Prosecute the Times. Newspapers deserve a fair trial too.

Was this a serious statement?

I personally don't believe classified information should even exist. I have no idea why the military superpower of the world needs to spy on anybody or keep any of our actions secret.

It was actually. Our classification system keeps a whole lot of mistakes, clandestine actions gone bad, etc. from public scrutiny - although this information is prohibited by law, only those with clearance and the need to know would even be aware of this happening, and have no motivation (or ability) to speak out about it. And it creates a whole lot of red tape and makes cover ups dead easy. What's the point? Is some group going to sneak onto american soil and somehow disable all 10,000 nuclear missiles if they only knew where they were? That seems unlikely. On the other hand, the abuse of the state secrets act and dubious classification of material is in the news all the time. At the very least, a lot of what we currently classify should be unclassified. Relying on something being classified to keep it safe is dangerous and stupid. If you want to keep it secret, make it actually secret. If you want to keep something physically safe, make it actually safe.

The security clearances that grant you access to classified information are ridiculous too. I knew someone who was in the army with a high level security clearance who worked as a russian ground order of battle analyst. I used to go out to raves with her all the time, and she'd do drugs at the party with no worries. And I knew someone working at the state department as a contractor who was the straightest of straight arrows who was still waiting for a clearance a year and a half after the process started. The only reason he needed one was to build a database for a branch that dealt with classified information. He couldn't even gather requirements from them until he had a clearance. When I was working there they said I might need to get a clearance too, which worried me until I talked with my army friend. "Just pick out who you're going to give them as references first and coach them all to make sure they don't mention you do drugs" she said. What a great security system....

How would you propose they

make it actually secret

without classifying the information?

Is some group going to sneak onto american soil and somehow disable all 10,000 nuclear missiles if they only knew where they were?

First of all, if some group sneaks onto american soil and finds a nuclear weapon, we'd be awfully lucky if all they did was disable it. Secondly, it appears that you are implying that they would need other information, besides just the location, in order to disable the nuclear missles. It stands to reason that this additional information might be something that shouldn't be shared, which kinda makes it sound like it should be classified.

How would they keep it secret? By getting the people who know to not talk about it. Classifying something doesn't mean that people aren't going to talk about it. How much classified info has leaked in the past year? The definition is over broad. I can't see Americans with nuclear secrets blabbing them all over. I can see Americans who don't think the gov't should spy on us blabbing about that. And they should - keeping that information from Americans had no bearing on national security that I could see, and profound impact on the Constitutional rights of Americans.

First of all, if some group sneaks onto american soil and finds a nuclear weapon, we'd be awfully lucky if all they did was disable it.

No... they shouldn't physically be able to do anything once they got there because there should be guards and multiple failsafes. Relying on secrecy for security is a bad idea.

without secrecy, how do you keep the information required to get through each failsafe from getting out? there is no way to get around relying on secrecy. yes, there should be multiple levels of security, but each level has to be created by someone, and that person has to keep their portion secret, which is the whole idea of classification

it seems like what you're really getting at is that you think some of the stuff that has been "leaked" should not have been classified in the first place.

That's a big part of it yes.

Executive order 13292 - Federal Register

Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or
(h) weapons of mass destruction.

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

One of the big problems with that last part is that only career government officials get access to this info, and the only way to challenge the classification is through procedures set up by their bosses. And it played out tragically in the case of the German citizen who was kidnapped and abused by the US, with the court having to just trust the government that information would be revealed in his trial that would damage national security. How? The guy already told his story to everyone who would listen.

I was doing some more reading on this subject today. No wonder people are talking about using the ancient Espionage Act. As far as I can tell, classification is established solely through Executive Orders and applies only to the Executive Branch and the Espionage Act is the only thing prosecutors can dredge up that applies to private citizens in any way. I just don't know why this elaborate system is in place. Private companies keep all kinds of trade secrets that other people would like to know. They do it through common sense, reasonable security measures, and getting their people to be discreet. As Celestina posted in an article once, if you want to stop leaks, stopping doing bad things. Prosecuting patriots who are doing what they think is right for the country is not going to stop them from telling reporters about programs they think are illegal and immoral. Yet they'll happily conceal information when they see that it serves a purpose to do so.

