Loose Lips Sink Newspapers
02.01.2008 - 7:34 AMFinally, action. A federal prosecutor has issued a subpoena to James Risen of the New York Times, one of two reporters at the paper who compromised the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Terrorist Surveillance Program in December 2005.
Risen himself does not appear to be under investigation. Indeed, prosecutors do not appear to be investigating the NSA leak at this moment. Rather, they are seeking the confidential sources that led to the disclosure of an entirely different secret, one that did not appear in Risen’s newspaper, but only in a chapter of Risen’s book, State of War. It reported that the CIA had attempted to infiltrate Iran’s nuclear program and described a number of other highly classified details about covert efforts in that area.
Why is this investigation proceeding now? Connecting the Dots has no inside information. But Connecting the Dots was seated at the same table as Michael Mukasey and his wife at two dinners in the last three years, back when the future Attorney General was still a mere federal judge. The leaks in the New York Times did not come up for discussion, but Mukasey made plain he was a close reader of COMMENTARY.
Did he read a certain article in COMMENTARY entitled Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act? That’s a question James Risen — and Bill Keller, too — should be thinking about.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
February 1st, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Why should professional journalists possess special rights to violate national security laws? What is the definition of such a person? Do they have to earn a minimum of $40,000 annually? Why not $1.00? Does one have to work 12 months out of the year? Why not half a day? What if an individual donates their work to the publication of their choice? Can one reveal classified documents as long as they do so altruistically?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Since when has the willful disclosure of classified national security information not been a crime?
There is more than one party responsible for the public disclosure of this information: the intelligence community provider and the media outlet that disseminated said intelligence over the expressed wishes of the White House.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I don’t think the NYT itself can be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act. If I’m wrong about that, I won’t quibble, however.
As an intelligence professional, my anger is against those federal employees with clearances who revealed the classified programs to unauthorized persons (NYT reporters). They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They committed a felony by revealing classified information. Any investigation should focus on identifying and prosecuting them. Journalistic “privilege” can’t protect any media members who know their identities — they should have to reveal their sources or be incarcerated, because they unquestionably have information material to a felony. There is no way to spin that otherwise.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:26 PM
“…can’t protect any media members ”
How do you define “media members”? This is where the proverbial crap hits the fan. Just about anyone can essentially begin publishing in our modern age. They can put together a free blog on Blogger.com in a very short time. There is nothing to stop a thirteen-year-old teenager—or even an overt enemy of the United States in another country. News is no longer local—it is now instantly international. Do we really want the government to decide who gets to describe himself or herself as a media member? I don’t think we really want to go down that road. Thus, the logical conclusion is that nobody is deserving of protection if they desire to reveal national security secrets. This is literally an all or nothing proposition.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:55 PM
J.E.: At first blush, many would argue that there is a basic clash between the First Amendment and the Espionage Act, the latter of which clearly makes it a crime for anyone to make knowing and willful publication of classified intelligence information a crime (section 798). But I don’t think so, because no court of which I am aware has ruled the Espionage Act unconstitutional on First Amendment or any other grounds. In fact, my recollection is that the opinion in the Pentagon Papers case made it clear that First Amendment grounds cannot be used as protection in all instances.
Maybe Gabe has some insights here?
February 1st, 2008 at 6:01 PM
When it comes to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, one need not waste time thinking about the question; the answer is self evident.
The New York Times, as an institution, is treason in black and white. It is riddled with individuals who consider it their highest calling to learn things they should not know, and to tell not just everyone in general but our enemies in particular what they’ve learned.
I am not an angry man by nature, but righteous outrage is different. It is entirely circumstance-based. Bill Keller and his traitorous staff at the Times has earned that sort of anger from every decent American.
And they should count their blessings; if we out here in NRA flyover country were half as savage and dangerous as the liberals like to believe we are, the NYT building would already be going up in flames.
But we restrain ourselves and read the Post. :-)
February 1st, 2008 at 11:08 PM
The media is not a law unto itself. What always strikes me about the NY Times is the mindless arrogance they have exhibited over this subject. When they “broke” the banking story a few months back, they talked about how everyone on a bipartisan basis asked them not to run the story, how they were told that doing so would needlessly damage national security, yet they ran it anyway, only later acknowledging that they made a mistake. (How nice of them). The image of those editors flippantly sitting in judgment over whether or not to reveal vital intelligence information with absolutely no sense of accountablity and drunk with their own self-importance was and remains infuriating.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 AM
du bist ein gut americaner!
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 AM
FISA is just a suggestion, anyway.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 AM
my family loves the law.