Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens [the noose starts to tighten?]

New York Times ^ | February 12, 2006 | DAVID JOHNSTON

[68skylark]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials.

The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seems to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.

The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act." Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have expressed the hope that reporters would be summoned before a grand jury and asked to reveal the identities of those who provided them classified information.

Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said, "It is my aim, and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people this country deserve nothing less." The case is viewed in as potentially far reaching because it places on a collision course constitutional principles that each side regards as paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach....For news organizations, the inquiry threatens its ability to protect sources and report on controversial national security issues free of government interference....

[68skylark]

This could get interesting.

[68skylark]

...a rapidly expanding criminal investigation.

I like the sound of that.

Will soon see if it's true, or just hysteria from the Times and other parts of the MSM.

[MNJohnnie]

HAAAA! So all the Get Rove for Palme situational ethics are coming home to bite the Junk Journalists in a most delicate spot. Going to be interesting listening to Fat Dummy Timmy Russert and Hissy Matthews try to rediscover the 1st Amendment Press protection after trashing it when they thought the Plame leak was going to "get Bush".

[Patriot from Philly]

I don't think the elites at the New York Times will enjoy jail. Oh, well.

[ThirstyMan]

...a rapidly expanding criminal investigation.

If the NYT is hoping for a public outcry I believe they're sadly mistaken. All it will take is one breach in security and the NYT and all those liberal whiners will be looking like complete idiots. And their road back to credibility with the public, (the NYT and the whiny liberals)will take longer than recovering from the Vietnam mindset.

[68skylark]

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

What a sanctimonious bunch of jerks.

They think they know more about national security than the experts. They think they know more about the law than the experts.

And, as one of my favorite bloggers wrote, what if they're wrong? What if their reporting gets people killed? Are they prepared to apologize? Are they prepared to make amends?

[God luvs America]

the motto of today's lib-MSM: don't get it right...don't get it complete...just get it first!

[operation clinton cleanup]

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts,"

I think the obsession with getting Bush won out over the American People's safety.

[Lakeshark]

Yes, but we will thoroughly enjoy watching them go when they do........

:-)

[Publius6961]

This could get interesting.

"Interesting" is cute, but I would rather see the results reviving the concept of "treason", and the appropriate punishment for it.

After all, treason endangers hundreds of thousands, if not millions!

[68skylark]

If the NYT is hoping for a public outcry I believe they're sadly mistaken.

I think you're right. They might think that they can stir up a groundswell of anger and outrage at the administration, and that will make the investigators back off.

Well the left wing is good at making lots of shrill noise -- we may hear a lot of it in the coming days and weeks. But it doesn't represent the majority opinion in this case, and I hope the investigators don't flinch.

[BobS]

Good. If the "reporters" don't reveal their sources, put them in a general prison cell with a bunch of black and mexican gangs for a weekend.

[My Favorite Headache]

Anything "rapid" in Washington I am in favor of.

[68skylark]

HAAAA! So all the Get Rove for Palme situational ethics are coming home to bite the Junk Journalists in a most delicate spot.

Yeah, the Times flogged the phony Plame scandal harder than anyone. And now it makes the perfect precedent to go after them.

[zarf]

Nothing will happen. This will be buried with the Travel Office and the Rose Law Firm billing records.

[Mo1]

tick .. tick .. tick

[angkor]

There were allegedly multiple sources for the Dec 16 story.

How these sources were located, convinced to speak to the NY Slimes, and to break their oaths and security clearances will be interesting to see unveiled.

And why they didn't just take their "concerns" to their NSA security officers and legal counsels will be even more interesting.

Cleared TS/SCI NSA employees (conspiracy) discussing confidential and operational national security information with the Slimes will, I hope, produce many life sentence in Leavenworth. People have been skewered, demoted, and prosecuted for much, much less.

[tiredoflaundry]

LOL ! I was just about to ping you! :-)

[RWCon]

the motto of today's lib-MSM: don't get it right...don't get it complete...just get it first!<\i> Or "get Bush."

[68skylark]

Nothing will happen. This will be buried with the Travel Office and the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Yeah, that's one of the possibilities.

One of the Clinton-era scandals that's closest to this one is the matter of the hundreds of FBI files on Republicans that the White House was hoarding. The Democrats never worried much about privacy violations in those days.

No one was punished in that matter, if I recall correctly, although at least one Nixon-era White House staffer went to prison for a single FBI file.

[Arrowhead1952]

While you wait, I'll supply some

[no dems]

"Interesting" is cute, but I would rather see the results reviving the concept of "treason", and the appropriate punishment for it.

After all, treason endangers hundreds of thousands, if not millions!

Oh Yeah? Well, don't forget; George W. Bush got a DUI. (Chuckle /sarc./ Chuckle.)

[68skylark]

I'm not sure who I'd rather see prosecuted -- the leakers, or the reporters and editors who put out the information to a wide audience.

I guess it's most likely that the leakers, will get prosecuted -- and not anyone at the Times.

[conservative in nyc]

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said that no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation and defended the paper's reporting.

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security. What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty — a debate that many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches of government, seem to regard as in the national interest."

Good thing the New York Times is in charge of deciding national security issues. Didn't you vote for Bill Keller in the 2004 election?