Brian, a security clearance only grants a person access to information at or below the security level of their clearance and only to information that they "need to know". The higher the security level the greater the breadth and depth of the background investigation. If your Army friend got a clearance and they only interviewed the contacts given by your friend it most likely was not high level. I have had mid-level security clearances and the background investigations took several months to complete and were pretty thorough.

My opinion is that anyone who knowingly leaks classified information should be prosecuted as a spy. When the press knowingly receives classified information they are abetting espionage. In this case the NYT knew the information was classified and chose to publish the information after being asked not to publish it. The NYT did notify the government that they received the information so they get a few responsibility points, however their motives are questionable since it appears they intended to publish the information no matter what happened.

It is true that the government classifies a lot of stuff that maybe should not be classified, but a good intelligence operation can make accurate inferences based on patterns of seemingly innocuous information. It is difficult to explain why a seemingly innocuous piece of information should be classified without providing the context where it may not be innocous. That is why we have oversight committees in Congress. They are cleared for access to the information and its context and can make a responsible decision. If the NYT was truly concerned about the people's civil liberties the NYT could and should have addressed their concerns by contacting the Congressional oversight committees for guidance.

In this case the information was not innocuous and the NYT knew publishing it would damage the U.S. intelligence effort. As far as I can tell there was no overriding need for the public to know about this operation and no indications that the government was abusing the information gained from SWIFT. The NYT does not have the context to judge the importance of the information or the damage that publishing the information will cause. This seems both reckless and arrogant to me.

Just because you have the right to do it does not make it right. In this case I think the NYT was wrong because they did not take the steps to ensure their actions were responsible.

That is why we have oversight committees in Congress. They are cleared for access to the information and its context and can make a responsible decision.

chucks, this would be a great subject for an article! (hint, hint)

My opinion is that anyone who knowingly leaks classified information should be prosecuted as a spy.

I imagine that you must have been quite disappointed, chucks, to see Karl Rove walk?

I'm still waiting to hear how this damaged the operation. We didn't need to classify the fact that we were getting information from SWIFT. It seems like it would have been a better idea to say that we were getting info from SWIFT and every other major banking information service whether we were or not.

A journalist simply publishing classified information does not automatically make them guilty of helping the enemy. If someone from the army gave the NYT a full schematic on our latest nukes, they wouldn't publish it because of the fact that it would do actual damage. They heard the arguments from the administration about how this story would hurt intelligence operations and decided those arguments were completely unconvincing.

Brian, my point was that we and the NYT do not know what may have been damaged. We do not know if or how this information might be used in other intelligence contexts. At the very least it draws the attention of the terrorists we are fighting when we should be doing the opposite to capitalize on their lack of attention to some detail of operations.

vannevar, I was not disappointed. The special prosecutor has the responsibility for making that decision. I have seen no evidence of malfeasance in the performance of his duties so I respect his decision.

And the Attorney General has the same responsibility here, chucks. You advocate prosecution in a case where you fear there will be none (the NY Times), presumably because the AG will decline. Why not make the same strong statement against the Special Prosecutor's apparent decision to no-bill Rove? If anything, the Rove case is more clearcut: Rove was not a member of the press receiving classified information, he was actually the official leaking the information to Time Magazine.

You bluster at length against the New York Times, but defer meekly to the Special Prosecutor on Rove with two sentences. I would better respect your absolutist position on leaks of classified information (although I do not share it) if you applied it consistently.

I seem to remember Bush pledging publicly to go after the assets of those who aid terrorism after 9/11. The only thing I found out from the article was that they were using SWIFT, which I'd never heard of, and that some people appeared to consider the whole thing secret.

