« Handicapping our GIs | Main | Why do they keep betraying us? »
June 24, 2006
The LA Times is siding with the terrorists
There's been a heated debate raging over at Patterico's site, ignited by the decision of the LA Times and the NY Times to publish stories outing yet another classified program to catch terrorists -- despite the fact that the U.S. begged them to spike the stories; despite the fact that the program is legal; despite the fact that Congress has been briefed about the program; despite the fact that it works.
Let's be clear about this: someone within the government leaked secret and/or top secret information, which is a crime; the newspapers knowingly disseminated classified information -- which is also a crime. And the enemy has been alerted -- yet again -- to our methods and efforts aimed at keeping them from killing Americans.
Patterico wrote about his reaction when he first learned of the newspapers' conduct.
I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.
He also points to proof that the LA Times is worse than the NY Times when it comes to anti-American, flat-out deceptive articles. The LA Times fails to note that the secret operation they outed was working.
The New York Times article lists several examples of successes by the program ... these many successes were touted by “several officials.”
By contrast, the authors of the L.A. Times article apparently couldn’t seem to find a single official willing to give evidence of the program’s successes.
So, enraged by the perfidy and arrogance of the press, Patterico asks if journalists can be prosecuted for aiding the enemy.
Can the reporters and editors at the New York Times and Los Angeles Times be prosecuted for knowingly publishing classified information in an unauthorized manner, resulting in harm to the security of the United States? And if so, should they be?
I don’t know the answer for sure. When I call for an independent prosecutor (as I did in a previous post), I am seeking to find the people in the government who leaked this information. To find those people, we are going to have to demand that the reporters tell us who they are. Consequently, I want subpoenas issued to Eric Lichtblau, James Risen, and Bill Keller of the New York Times, and to Josh Meyer, Greg Miller, Doyle McManus, and Dean Baquet of the Los Angeles Times. If the reporters won’t disclose their sources, I want them thrown in the pokey, Judy Miller-style, until they do. This is far more important than the Valerie Plame case and I want to see it treated as such.
As to the separate question of whether these folks can and/or should be criminally prosecuted, I haven’t made up my mind. I lean toward the conclusion that prosecutions are possible and wise. But it’s not as obvious as you might think. In the context of the current situation, the answer may seem obvious. But it is easy to imagine other situations where it is not.
He goes on to lay out some interesting hypotheticals, some favoring prosecution, others militating against it. But he does provide -- in the extended post -- arguments and citations from legal experts supporting criminal action against the press.
Moving on, Patterico notes more distortions by the LA Times in its coverage of the (once) secret, (usted-to-be) effective program.
The distortions make the program sound both more menacing and less effective than it actually is.
For example, today’s article says:
In a major departure from traditional methods of obtaining financial records, the Treasury Department uses a little-known power — administrative subpoenas — to collect data from the SWIFT network, which has operations in the U.S., including a main computer hub in Manassas, Va.
Let’s compare the paper’s assertion of how “little-known” administrative subpoenas are to the 2004 testimony of Rachel Brand, Principal Deputy Attorney General of the United States:
Administrative subpoenas are a well-established investigative tool, currently available in a wide range of civil and criminal investigations. A 2002 study by the Office of Legal Policy identified approximately 335 administrative subpoena authorities existing in current law.
But what does the Principal Deputy Attorney General of the United States know about criminal procedures? The Los Angeles Times says these subpoenas are a “little-known power.”
The paper also says:
The subpoenas are secret and not reviewed by judges or grand juries, as are most criminal subpoenas.
Really? They are? That’s news to me!
My office issues subpoenas every day — hundreds of them. People appear in court pursuant to them. Police deliver records pursuant to them. We subpoena cellular phone records, hospital records, and all sorts of other records with them, all the time — and judges almost never look at them. The subpoenaed parties simply comply.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys reading this blog, feel free to chime in. Tell me if I’m wrong.
I’d be fascinated to know the source of these reporters’ contention that “most criminal subpoenas” are “reviewed by judges or grand juries.” I have a hunch that the source is “the reporter’s ass.”
Well, as I told Pat, he's not wrong. As a prosecutor, I've issued hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of subpoenas over the years, and in my experience, the only time a judge gets involved is when the recipient doesn’t comply; or to simply release subpoenaed documents to the ADA for copying and discovery to the defense, never having done more than glance in the file to see that they’re present.
Summarizing the case against the newspapers, Patterico quotes approvingly from an article in the Weekly Standard, including the statute covering the actions by the press.
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added].
The author of the Weekly Standard article concludes that to fail to enforce the law would have terrible consequences for us.
