing it any more than the NY Times, the NY Times published first. Something can only be leaked in this manner once.


The other two newspapers were willing to comply with the government's request not to publish the story and only did so once the New York Times did so anyway.

Ultimately, I think that is what really upsets a lot of people about this one. The wiretapping story has a much stronger case for dissemination and yet the NYT waited a year to run it. On this story there is no real argument for why it needs to be reported now (the spector of future abuse was raised but that doesn't justify disclosure now of an otherwise legal operation) and rejected bi-partisan requests from both the White House and Congress to hold the story.

That's just how the newspaper world works. They'll sometimes agree to keep a secret but once that secret is revealed anyway they will cover it.

[scaeagles]

Tom Delay was associated with Jack Abramoff and was forced to step down from leadership. But what about Harry Reid? He's associated with Jack Abramoff but maintains his leadership position.

If I posted something like that, cries would abound from this board saying the only way I could justify Delay was to point out wrong doing by someone else.

Is that what you're doing MBC? I don't disagree that the WSJ and any leakers of the info should face some sort of penalty along with the NYT. But that doesn't change what the NYT has done.

I would be interested to hear what you think about the NYT, WSJ, the leakers, treason, and freedom of the press in relation to classified material.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would be interested to hear what you think about the NYT, WSJ, the leakers, treason, and freedom of the press in relation to classified material.

Have to meet a client in a few minutes, but I'll try to respond later.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would be interested to hear what you think about the NYT, WSJ, the leakers, treason, and freedom of the press in relation to classified material.

Finally, a chance to respond.

Quite honestly, I believe this story was intentionally leaked to the NYT so that the administration could then attack them. Otherwise, they have far worse problems than what the Times chose to report. If the Times commited treason then there are a number of traitors in this administration. The Times would have no story to report if it hadn't been leaked to them from the administration. And considering that this administration already has a history of leaking information to the media whenever it serves their purposes, I find it a plausable scenario (not much different from when they passed a document to CBS news, then crucified Dan Rather when he reported it). Standard operating procedure. This would also explain why there is no mention of the Wall St. Journal anywhere to be found. Regardless of who leaked it first, they are equally guilty for publishing the story, IMO.

[innerSpaceman]

I'd just like to point out that while bank records have indeed been SupremeCourtly decreed not private, what the Times and the Journal and others revealed IS illegal activity on the part of the Bush administration.

It is still a legal requirement that a warrant be issued, that a court of some kind say it's ok to snoop at bank records. The reason this is a newsworthy story is the pattern of abuse this program continues from the thread of the NSA phone surveillance method. Court approval and warrants could easily be obtained, and yet the Bush administration thumbs its nose at bothering. It's not so much what they do (since a court might allow it anyway), it's that they flaunt the American system of checks & balances, and instead insist on behaving like a dictatorship ... simply because they want to and want to establish unfettered powers for the presidency as an institution.

Same thing with the signing statements that Bush has issued, claiming his administration does not have to obey laws passed by Congress. He has issued more of these than all other presidents combined, and it's noteworthy that Republican senator Arlen Spector has declared an intention to sue the White House over this nefarious practice.

Bush is clearly demonstrating a doctrine of being unchecked by the courts and unchecked by Congress. If this is not trying to set up the presidency as a dictatorate, then I don't know what is.

[Alex]

That's simply not true that a warrant is necessary in this situation.

U.S. v. Miller removed from financial records the protection of the 4th Amendment.

See v. City of Seattle gave SC endorsement of administrative subpeonas.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president authority to use administrative subpoenas to compel production of financial documents in a time of emergency.

In 2002 and every year since then the President has notified Congress that he was using the powers granted to him un the IEEPA to pursue terrorists globally (an expansion of the annual "terrorism" state of emergency that has been in effect for the Middle East since 1995).

The IEEPA requires that the White House report to congress on such issues. The White House, Treasury Department, and Congressional intelligence committees all say that this reporting has been happening.

You can debate the value of such a program and whether it should happen, but so far I have seen nobody raise any kind of compelling case that it was illegal. The closest the New York Times came was saying that "some legal scholars express concern about the program." The ACLU (an organization I generally support) has come right out and said it is illegal but have not said what laws were broken.