Here's an old page about it from the Treasury department:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011012223355/www.treas.gov/ofac/ofactxt.html

There's even an Executive Order about it. The only thing not mentioned is the detail about SWIFT.

Is Bush like the NYT also guilty of Treason?

what the New York Times has done is careless and a betrayal of strategy and tactics to the enemy, which is considered an act of treason.

If they are worried we are telegraphing our efforts to track them down perhaps they should look at the earlier culprit:

See, part of the way to make sure that we catch terrorists is we chase money trails. And yet it was easier to chase a money trail with a white-collar criminal than it was a terrorist. The Patriot Act ended this double standard and it made it easier for investigators to catch suspected terrorists by following paper trails here in America.

George W. Bush, April 19, 2004

Do you publish your article?

What is your point? You can point to zero stories remotely approximating your hypotheticals. Do you honestly believe they are even remotely like the stories published by the NYT? If yes, then you should be accusing Bush of treason for talking about similar issues in his reelection campaign. http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2006/06/27/269967-prosecute-the-times-newspapers-deserve-a-fair-trial-too#c181680

I had a Top Secret clearance during the Cold War (and occasional Eyes Only access, as well). My clearance took about 6 weeks to get, if I recall correctly, but perhaps the bureaucracy was moving a little faster in those days. I also had a pretty thorough education with regards to "need to know" and various scenarios were enacted with the many possible ways that would be tried to compromise my clearance to obtain the information I was carrying or had seen. At the same time, I was also given bureaucratic routes to report wrong-doing among my co-workers and senior staff, essentially bypassing their authority so that whistleblowing would actually work and my anonymity and job position, etc. would be protected. These kinds of things in place tend to keep leaks from happening.

The reason I think we are seeing so many leaks during this administration is that those routes for whistleblowers either do not function as intended, the info is being ignored/not acted upon/not taken seriously, and very likely the whistleblowers are not being protected -- so there is fear of repercussions as well as fear of the wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing that's taking place. The only avenue left to someone in the military or intelligence services who sees what they think is wrongdoing occurring is to leak the info to the press. This is what I think is happening.

An alternative explanation (though a bit harder to accept), is that the information is being intentionally leaked as a means to an end (i.e. propaganda/psyops/operational method). For example, leaking the SWIFT info and that we're monitoring banking transactions may have been intended to let the terrorists know those were being watched (even if they aren't) in hopes that massive amounts of money would be transferred elsewhere -- oil futures, stock market, etc. which we are actually monitoring -- at which point, the funds transfer becomes visible.

Curiously, the Swiss bankers aren't making much of a fuss about the banking surveillance (their banks are part of the SWIFT system), and you would think they'd be screaming bloody murder about this, considering they like numbered accounts and anonymity/privacy in banking.

If this was so super-secret, how did the NYT find out about it?

Actually it was not secret, but this wont stop right wingers from hyperventalating and shouting treason.

See, e.g.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php

Then why are they against Scooter/Rove/Cheney being handled the same way? Oh wait, whoever gets prosecuted for this should just say they didn't know it was secret, or they misunderstood or just plain forgot. Apparently that's all it takes.

I'm basing it on the results of a survey taken the last time this happened. When someone, the Times I think, discovered that the government was wiretapping phone calls without a warrant.

I'm too lazy to look up the survey though...

Fair enough

Then I'm too lazy to believe you or to take your argument seriously.

Basing it? You mean you're utilizing one set of numbers to reach a conclusion about a different topic?

(I'm also pretty surprised to hear that 88% of American's stated that it was "alright" to monitor our bank accounts -or- to eavesdrop on our phone calls without a warrant.)

But again -- as far as this debate is concerned, you pretty much made up those numbers.

Brian Ford said: you pretty much made up those numbers

Did not!

Did not!

Prove it!

Killfile: I love this "well duh" principle. We should apply it more often.

