Lawmaker Wants Times Prosecuted
This kind of political BS really gets me steamed. The last time I checked, our Constitution specifically protects freedom of speach and of the press. In fact it’s part and parcel of the 1st Ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Treason is also pretty specifically defined in Section 3 of Article 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Times did it’s job in reporting the ongoing gross abuse of power by the current administration. It seems any challenge to the actions/policies of this administration is seen as treason by the conservative right.
Would not giving terrorists our battle plans be considered aid? How would this be different from those who committed treason by copying nuclear secrets and handing them to China (http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/09/china.spy.02/)? That’s just free speech too, right? This is war and I would expect that we could agree to keep our war plans secret. Considering even John Murtha asked the Times to not release this information, I would think they would have seen how important it was to keep the information under wraps.
“How would this be different from those who committed treason by copying nuclear secrets and handing them to China (http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/09/china.spy.02/)? That’s just free speech too, right?”
Wow, where do I start? Giving China the specs of our nuclear weapons is clearly treasonous. The release of such information would have no value to the general public and could only cause harm to us and our armed forces.
Also, most of the evidence that has come to light in the Wen Ho Lee case would seem to suggest that he was a scapegoat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee) This section is particularly revealing:
“FBI investigators soon determined that the design data the PRC had obtained could not have come from the Los Alamos Lab, because it related to information that would only have been available to someone like a so-called ‘downstream’ contractor, meaning one involved in the final warhead production process”
I don’t think this case even comes close to what the Times did. The financial spying program has a huge potential for abuse. The program, like the NSA’s illegal wiretapping seemed at the time to have zero oversight. That’s a situation ripe for abuse, and we arguably had a right to know about it. I think this coupled with evidence that Al-Qaeda was largely aware of the program was the basis for the Times’ decision to run the story.
I think the usefulness of this program is overrated. Surely if I understand the difference in privacy between cash and plastic, I’m betting Al-Qaeda does too. They’re only going to use it when they have no other choice.
When you read all the storys and get all the details together, what this incident really boils down to is the administration doesn’t like people questioning their decisions. They saw the opportunity in this case to make an example of why we shouldn’t question them based on the fact that most people wouldn’t care about this kind of spying. After all, if you aren’t guilty you’ve got nothing to hide right? Think again. It’s never as simple as black and white.
As far as your Wen Ho Lee citation, I don’t take anything on Wikipedia as fact. I’m not saying that statement is false, I’m just saying that citing Wikipedia as evidence is a bit shakey.
On the financial spying, I tend to think it is a bit more simple and more often than not IS black and white. I don’t think the government has a problem with people “questioning” them. I just think they have a problem with everyone Monday morning quarterbacking every decision — particularly when the leaders who are questioning him were involved in a lot of these decisions to begin with. There clearly was some oversight in these areas, which is why Murtha (of all people) called the Times to ask that they not run the story. The money tracing has no benefit to the average American either. And where is your evidence or statistics showing that the average bomb-strapping terrorist was aware they were being watched through SWIFT before the New York Times leaked it? I keep hearing people bring this up, but I’ve neever seen any proof to back it up.
If the program wasn’t helping our government track terrorist money, why would they continue using it? If you read the details about the program, they can’t simply just reach out and grab anyones records. I know a good deal about SWIFT having worked for a couple companies that used them. My understanding is that SWIFT required the government to provide some tangible evidence that the records belong to individuals tied to terror. That said, how else would it be beneficial to the governemnt and why would even Murtha ask for it not to be revealed if it wasn’t working for them?
At a time of war, I have no problem with our government doing what is needed to bring down the enemy. I don’t mean that to say that I would give up liberty for the sake of security — my every day life-liberties were not harmed in this spying and I didn’t lose a wink of sleep over it.
You have no problem with the government doing whatever it has to do to “bring down the enemy.” It seems innocent enough until you peel back the layers of the onion. It would be a lot simpler if this was the war on Al-Qaeda. It’s a single target, and as spread out as they are it would be a focused attack on a single entity. However, what we have is the “War on Terror” which is a variable target. Anyone is a potential target, and that is what makes it so dangerous. There’s a reason the press was written into the constitution as a check on the government’s power. It’s also why authoritarian states so heavily (if not completely) control their media. Congressman King’s labeling the NYT story as treason is dangerous political posturing that serves only to weaken that check on the government. If it was truly treasonous, the NYT wouldn’t have been asked not to print the story, they would have been told with all due force. You may not lose sleep over stuff like this, but there are plenty who do. In any case, what matters is that there is debate on these issues. When we stop debating the issues and just accept what the government tells us, we cease to be a meaningful part of our democratic society.