Corante Media Hub OUR PUBLICATIONS:

Corante Media Hub

Jun

26

Congressman Calls for "Investigation and Prosecution" at NYTimes

Posted by Tish Grier

Editor and Publisher reports this morning that the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee on Sunday called for the Bush Administration to pursue criminal charges against The New York Times for its reporting on a "secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists."

Rep. Peter King (R-NY): "I am asking the Attorney General to begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times -- the reporters, the editors and the publisher. We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

The Times, along with the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and other news outlets also reported on the Treasury Department's collaboration with the CIA on a program monitoring messages from an international database of wire-transfer records. King, however, chose to focus his attack on the NYTimes in light of the wiretapping case involving Times reporter Judith Miller.

The Los Angeles Times quotes King on a Fox News program as saying: "By disclosing this in time of war, they [NY Times reporters and editors] have compromised America's anti-terrorist policies. Nobody elected the New York Times to do anything. And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people."

A letter that was sent directly to readers who wrote Times executive editor Bill Keller about the report was published yesterday. Keller explained: "Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places — New York and the Washington area — that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us. . .

"We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program. "

Yet there is some evidence that government prosecutors are pursuing efforts to pressure reporters to reveal sources in matters beyond those of national security. Roger Cossack, writing at ESPN Sports, notes the case of reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada , who broke the story on BALCO and Barry Bonds' illegal steroid use. At issue is whether or not Williams and Fainaru-Wada received secret grand jury information, and who might have leaked it to them. Cossack states: "Although the government prosecutors are legally correct in their concern about grand jury leaks, it seems to me that the subject matter of their investigation ought to call for restraint. Some leaks might affect national security. This leak concerns a steroid investigation. How important was the BALCO probe to the government? So important that prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco negotiated plea bargains with the principals that, in the end, amounted to no more than slaps on the wrist. "

Cossack believes that what the reporters "helped readers realize (was) how harmful steroid usage can be," and that prosecutors might want to ask BALCO founder Victor Conte if he was the source of the leak before they attempt to jail the reporters "for simply doing their job."

COMMENTS

1. Al on July 7, 2006 11:47 PM writes...

I agree totally. The Times should be printing these secrets. And for those that say "everyone knew about these financial programs", a few points:
- The NY Times does not decide what is confidential or not confidential. Freedom of the press does not release them from responsibility.
- One of the authors of the article had a previous article in Nov of 2005 and had quite a few different things to say. So with all of the resources of the Times, he was unable to uncover this nine months ago. So it doesn't look like "everyone knew."
- I understand that Belgium is reviewing this SWIFT program or it's involvement as a result of the article.
I wonder if this program helped us track the latest terrorist plots? ...and which terrorist action will succeed because of being hampered by this disclosure? In other words, how many people will die because of the arrogance of the Times?

Who benefited from the disclosure? Certainly not the country.

Permalink to Comment

2. Martin on July 8, 2006 12:21 PM writes...

I think we who love our country, and the founding ideas on which it was build, (i.e. the declaration of independence, the constitution and the protections our founding fathers build in to the “government) benefited from the New York Times article.

It is the job of a free press to question a program that may be in violition of international treaties or even our own laws (even if Congress now votes that the swift program was legal). A healthy debate about this type of issue is what this country was all about. President George W. Bush attack singling out the New York Times smacks of a fascist tactic to keep people in fear so as to control any oposition to his efforts.

I personally think this article did not harm are security. It seems to be an effort to now direct attention to the article and its publisher and a cleverly maniputate discussion from what the article was about and redirect it to The New York Times by attacking them. What arrogance!

Thank god for the recent restraint of this president’s arrogant grab for power by The Supreme Court. It seems we still may have an independent court dispite attemps to stack the court judges who’s policial views are similar to George W’s.

Permalink to Comment

3. Jason on July 12, 2006 08:46 PM writes...

I find it difficult to believe that the disclosure of financial monitoring will cost lives. The tracking of criminal assets and transactions is hardly news.

The only issue at hand is that George W. Bush has been given the opportunity to take down a vital press outlet that is not ideologically in his thrall.

If the New York Times faces any sort of prosecution for discussing a process, then George W. should be impeached for his "loose lips" in the Valerie Plame affair.

If the New York Times loses this latest battle, the Administration's war will retreat into the background. Without the press and courts occasionally reminding them that they've gone too far, we will continue to be the victims of the overzealousness and incompetence of the Administration with less recourse in the neverending war.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?