Now, we need to define: "well duh", and send it to Congress for legislation. :)

Only information that is a direct threat to national security is supposed to be classified. If you were to judge by the sheer volume of classified material you would have to assume that there are so many threats to our security that it's a wonder there's even a single American still alive.

I think both of these situations are very different in that Senator Murtha is a government figure and his statements carry the weight of his office, while any comments on Newsvine carry little weight in the grand scheme of things.

Senator Jim Bunning, who is also a government figure, accused the New York Times of treason today. The article doesn't actually say whether or not he accused the Wall Street Journal of treason as well. Given that Senator Bunning is "a government figure and his statements carry the weight of his office," would you want to revise your position, or are there now some other differences that you'd like to point out?

Brad, considering that I am agreeing with you almost completely, you are a bit combative there. Long day?

Senator Bunning is just as responsible for his words as Senator Murtha, however your link lacks direct quotes, so I will reserve judgement until I see a direct quote accusing the NYT of treason, not just calling for an investigation or trial, which are perfectly fine to call for.

so I will reserve judgement until I see a direct quote accusing the NYT of treason

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Representative Peter King:

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

Brad, considering that I am agreeing with you almost completely, you are a bit combative there. Long day?

No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off that way. I said what I said, of course, I just wanted to see whether you felt differently about the issue, knowing that there were Republicans doing what Murtha'd done. I didn't take enough time to adjust the tone, and on rereading it, I can see why you'd feel that way. I apologize.

There've been a couple of Republicans who have called for prosecution of the New York Times today. Interestingly, they don't seem so intent on seeing the Wall Street Journal prosecuted. Be that as it may, I don't see much difference between this and what Murtha did. If you honestly don't look at that as a double standard, that's your prerogative, but it looks like it to me. Not that I haven't supported a few double standards in my day, mind you, I just think that in this case it's fairly clear that the right wing has been out to get Murtha because they really prefer to think that the military's conservatism is homogeneous, so they act as if he's the most vile and despicable human being since Nixon. When, however, it is convenient for them to do the exact thing that they claimed to have a problem with, "influencing the outcome of a trial," or "convicting them in the court of public opinion," or some such thing, it becomes OK. All of a sudden they can find plenty of reasons why sometimes it's OK to do this, but other times it's not. Conveniently, it just happens that all of the "OK" times are when a Republican does it, and amazingly all of the "not OK" times are when Murtha, or some other Democrat does it.

Again, Adam, sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm sorry, too, that it took so long for me to respond. I'm not sure if it's just me or if everybody is having this problem, but there seems to be some sort of intermittent caching issue at Newsvine these past few days. I'll have new comments in the conversation tracker, but when I load the page no new comments are visible, even when I clear my cache and reload from the server. Later on, I'll go back to the page and there will be both new comments and comments which are not new, but which I haven't seen. Frustrating.

If we are at war, I would like to see the declaration. Treason is narrowly defined because the Founders were well aware how the Loyalists used Britain's incredibly harsh treason laws (where in some cases the children and even grandchildren of the traitor were held responsible for his crime and at the very least financially ruined over it) to suppress dissent. I am far from surprised that the current aristocracy calls for similar treatment of dissent today.

I would advise those calling for this to be treated as treason to remember that precedent can be a terrible thing. Weakening the definition of treason could mean facing charges of that crime yourself if the government were to change.

I'm going to put you on my watchlist just to remind myself that your watching me.

The New York Times (NYT) does not deserve the privilege of innocent until proved guilty because they aren't a real person they are part of the Evil American Corporate Hegemony aimed at World Domination hence they abrogate any rights to be fairly evaluated.

Oh, please, not even in satire! Crazy talk like that makes the baby Halliburton weep!

Next time I read an article about an evil company whose members should be thrown in jail I'll be watching for each of you who supported this article to howl about how unfair it is.

