Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to reveal.

Gray Lady's Serial Spills
This is war.

By Deroy Murdock

The more that emerges about the New York Times's treasonous disclosure of the once-secret SWIFT/Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, the more unsavory its treachery appears. The Bush-hating paper's shameless self-justifications for its misdeeds look ever flimsier. Its inadequate excuses have disappeared into a cyclone of self-contradiction. Strict punishment for the Times's crimes (and it has behaved criminally) is in order.

First, The Times's June 23 story on the CIA and Treasury Department's efforts to follow terrorists' money was no isolated incident. It is one of at least four instances in which the self-appointed "Paper of Record" imprudently has told terrorists and terror suspects that they were being watched. In addition to the SWIFT story, the Times:

...

Second, the Times did not just casually run this article, and then suffer the slings and arrows of public outcry. It did so against the active resistance of prominent officials, both in and out of government, who virtually begged the paper on a bipartisan basis to can this story. Among those who urged The Times not to disclose SWIFT were:

Iraq-war critic, U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.)
September 11 Commissioner Tim Roemer (Democrat)
September 11 Commission Co-chairman Lee Hamilton (Democrat)
September 11 Commission Co-chairman Tom Kean
Assistant Treasury Secretary for Public Affairs Tony Fratto
Treasury Secretary John Snow
National Intelligence Director John Negroponte

The Times did not publicize some nefarious right-wing plot. Rather SWIFT was a vital tool in the War on Terror supported by Republicans, as well as Democrats who otherwise criticize the Bush administration.

Third, if this program were illegal, the Times might have some justification for exposing it. However, a long-time adviser to Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.) is among those on the Left who echo Republicans who have praised SWIFT's value and lawfulness.

"If I'd been in the government at the time that this program was put into place, I would have wanted it kept secret," Jonathan Winer said on Fox News Channel Tuesday. "I would have kept it secret. And I think it was very important that it was secret for a period of years." The former Clinton State Department official added: "I have absolutely no doubt that this program is legal. Let me repeat it. I have absolutely no doubt that this program is legal."

Now, even Times executive editor Bill Keller conceded as much about SWIFT on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday: "There didn't seem to be any obvious illegality about it."Imagine that in a few weeks, a yet-unpublished galley crosses Keller's desk: "For bin Laden, a Mole in His Cave," reads the typically swishy Times headline. Beneath it, the story explains that U.S. officials have lied about not knowing Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. In fact, a deep-cover CIA agent has sat right beside the terror master since January, absorbing everything he hears about al Qaeda's structure, assets, and plans for further mass bloodshed in America. Once he believes he has learned all he can, said agent will poison bin Laden in his sleep, escape, and seek rescue from US GIs on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Newsworthy? What a scoop!

A matter of public interest? Who wouldn't find this interesting?

A success in the War on Terror? Wow, we penetrated bin Laden's cave!

So, why not run this story? And if the agent subsequently got his throat slit? Shiv happens.

The New York Times, clearly unhindered by patriotism, easily could talk itself into publishing such an article.The matters at hand could not be graver. The New York Times on at least four occasions has made it easier, not harder, for Islamic extremists to kill Americans. The Times is utterly serene about this. Its reporters, editors, and publishers should be punished for the aid and comfort they have provided America's bloodthirsty enemies.Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Va.

Tico -- having watched how arguments about such points can meander endlessly, I'm not in the mood to defend my view that the Bush administration's legal position is pathetically weak. I can, however, offer you the following two-tier bet.

1) The Bush administration will not prosecute the New York Times over this story in any court of law, and restrict themselves to making propaganda noises. (That may or may not include a few odd, non-binding, Congressional resolutions.)

2) Should I be wrong on point #1 and the Bush administration does prosecute, they will lose their case.

Deal?

It's pretty funny to see you parrot things I've read on right-wing blogs, Tico.

And I don't know enough about the facts to render an informed opinion about the likelihood of point #2, but the if probable cause exists to believe the NYT, or individuals working at that newspaper, commited a crime and a prosecution ensues, my bet is they will win their case.

Ticomaya wrote:

And I don't know enough about the facts to render an informed opinion about the likelihood of point #2, but the if probable cause exists to believe the NYT, or individuals working at that newspaper, commited a crime and a prosecution ensues, my bet is they will win their case.