Given the uproar a prosecution of the Times would provoke, the attorney general’s cautious approach is certainly understandable. But what might look like a prudent exercise of prosecutorial discretion will, in the face of the Times’s increasingly reckless behavior, send a terrible message. The Comint statute, like numerous other laws on the books limiting speech in such disparate realms as libel, privacy, and commercial activity, is fully compatible with the First Amendment. It was passed to deal with circumstances that are both dangerous and rare; the destruction of the World Trade Center and the continuing efforts by terrorists to strike again have thrust just such circumstances upon us.
If the Justice Department chooses not to prosecute the Times, its inaction will turn this statute into a dead letter. At stake here for Attorney General Gonzales to contemplate is not just the right to defend ourselves from another Pearl Harbor. Can it really be the government’s position that, in the middle of a war in which we have been attacked on our own soil, the power to classify or declassify vital secrets should be taken away from elected officials acting in accord with laws set by Congress and bestowed on a private institution accountable to no one?
I think he -- and the Weekly Standard -- have it absolutely right. We must act to impress upon everyone the seriousness of the fight in which we are engaged, and the consequences that must befall anyone who provides such assistance to our enemies.
In matters of life and death, moral equivalence and fence sitting cannot be indulged. While some may find the sentiment uncomfortably simple-minded, the reality is that in a war, as long as you live in one of the nations involved in the fight, you're either for your side ... or the other.
Finally, Patterico does what I have long urged my friends and family to do: cancelled his subscription and tell the newspaper why he did so.
I explained to the person who answered the phone that I was cancelling because I am outraged that the newspaper revealed classified details of a successful anti-terror operation.
They put me on with a “specialist,” and I repeated the reason for the cancellation. He said they were sorry to lose me as a subscriber. “I’m sorry, too,” I said. And I am. I’ve had my differences with the paper — plenty of them — but I’ve been subscribing since 1993. That’s thirteen years.
[...]
I told him that this has nothing to do with disagreeing with what I read in the newspaper. I disagree with the newspaper all the time. This is different. The newspaper made a deliberate choice to print classified details of an anti-terror operation that, by all accounts, was effective and legal. Key members of Congress had been briefed on it and had no problem with it. Strict controls were in place to prevent abuse, and those controls appear to have been effective.
[...]
I told the man that officials from the Bush Administration had begged the newspaper’s editors not to print this story, but the editors ran the story anyway. I told him that I think publishing the story was completely irresponsible, totally lacking in any justification, and has posed a threat to the safety of our country. And I just can’t continue to subscribe to a newspaper that would do such a thing.
He didn’t argue with me after that.
Can anyone argue with his reasoning?
UPDATE
Michelle Malkin has a nice assortment of WWII posters, photoshopped by her readers to illustrate this week's perfidious actions by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
Check them out.
Posted by Mike Lief at June 24, 2006 09:37 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
The only thing that I can argue with is supporting the Times through online reading. The papers are currently dying on the vine and have been attempting inroads into Internet ventures. Blogs, polls and of course updated content. I actually fear the idea of driving hundreds of readers to support the paper with repetitive clicks. And I can't say for sure, but hitting 'close' on a popup may provide Sales with important cumulative numbers.
Anyway, cancelling is an important statement, a good civic gesture.
The Wall Street Journal would appear to be right in line with the coastal papers in its reporting, for this reason. Glenn Simpson, who handled coverage, is based in Belgium and specializes in financial reporting. It will be interesting to read more on this; but I'm not sure that he is one to copy, reguritate and rush others' stories to print. In fact, Simpson is up for a Loeb award. The awards dinner coincidentally is tonight in New York. You'll see from the content of his nominated series, he's a major player in the publishing of global financial data.
Nominated for a 2006 Gerald Loeb award. http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x14963.xml
“Taxes and Terrorism” by Glenn R. Simpson, The Wall Street Journal
“As Europe Cuts Corporate Tax, Pressure Rises on U.S. to Follow”
"Arab Bank’s Link to Terrorism Poses Dilemma for U.S. Policy” (Part I)
“Arab Bank’s Link to Terrorism Poses Dilemma for U.S. Policy”(Part II)
“Government Probes Tax Shelters Used to Shield Stock-Option Gains” (Part I)
“Government Probes Tax Shelters Used to Shield Stock-Option Gains” (Part II)
“Irish Subsidiary Lets Microsoft Slash Taxes in U.S. and Europe” (Part I)
“Irish Subsidiary Lets Microsoft Slash Taxes in U.S. and Europe” (Part II)
“ABN Amro to Pay $80 Million Fine Over Iran, Libya” (Part I)
“ABN Amro to Pay $80 Million Fine Over Iran, Libya” (Part II)
“How Top Dutch Bank Plunged Into a World of Shadowy Money” (Part I)
“How Top Dutch Bank Plunged Into a World of Shadowy Money” (Part II)
Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at June 26, 2006 11:51 AM