Anytime anyone wants somebody "thrown in jail," they want them to have a fair trial first. That's how people get thrown in jail. If I were to say, for example, "The editor of the Wall Street Journal should be jailed for sedition!" I'm not suggesting that the editor simply be jailed without a trial. I'm sure that none of the right wing mouthpieces that are claiming that the editors of the New York Times should be thrown in jail for treason would suggest that it be done without a trial, either. You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

I can't help but notice that the Right (and many of our more Conservative 'Viners) shrieked in unbridled self-rightous fury when Murtha contended that the Marine shooters had killed civilians in cold blood, yet seems more than willing to bandy about words like "Treason" when dealing with the Times reporters.

Does "innocent until proved guilty" apply only to the armed forces?

That's not apples to oranges, the complaint is the NYT is being defamed in public without a trial. I'm saying I read articles defaming companies the same way all the time without hearing anything about how the company should be given any benefit of the doubt. I was also pointing out that the NYT is a company itself and thus all the normal anti-capitilist and anti-corporate rants I hear should apply to them too.

KyleN, let's go back to what you said in the comment I responded to:

I'm upset that many people here think the New York Times should be given a fair trial and they turn around and demonize ExxonMobile or some other company and think they shouldn't be given any fair trial.

See the part where you're talking about trials? That's what I'm responding to. In this most recent comment you said this:

That's not apples to oranges, the complaint is the NYT is being defamed in public without a trial. I'm saying I read articles defaming companies the same way all the time without hearing anything about how the company should be given any benefit of the doubt.

You're mixing up "benefit of the doubt," "fair trial," and "defamation." It's actually apples, oranges, and pears.

They broke it (the encryption) before Pearl Harbour.
So it goes beyond the hypothetical that 'a bunch' of people got killed.
They would have prosecuted the Chicago newspaper but that would have opened a can of worms when all they really needed to do was intimidate and silence them.

They didn't. (despite Tony Snow saying:)

I am absolutely sure they didn't know about SWIFT.

... www.swift.com, yeah no one could have found that... from their own website.

"SWIFT has a history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities."

Except that they have the worlds largest financial trade show.

Oh durr. He was talking about the terrorist not knowing about SWIFT. That's even better. Because they aren't allowed on teh internets, right?

"Q I guess what I'm asking is -- and I'm sorry for not being specific enough -- but is there the belief that even though terrorists had clearly been tipped off from the very beginning by the President that there was going to be an aggressive attempt to get as much financial information as possible, that they did not know about the SWIFT Bank?

"MR. SNOW: I am absolutely sure they didn't know about SWIFT. There are -- when you have key government officials around the world saying, we didn't know about it -- there may have been a lot of activity, but it is a program that was not well-known, including among people who have pretty high positions in the banking industry. So, yes, this is not the sort of thing that everybody knew."

At Friday's briefing , Snow actually mocked reporters who suggested that SWIFT was not exactly operating covertly.

"Q But the existence of this organization is no secret. . . .

"MR. SNOW: Are you kidding? Are you talking about Swift? When did you know about Swift before? . . .

"Q Let me ask a follow up. Are you saying that the financial experts in the terrorist ranks would not know about an organization that works for 7,800 different financial institutions in 200 countries?

"MR. SNOW: I'm saying, yes. I think that a lot of people didn't know about the existence of Swift."

What would bin Laden know about that it's not like he was born into an incredibly wealthy family...whoops?! "Key governmental officials" - you mean like the same folks that didn't know the 9/11 plotters were in the country because other key governmental officials weren't permitted to tell them? Yeah I am 'ABSOLUTELY SURE' he is an authority on who knows what, being a key governmental blah blah...

There is no "right" to press credentials...they only give it to "respectible" news people...they don't give white house press room passes to reporters from HorsePet Magazine or ModernQuilting.

In my mind the New Terrorist Times is now in that same class of respectability.

....they only give it to "respectible" news people..they don't give white house press room passes to reporters from HorsePet Magazine or ModernQuilting.

cough...cough..Jeff Gannon...cough...