Posted on 06/28/2006 12:11:45 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
The battle of Midway Island was the turning point of the Pacific War. Victory at Midway was possible because the U.S. had broken the Japanese naval code. The Chicago Tribune spilled the beans in a story that ran under the headline: "NAVY HAD WORD OF JAP PLAN TO STRIKE AT SEA."
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was furious. He knew that if the Japanese read the story, they'd suspect their codes were compromised, and change them.
The president "initially was disposed to send in the Marines to shut down Tribune tower," wrote Harry Evans. "He was talked out of that, then considered trying (Chicago Tribune publisher Robert) McCormick for treason, which carried a death penalty in wartime."
A grand jury was empaneled, but prosecution was dropped because the Japanese were still using the Purple code, evidently having missed the story. The publicity from a trial would clue them in.
So Col. McCormick escaped prosecution. But with what the Chicago Tribune had done in mind, Congress in 1950 added Section 798 to the Espionage Act of 1917.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I sure hope the Bush Administration is gearing up and laying the groundwork for prosecuting the scumbag NY Times. And equally as important, I hope they nail the leakers. Gut-check time.
No way does a story get "missed" by the enemy in 2006.
I doubt that W will do this. He'll continue to chide, beg and plead for everyone to just get along and be nice. It's sad.
Indeed it is; BRING 'EM ON!
I doubt that it was "missed" during WWII either. For one reason or another, the Japanese didn't associate the story with the possibility that their code had been broken. As I recall the stories from History Channel documentaries, they were absolutely convinced that their codes just couldn't be broken. Their arrogance on that point turned out to be a Godsend for our intelligence efforts.
US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, § 793:
Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any… information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it…
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
But to be honest about it I think Colonel McCormick would have cleaned Roosevelts Justice Departments clock in any trial.
Admittedly I'm biased. I'm a big fan of the Colonels (it's sad to see how far his paper has fallen-he must be whirling in his grave) and I absolutely despise FDR.
L
Not to mention, economically. The NYT's stock is still swirling done the crapper. Maybe the times could get a court appointed attorney???
Not considering the treasonous press is bound to ask the enemy "how they feel about that".
The NYT have released these stories; one by one, those in the know are explaining, in non-partisan rhetoric, why this is bad.
The NYT has even had to explain their position, while maintaining their arrogant stance.
The Congress has protested. The president is wisely avoiding the kneejerk response that would have resulted from him coming down hard on the free press, and is letting the situation play out in a way that people are coming around to HIS point of view, on their own, instead of it being shoved down their throats.
People forget that cases take TIME to be put together; last I heard we were still building a case like this from a previous leak.
This is the right way to do it, though I know that's a minority view around here, because it's getting public opinion to come around AGAINST the NYT, instead of making them a victim--which they and the rest of the lib media know how to play like a piano.
One thing about being a Bushbot...I can read the president very well, and he is not about to let this slide. He will, however, make sure that whatever course he takes is effective.
Didn't somebody once say that you should never battle with an enemy that buys ink by the barrel?
You make a strong point.
The NY Times is like the mischievous imp (with his glasses on) who taunts the big guy until the big guy swings back. Then the imp cries, "But you can't hit a guy with glasses on!"
Perhaps by ignoring the Slimes as far as prosecuting them is concerned and instead letting public opinion play out, the damage to the Times will be deeper over the long run. I can see that.
Actually, I am more interested in seeing the scumbag leakers from the Democrat Party, the State Department and/or the CIA exposed, prosecuted and jailed (or hung).
Yeah, but that was back before the good guys had all the bandwidth in the world for free.
Which is more effective: Having the President attack the free press...or having people see more and more evidence that convinces them one particular press outlet is working against all of our interests?
Which scenario would in the end have the best results for us all?
Ping
Whatever the poltical/tactical considerations are, the fact is that if we want to have a law against treason, then we had better be willing to enforce it. failing to enforce the law will ensure that it becomes a dead letter; a virtual buggywhip law.
THAT'S the sad truth of the matter. We have allowed ourselves to become the underclass to lawyers and judges. Were it not for impenetrable political/legal roadblocks, set in place by........lawyers and judges, the works wouldn't be nearly as gummed up. Justice delayed is justice denied.
I think we should check with Vicente Fox before making any major decisions.
Yup. I'd love it if we lived in a nation that wasn't so easily manipulated by the media, and didn't trust George Clooney more than it did George Bush on matters of state. But you play the hand that's dealt ya, not the one you wish you got.
Reminds me that story of the MLB catcher who was trying to psych-out the batter.