Well, your argument in this thread seems to be that such probable cause exists, so you should believe they would win. Shall we say $20 on point #2?

There's a serious investigation going on into whether or not any crimes have been committed in the revelation of Plame's identity. I can only hope the same will occur in connection with the NYT's disclosures of secret government programs.

I'm all for the freedom of the press, the First Amendment and all, but if the law has been violated the paper should be investigated as well.

As I said, if a crime was committed, the paper -- and those at the paper responsible -- should be prosecuted, IMO. What I am saying is there should not be a "get out of jail free card" handed out to the members of the press. Both the leaker and the leakee ought to be investigated and prosecuted if appropriate.

If a newspaper story harms the US's ability to hunt down and prevent terrorists, it is flat out irresponsible for the newspaper to print the story. If a crime has been committed by said publication, said paper ought to investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Ticomaya wrote:

And I don't know enough about the facts to render an informed opinion about the likelihood of point #2, but the if probable cause exists to believe the NYT, or individuals working at that newspaper, commited a crime and a prosecution ensues, my bet is they will win their case.

Well, your argument in this thread seems to be that such probable cause exists, so you should believe they would win. Shall we say $20 on point #2?

Solid case or not, they still would have to abide by the rule of law and allow the defense access to everything used to prosecute the case. The administration won't dare risk anything coming out in open court.

You're normally a bit more precise than this, Thomas, so I'm sure this is just an anomaly, but contrary to your assertion, I've not claimed that probable cause exists. In fact, in at least 4 separate posts since yesterday, I've made it clear I think there should be an investigation conducted, and if a crime has been committed, the paper should be prosecuted:

I will happily take that bet.

I entirely agree with you that the Adminstration will not file charges against the NY Times.

If they do, however, I will be so pleased, I will consider the $20 the price of admission irrespective of the result.

parados wrote:

Solid case or not, they still would have to abide by the rule of law and allow the defense access to everything used to prosecute the case. The administration won't dare risk anything coming out in open court.

Do we have a bet?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

parados wrote:

Solid case or not, they still would have to abide by the rule of law and allow the defense access to everything used to prosecute the case. The administration won't dare risk anything coming out in open court.

Do we have a bet?

What is the time frame we have to wait? 6 months? 6 years?

Ticomaya wrote:

You're normally a bit more precise than this, Thomas, so I'm sure this is just an anomaly, but contrary to your assertion, I've not claimed that probable cause exists. In fact, in at least 4 separate posts since yesterday, I've made it clear I think there should be an investigation conducted, and if a crime has been committed, the paper should be prosecuted:

Fair enough -- my mistake.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I will happily take that bet.

I entirely agree with you that the Adminstration will not file charges against the NY Times.

If they do, however, I will be so pleased, I will consider the $20 the price of admission irrespective of the result.

Deal.

John Amato astutely asks an excellent question: why are all of the Bush supporters celebrating the unauthorized leak to the Daily News of the FBI's arrests of alleged terrorists who were talking in Internet chat rooms about blowing up the Holland Tunnel (later news reports indicated that the plot was really aimed at the PATH commuter train)?

One Bush follower after the next who has been furiously protesting the publication of leaks by the NYT and other newspapers -- almost all of whom has accused the NYT of treason, of providing aid and comfort to their Al Qaeda friends, etc. for reporting leaked classified information -- have written today about this leaked story. But all of them are ecstatic over this story, celebrating it as a great and heroic blow for the Bush administration and as proof that The Terrorists really are the Epic Threat they've been claiming. And almost none of them are protesting the unauthorized leak, let alone calling for the reporters and editors at the Daily News to be sent to gas chambers or put in federal prison for the rest of their lives.

Their celebratory reaction to this leak is particularly noteworthy given that the Daily News article itself acknowledged that its source told it that the leaked law enforcement investigation "is an ongoing operation." And the FBI claims that this leak has jeopardized foreign intelligence sources:


Disclosure of the bomb plot coincided with the one-year anniversary of a terrorist bomb attack on London subways and a bus that killed 52 and injured about 700. Authorities said they hadn't intended to release details about the plot this early and that whoever leaked the information had compromised the FBI's relationship with some foreign intelligence services.

