« The New York Times, Then And Now | Main | The ADD Nation Concedes The War On Terror »
July 01, 2006
Ummm... Nevermind
Remember that huge NSA database we warned you about back in May?
USA Today is backing off part of its controversial report accusing three major phone companies of secretly providing phone records to the National Security Agency for a nationwide database of domestic calls. The paper now says it's unable to confirm that two of the three telecommunications giants — BellSouth and Verizon — turned over any records to the NSA.Both companies issued strong denials after a national uproar last month.
Of course we didn't believe them then, did we?
USA Today reports that five members of the congressional intelligence committees confirm that the companies did not participate in the NSA database and admits that its original sources could not document a contractual relationship between BellSouth or Verizon and the NSA, as the paper had originally reported.
USA TODAY will continue to pass on unverified news stories report on the contents and scope of the database as part of its ongoing coverage of national security and domestic surveillance even though most people think they're deranged whack jobs:
The latest FOX News poll reveals that 60 percent think The New York Times decision to publish a story on the financial tracking program helped the terrorists.Sixty-six percent say news organizations that report classified security information should face criminal charges and 43 percent say reporting on secret national security data amounts to an act of treason.
Media "experts" have been bruiting the Pentagon Papers decision as "proof" that the Espionage Act of 1917 was "never intended" for use against journalists. Apparently they never bothered to read the applicable Supreme Court decision, New York Times Co. v. United States (there is something positively Freudian about that case name, n'est pas?):
The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases [against the Times and the Washington Post.] Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint. . . .It is thus clear that Congress has addressed itself to the problems of protecting the security of the country and the national defense from unauthorized disclosure of potentially damaging information. It has not, however, authorized the injunctive remedy against threatened publication. It has apparently been satisfied to rely on criminal sanctions and their deterrent effect on the responsible as well as the irresponsible press. I am not, of course, saying that either of these newspapers has yet committed a crime or that either would commit a crime if it published all the material now in its possession. That matter must await resolution in the context of a criminal proceeding if one is instituted by the United States. In that event, the issue of guilt or innocence would be determined by procedures and standards quite different from those that have purported to govern these injunctive proceedings.
Scott Johnson goes on to comment:
In a Boston Phoenix article, "The Gray Lady in shadow," civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate counts five Pentagon Papers justices in accord with the basic proposition that, while prior restraint is essentially prohibited, post-publication criminal responsibility is not. Silverglate observes that five of the nine justices (White, Stewart, Blackmun, Burger, and Harlan) would have approved of criminal prosecution of the newspaper defendants in the Pentagon Papers case, even though a majority would not authorize a pre-publication injunction. That observation is clearly correct, but conservative. Justice Marshall's concurring opinion is also consistent with White's analysis. It is fair to conclude that the Times is not immune from criminal liability for violation of the federal espionage laws under the Pentagon Papers case.
Posted by Cassandra at July 1, 2006 05:56 AM
Comments
Neeeeeeeevermind! /Litella
Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 1, 2006 12:04 PM
The media "leaked" information about extraordinary rendition. Europe was outraged. And then the EU investigated and found no proof of it actually happening.
The media "leaked" information about NSA wiretapping. And yet folks on the hill on both sides have said that it's not what we think it is and probably isn't illegal.
The media "leaked" information about an NSA program for tracking phone calls themselves. And even though the story itself is true to some extent, the original sources were lying about much of the information.
The media "leaked" information on tracking money from terrorists. And yet the program was completly legal and all but the far left is saying that it should have remained secret.
I'm starting to see a pattern.
Posted by: Gambit at July 4, 2006 10:09 AM