Catcher: "...man, don't you know everyone's sayin' you're a loser. They're all sayin' you lost your egde. Everybody's saying...." etc. etc.
The batter turned to the catcher and said:
Batter: "And you know what everybody's sayin' about you?"
Catcher: "No. What?"
Batter: "Nothing."
I respect Bush for his usual non-confrontational and moral high road approach. So I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't take steps against the NYT.
But the problem is bigger than just the NYT, and it's about more than our national security with terrorism.
Those who hate our president will continue to be emboldened if no action is taken. With no action against the Times, those who trust the Times and call this administration the 'most corrupt in history' will continue to live with their preconceptions and their biases unchecked. It's time for a reality check, and far left liberals who threaten our nation's existence need to have some long, overdue shame mandated to them.
While I'm a scrapper myself, this would only be a lose-lose situation for the Prez and the Pubbies. They would be forever marked as trying to censor the First Amendment rights of the American press.
The best thing to do is for someone like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity to call for a national boycott of the NYT and anyone business or corporation who buys ads in their scummy newspaper. Hit them where it hurts; in their checkbook.
Yeah, but I'd like to see the National Security Agency secretly tap The New York Times circulation list. It probably contains the global positioning system (GPS) coordinates for Usama's cave. I doubt that there's an easier, less expensive, more effective method of gathering enemy intelligence than simply reading the public word of the dedicated pro-terrorists espionage experts The New York Times. Then again, perhaps Usama just reads The Times online--if his cave has reliable Internet access.
The Times and its staff are guilty on many counts of espionage and sedition. If they know or have good reason to suspect that the terrorists subscribe or read their website, then a good RICO/conspiracy/treason case might be possible.
It's about convincing people on the ground, in the coffee shops and bars. Bush can't do that my TELLING them they should be feeling that way; it's only going to happen by multiple voices explaining it...to the point where people will WANT the NYT's actions punished.
Andrew McCarthy argues persuasively at National Review Online that the Administration should not prosecute the papers but should instead focus on prosecuting the leakers. Convene a grand jury, subpoena the reporters and editors who worked the story, ask them to identify their sources and jail them for contempt of court if they don't answer.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzE1OWViMDAwZTY0YTFkMGIyZTI5NzIxMmNkNzAzNjI=
And they should start with Mary McCarthy - we haven't heard poop since she was let go at the CIA. Dollars to doughnuts she knows sho is still leaking on the inside.
And while we're on the subject - lawmakers need to update the law regarding classified info leaks. $10,000 fine and up to 10 years doesn't cut it in today's climate.
I agree Bush shouldn't do it himself. He can't afford to go to that level and make the NYT's the victim. He should keep the high road and let others take action.
I see this as an opportunity to change some minds "on the ground" as you say. If the issue is just dropped, nothing changes; with no action or pending action, it will fade away.
The problem is a usual non-confrontational and moral high road approach to these leaks could get a lot of Americans killed, both here and overseas.
If Bush doesn't want to take steps against the NYT, then he should take steps against the leakers. And, those steps need to be focused, swift and public.
Indignation is not enough.
W is giving NYTimes a lot of rope. The court will set a new standard: Heedless disregard for national security. They did that in defamation cases: Heedless disregard for the truth.
Slimes already said they went to press not because they determined it would be harmless to national security, but because other news outlets were about to break the story (i.e. harm to country be damned).
""Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits...or publishes ...any classified information...concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States...shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.""
This law doesn't have an adequate penalty for our time. What's $10,000 dollars to the NYT? Now ten years for the editors responsible - that starts to make sense.
No, he won't. Makes me sick.
Yep, he's WAY too diplomatic about these things. Aggression is called for.
AT LEAST, they should stop all daily press briefings with that stupid group of communists every day. Snow could just go directly to the New Media and leave those morons out in the cold.
That having been said, the fact that Gonzales hasn't gone after the presumed leakers more aggressively says there's more here than meets the eye. For example, is it possible that the "data mine" had already "gone bust" in the sense that the terrorists no longer trust the banking system, and are moving their money by courier (or some other method thats not electronically traceable)? Did the Bush Administration leak this themselves in order to show that they were being proactive in the WOT, and/or in order to put news outlets like the Times in the bad light they so richly deserve? The lack of (apparent) desire to identify who's leaking this information makes one wonder.
Yep. My thought precisely.
A Grand Jury should be empaneled and all the poobahs at The Times called in to testify as to their sources on this story. Should they refuse to answer they should be jailed for contempt until they change their minds.
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.