Rep. King Seeks Charges Against Papers Over Terror Reporting
Sunday, June 25, 2006

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

Rep. Peter King cited The New York Times in particular for publishing a story last week that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "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," King told The Associated Press.

A message left Sunday with Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis was not immediately returned.

King's action was not endorsed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

"On the basis of the newspaper article, I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it's premature to say that the administration is entirely correct," Specter told "Fox News Sunday."

Stories about the money-monitoring program also appeared last week in The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. King said he thought investigators should examine those publications, but that the greater focus should be on The New York Times because the paper in December also disclosed a secret domestic wiretapping program.

He charged that the paper was "more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people."

When the paper chose to publish the story, it quoted the executive editor, Bill Keller, as saying editors had listened closely to the government's arguments for withholding the information, but "remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Treasury officials obtained access to a vast database called Swift — the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The Belgium-based database handles financial message traffic from thousands of financial institutions in more than 200 countries.

Democrats and civil libertarians are questioning whether the program violated privacy rights.

The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States, but it does not execute those transfers.

The service generally does not detect private, individual transactions in the United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.

Gonzales said last month that he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security. He also said the government would not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.

In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name.

He said the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security.

http://tinyurl.com/pmmko

I think this quote pretty much sums up the position of anyone who thinks the New York Times was in the wrong.

The idea that we should give up freedoms listed in the Constitution in order to accomodate national security is pretty much the most horrible thing I can imagine. Why should a nation bother securing itself if it isn't free? Is the nation even worth protecting?

If national security was violated, then punish the Federal employee who broke confidentiality, don't punish the newspaper that repeated it. The newspaper has made no agreement to maintain confidentiality, and it should not be tried as though such an agreement were made.

Oh I don't know.

If you were in the Witness Protection Program, would you want the New York Times to print your name, address and picture - just because they could? Just because it would be covered under "Freedom of Speech"?

Freedom of Speech only goes so far, and we all know it.

No one was losing any freedom by what the Times did. The only thing lost was another way to fight the terrorists. What the Times did was disgusting. They are lucky they live in America. If this happened in Russia, Germany, Italy, or Japan during WWII, the publisher would be taken out back and shot.

Every freedom and right we have in this country carries responsibility with it. I can't walk up to a 5-year-old girl and ask her if she wants to come to my house for wine and cheese and show her porn videos and say it is free speech. I would much rather try that tactic on Raquel Welch.

With the way it is written, I agree. I think the framers made it that way on purpose. Look up New York Times Co. v. United States.

Of course I would not want the times to print this information, but I also would not press charges against the Times. If the Times can figure out my name, address, and picture, then the Witness Protection program has failed, not the Times.

Perhaps the people in Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan in WWII were unlucky. We should not act as though freedom is a privledge granted only by the most prestigious of governments. Instead, understand that it is the responsibility of every government to preserve freedom, and any government which fails to do this is illegitimate.

You can certainly say this and it is part of your freedom of speech. However, if you actually gave her wine or showed her porn videos, then you would be using a different freedom which the government does not allow you.

Freedoms do not come with responsibilities. Responsibilities are things which you must do. If you have responsibilities, then by definition, you are not free. If I am allowed to say one thing, but I am not allowed to say another, then I do not have freedom of speech, no matter what terms you use to explain it.

You mean Great Grandma Welch?

Our freedoms most certainly come with being responsible. You can't walk into a crowded theater and holler fire. The Supreme Court has already ruled on Freedom of Speech a number of times. America is at war. A lot of people here seem to forget that fact.

If the president would get warrants as is the normal operating procedure we would not be having this discussion. Can you give me one reason why the government needs have access to this info without a warrant? A warrant would protect our rights and would not in danger our security.