The person who leaked the details is clearly someone who doesn't understand the fragility of international relations,'' Mershon said. "We've had a number of uncomfortable questions and some upsetment (sic) with these foreign intelligence services that had been working with us on a daily basis.''


It is not, of course, merely the leaker who "compromised the FBI's relationship with some foreign intelligence services," but also the Daily News for publishing the story. And yet those who claim to be so offended by leaks from the NYT, along with USA Today and The Washington Post, aren't decrying this leak at all. Instead, they are celebrating it.

The only discernible difference between the leaks of the NYT and this leak is that the NYT leaks (as well as those of USA Today and The Washington Post) resulted in political embarrassment for the President. Those leaks resulted in reports that the President was breaking the law when eavesdropping on American citizens, or creating secret, lawless gulags in Eastern Europe, or compiling massive data bases of all domestic calls placed and received by Americans with no oversight or Congressional authorization. None of those leaked stories depicted the President as a Hero or glorified the administration. They were thus attacked as treasonous by the President's followers.

But this leak to the Daily News glorifies the administration and depicts them as caped crusaders protecting us from evil terrorism. And thus, the President's followers love this leak and their rage towards journalists who publish classified information -- along with their demands that they be imprisoned, or worse -- sure do seem to have evaporated into thin air.

This is not the first time this has happened. There have been plenty of leaks of classified information in the past which reflect well on the administration -- which depict them as our heroic protectors -- and which therefore provoke no protest at all from Bush followers. It is only the leaks which result in political embarrassment for the President that provoke their ire. Their accusations of treason against American journalists and their demands that they be prosecuted and imprisoned have nothing to do with concerns over national security and everything to do with punishing anyone and anything which harms the administration's political interests.

What other proof is required to demonstrate what is really motivating these extremely selective attacks on leaks? Unlike the other leaks (the bad ones which ended up in the treasonous NYT and Washington Post) which resulted in no demonstrable security damage of any kind, this leak to the Daily News at least preliminarily seems to have harmed national security. Yet it also results in potential political benefits for Republicans (and any doubt about tjat will be quickly dispelled by reading the posts linked to above, where this leaked story is immediately exploited to claim that Republicans are right and Democrats wrong about all national security and terrorism matters). Given the political benefits which Bush supporters believe come from this leak, the leak is celebrated -- and exploited -- rather than condemnend by those who relentlessly claim to detest leaks not for any partisan reason but only out of solemn devotion to the security of the United States.

One last point: Anyone arguing that this story is somehow proof that the President was right to engage in illegal eavesdropping or oversight-less monitoring of domestic calls and banking transactions -- and virtually all Bush followers are making that very point -- is indulging rank illogic. The President is fully empowered to eavesdrop on the conversations of terrorists or monitor their banking transactions while complying with the law and with oversight, and nobody argues that he should not be allowed to do that. Thus, anyone arguing that this story illustrates the need for surveillance is fighting a strawman, since nobody is against surveillance.

Nobody is complaining that the President is eavesdropping or monitoring terrorists, only that he refusing to abide by the law and submit to oversight when doing so. Isn't that point well-established enough by now that people ought to be embarrassed to pretend not to know it, and instead to act on the blatantly false premise that Bush critics are opposed to surveillance itself?

UPDATE: The blogger Catnip chronicles more reaction by Bush supporters to this leak, reactions which are conspicuously free of venom towards the Daily News, but which take the opportunity to claim that this constitutes further proof that the ultimate evil lies in the New York Times.

parados wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

parados wrote:

Solid case or not, they still would have to abide by the rule of law and allow the defense access to everything used to prosecute the case. The administration won't dare risk anything coming out in open court.

Do we have a bet?

What is the time frame we have to wait? 6 months? 6 years?

Ad infinitum, or you a pussy?

Sure, but that's because you are anti-American and support the cause of the terrorists, who want our freedoms curtailed, remember?

Cycloptichorn

Tico -- having watched how arguments about such points can meander endlessly, I'm not in the mood to defend my view that the Bush administration's legal position is pathetically weak. I can, however, offer you the following two-tier bet.

Thomas wrote:

Tico -- having watched how arguments about such points can meander endlessly, I'm not in the mood to defend my view that the Bush administration's legal position is pathetically weak. I can, however, offer you the following two-tier bet.

If their case is weak, then we need to pass new laws giving them more power to control treasonous newspapers during wartime.