[okie01]

"There is a very strong argument that a federal common-law reporters' privilege exists and that privilege would protect confidential sources in this case. There is an extremely strong public interest in this information and the public has the right to understand this controversial and possibly unconstitutional public policy."

Leaving aside the self-serving final paragraph (above), this was a surprisingly balanced article -- taking pains to develop each side of the argument.

One might even interpret it as a conscious effort to tip-toe back from the edge of the cliff...

This interpretation is furthered advanced by the fact that they chose to publish it on Saturday, when it will get the least readership and attention.

[zerosix]

Judith Miller certainly won't object to the irony of witnessing her boss and their boss doing a little time in an orange jump suit, will she.

[Thombo2]

Choice quote:For news organizations the inquiry threatens it's ability to protect sources and report on controversial national security issues."The writer is trying to muddy the waters here.This isn't about protecting a writers source.The NYTimes published sensitive information(re an ongiong intel gathering op)knowingly in violation of our nations laws that may have compromised our fight against terrorism.The information was meant to kept secret,but the msm in their infinite arrogance deemed it fit to print,regardless of the consequences.Find the source(s)and prosecute.Simple.

[68skylark]

If these people had been around in WWII, they could have printed shipping schedules. They would have printed our invasion plans for Normandy and other places. They would have told the Germans and Japanese that the allies had broken their codes. They'd have printed anything to get Americans killed.

[rodguy911]

They can't put those old media wannabe journalists too far under the jail for me. Let's just hope something comes of all this. If it does it will only be reported accurately here.

[68skylark]

This interpretation is furthered advanced by the fact that they chose to publish it on Saturday, when it will get the least readership and attention.

Yeah, I think you're right about the Saturday publication of this story.

[Cboldt]

I guess it's most likely that the leakers, will get prosecuted -- and not anyone at the Times.

How much investigation is required to prosecute the publisher? We know the publishers identity, and what they published is out for all to see.

If it's in violation of 18 USC 798, get on with the indictment already.

[rodguy911]

Jail time could convince them.

[Howlin]

Mark.

[Just A Nobody]

First step: Get it right.

a once highly classified domestic eavesdropping terrorist surveillance program

[Cboldt]

Find the source(s)and prosecute. Simple.

There's not even a need to "find the source" in order to prosecute the Times of publishing. If the evidence shows the Times is in violation of the publication statute, Gonzales has asserted that they WILL be indicted.

The investigation reported in this article is to find the leaker, but there is no need to know who the leaker is, in order to prosecute the publisher.

[YOUGOTIT]

Put the traitors in jail!!!!!

[Just A Nobody]

I would rather see the results reviving the concept of "treason",

I agree. The concept has needed revived since 1971.

[68skylark]

Jail time could convince them.

I don't know. It's always nice to think that a criminal feels remorse, and feels the error in his ways -- or that he will come to feel remorse in the future.

But this bunch seems pretty much immune to those feelings.

[K-oneTexas]

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who has represented publications like The Wall Street Journal and Time magazine said, "There is a very strong argument that a federal common-law reporters' privilege exists and that privilege would protect confidential sources in this case. There is an extremely strong public interest in this information and the public has the right to understand this controversial and possibly unconstitutional public policy."

In other words "We are innocent!!!"

[Cboldt]

One might even interpret it as a conscious effort to tip-toe back from the edge of the cliff...

The bell cannot be unrung. They published. If the publication violates the statute, then the government needs to prosecute.

There is no way to unpublish or otherwise tip-toe-back from that cliff.

And the publisher is liable regardless of who the leaker is.

[YaYa123]

I like rapid too, it's so unusual for Washington, isn't it? Besides rapidly assembling an investigative team, and interviewing the spooks, "prosecutors have taken steps to activate a grand jury in the case."

I don't think any of this would have happened so quickly if it harming our national security weren't a foregone conclusion.

[Bernard Marx]

I don't think the elites at the New York Times will enjoy jail.

It won't come to that of course, but if it ever did I'm sure most could teach the cellblock homos some fancy New York tricks. They might enjoy it more than you think.

[Baynative]

"This could get interesting".

You can bet the dems are working on something for the press to talk about (and the press will be eager to oblige) to take this off the front page so it can disappear like "Oil for Food", "Able Danger", Sandy Berger and Vince Foster.

[HP8753]

One of the Clinton-era scandals that's closest to this one is the matter of the hundreds of FBI files on Republicans that the White House was hoarding. The Democrats never worried much about privacy violations in those days.

IMHO,The possesion of FBI files or/copies that she is not authorized to possess,Constitutes "Illegal Domestic Spying"

Who hired Craig Livingstone??

[conservative in nyc]

The article is dated tomorrow. It wasn't up on their website late last night. This will be in the Sunday papers.

[68skylark]

That's interesting. We'll see.

[Hardastarboard]

I don't think the elites at the New York Times will enjoy jail.

Yes, the quality of the brie and chardonnay there is terrible.

[Jackknife]

PING!

[angkor]

Reporters don't hold clearance and cannot be prosecuted (except for contempt, e.g., Judith Miller).

Which is why I hope the NSA leakers get very long sentences in Leavenworth. They had internal policies for recourse, and they ignored them. Violated them. Intentionally.

This has got to stop.

People need to go to jail.

[kjo]

There's no chance the NYTs nor any other MSM people will have to go to jail. John McCain won't allow it. It might cost him some media time and support.