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....

[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.