been prosecuted for treason, it will continue.
The US AG is responsible for doing NOTHING again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Posted on 06/24/2006 8:47:03 PM PDT by neverdem
Once more the spoiler. Despite the earnest persuasion of the White House to preserve a useful weapon in the war against the terrorists, the New York Times has revealed the workings of a covert surveillance program, indisputably within the law, to use administrative subpoenas to examine, through a Belgian financial consortium known by the acronym SWIFT, the financing of international terrorism. Once the story was out, the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal covered it as well. Now the program is damaged, perhaps severely so, and the financing of terror is harder to track. This is another unnecessary leak, six months after the New York Times revealed a secret National Security Agency terrorist surveillance program.
In its earlier scoop, the New York Times could reasonably argue legal uncertainty. Not this time. The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller in 1976 that no right to privacy attaches to the type of third-party financial-transaction information SWIFT has provided to the Treasury Department. The Right to Financial Privacy Act, enacted by Congress in 1978 in the wake of United States v. Miller, allows just the administrative subpoenas Treasury has been using. So does the Patriot Act. The SWIFT transactions that Treasury has been examining are international in nature. The searches are specifically targeted at suspected or known terrorists, a "sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity," as Treasury Secretary John Snow puts it. The claim that the rights of American citizens are infringed is irrational, unduly partisan, or both.
The program clearly works. Treasury pointed immediately to the capture of the terrorist known as "Hambali." Hambali, or Riduan Isamuddin, masterminded the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 innocent men and women. He has been in U.S. custody since his arrest in 2003 in Thailand, and the SWIFT...
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
CBS lost its anchorman.
The NYT is not going to get a "Pentagon Papers."
Prosecuted under what law?
If this isn't criminal, then they need to make it a crime. Disclosing the fact that the NSA was monitoring electronic traffic last December should be prosecuted under the Espioage Act; maybe this as well. Willfully disclosing state secrets should be a crime, especially in a time of war. We executed the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html
Does this apply? Saw it in another post.
Once again the NYT,LAT etc have shown that because of their mutual hatred of President Bush they have once again betrayed our country. There is no doubt that these traitors are agents of Al-Quaeda. They would have published with glee that we had the Project Enigma codes of the Germans during WW2. When do our laws protecting the country from treason began to take effect. How much more aid to the enemy will we have to suffer before these traitors are put into prison where they belong?? I returned from Iraq after a 13 month tour in November and I shudder to think how many of my comrads were killed because of information that these traitors in the New York Times gave to the enemy!! JessM
And we're not in a time of war.
If the terrorists hit another building inside the U.S., may it be the NY TIMES.
How much more harm does the NYT have to do to this nation before qualifying for RICO violations?!
we should rendition them to Al Qaeda////let some heads roll
>>The Right to Financial Privacy Act, enacted by Congress in 1978 in the wake of United States v. Miller, allows just the administrative subpoenas Treasury has been using.<<
I looked up the code. It requires cause and notification to the customer. it looks like the current program involved large quantities of records to sift through and did not include notification.
>>§ 3405. Administrative subpena and summons
A Government authority may obtain financial records under section 3402 (2) of this title pursuant to an administrative subpena or summons otherwise authorized by law only if—
(1) there is reason to believe that the records sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry;
(2) a copy of the subpena or summons has been served upon the customer or mailed to his last known address on or before the date on which the subpena or summons was served on the financial institution together with the following notice which shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of the law enforcement inquiry:<<
People on this board really don't have any idea what RICO is, do they?
Aiding and abetting the enemy when the countries at war.
And this would not count as "aiding and abetting the enemy" the way revealing specific spying activities might.
And by specific, I mean specific activities against certain groups or by certain agents.
The 'Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations' Act.
The terrorists committed an 'Act of War' on 9/11 when they attacked us.
I meant that no one has any idea how it is actually properly applied. Something like this (even were it illegal) does not even come close.
Congress declare war by joint resolution.
Considered in the Senate, 09/12/01
Passed in the Senate, 09/12/01
Considered in the House, 09/13/01
Passed in the House, 09/13/01
Presented to the President , 09/13/01
Became Public Law, 09/18/01
RICO is set up to nab those who commit seemingly independent crimes which are connected by an overarching criminal goal.
So, one could say, were the publication of these articles a criminal act, that the publication, first of the NSA surveillance program, and then the publication of the SWIFT program, with interspersed articles on Abu Grahb, or Haditha, would conspire to achieve the overarching goal of undermining the US WOT effort.
You may recall that RICO was used against Operation Rescue, whose overarching goal was shutting down those facilities that performed abortions. The various protests at abortion clinics around the country, as part of the Operation Rescue program, were brought forward by the pro-abortion groups under RICO as part of an overarching criminal enterprise.
If you have unauthorized possession of classified information and you pass it on to others not entitled to receive it you are in violation of federal law.
We're at war?
And this would not count as "aiding and abetting the enemy" the way revealing specific spying activities might.
Maybe you think so, but I beg to differ. Al Qaeda issued a fatwa against the United States. Congress passed a resolution equivalent to a declaration of war.
I noticed that NY State appears to be your home. I didn't need television to see that smoke was coming from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. This was a second attempt on the World Trade Center. I hope your scholarship is not supposed to include current events, especially those involving terrorism.
I didn't elect the New York Times to make these decisions for me and I don't see that they have the right to decide national security issues.
It's legal. It (was) secret. It helps stop people trying to enslave and kill us. Telling them our tactics helps them win.
The NYT knew it was legal and secret and effective against our enemy. They told anyway. Helping your enemy by informing them of your tactics against them aids them and their cause.
This isn't rocket science.
WOW ... The WT sure smacked the Times upside their heads
Yes there is.
They are on the SIDE of the terrorists. Not to say they don't hate GW Bush, because they probably do.
But, the logical answer to all of their behavior....the Occam's razor that most easily explains it all...is that they are supporters of the terrorists.
What planet do you live on?
The US AG is responsible for doing NOTHING again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
2. The Times say it's a secret program. Not so. Many European bank executives knew of the program, obviously the SWIFT execs did, Dems & Rep of authorized congressional committees from both houses knew.
3. The Times gave the impression the U.S. rifles through, at will, databases for consitutionally protected data. The data is not constitutionally protected. More importantly, there are safeguards to view the data. Here is my brief recollection of the safeguards from the head of the U.S. SWIFT program from Brit Hume's Special Report:
A request is made to SWIFT for info on Abu Al-whatever along with valid (determined by SWIFT) reason/evidence for the search. The request is reviewed for approval. IF approved, the focused search is done. In realtime, SWIFT authorities monitor the 'viewing' and can shut it down if the 'view' goes outside the prescribed criteria.
Thanks NYT. You really saved the planet from a great injustice...not.
"... the code. It requires cause and notification to the customer"....do these laws and regulations apply to non-citizens? IMHO, a non-citizen (alien) should not expect Constitutional protection.
Tell that to the wives, parents, and children of my fourteen friends who aren't coming home from Iraq.
The above is also the best description of the ACLU.
Why, you may ask, do I point this rather obvious fact out to you? Because I suspect your career goals have you headed for a seat in that organization.
The only way to successfully handle this issue, in my opinion, is for the White House and the national Republican party to somehow fold this into the big picture of the war on terrorism, and the danger of having liberals in charge of anything in this country, and though of course because of a free press we can't shut down the Slimes (too bad) we can at least keep the Slime-bots out of positions of power in this country. Something like that. Somehow taking the extreme indignation that all patriotic Americans feel reading about the treason of the leftist media and channelling it into the electorial defeat of the party of Treason: the rats.
Excellent news about Peter King. Why would any american want any of their tax dollars going to anti-terrorism support to NYCity, when the paper of record in that city, is openly supporting the terrorists?
As does the person who leaked the info to them.
I may get a bad reaction here, but Gov. control of the press? It has a haunting hint of North Korea in it... I really don't like the sound of that.
On the other hand, leaking of classified information should carry a life sentence. The Times should also be forced to reveal the source. This would put an immediate stop to it. Reveal your source, or face a (insert unrealistic fine here) penalty, payable to the (insert your fav charity here) fund.
Really, the press should have enough restraint to uphold the requests of the gov. in cases like this, but they don't.
In this particular case, no big secret was let out. It wasn't common knowledge for sure, but it wasn't a secret.
Also, the Wall Street Journal chose to publish it too.. shame on them as well. Having said that, if this were to have been critical secret information, the NYT would have printed it anyway, so my argument is kind of null.
I just don't think we should tiptoe into what could wind up being a form of censorship. Instead, we need to knock this out at the knees... kill the messenger (the leaker) and we do this by forcing the outlet (NYT) to reveal the source or pay dearly.
The liberals are waiting for another terrorist attack on the United States so they can blame the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq.
The NY Times and other mainstream media are giving the Bush Administration a HUGE excuse when the next attack occurs.
Liberals just don't know how to shut up.
I'd argue that any terrorist who didn't already suspect this type of thing was going on isn't smart enough to be much of a threat. Same with the phone tapping.
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.
Right. Comint status and also RICO can apply. "Young scholar" is throwing up a little fog today. Don't assume the NYTimes and WaPo lack allies.
We could spend a lot of time trying to figure out what motivates treason and/or national suicide, but it is better time spent just beating them and their cause.
I wonder how many posters who claim programs like this that spy on citizens are consistent with conservative values will continue to claim that when its a Democratic President doing it?
>>The NYT may be prosecuted under 18 USC 798 - the "Comint" statute.
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.<<
As a practical matter, it is very difficult to prosecute for a leak if the leaker is a whistle blower. Whatever you think of the program, revealing appears to fall into the whistle blower category.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.