Naomi Wolf The End of America Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (2007)

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

The "treason" rollout continued: on June 23, 2006, when The New York Times published the SWIFT banking story, the
rhetoric of treason was put to use in a new way: Though New York Times executive editor Bill Keller pointed out that
the administration itself had boasted of the program, a right-wing push to criminalize what Keller had done ensued.
President Bush personally called the publication of the story "disgraceful." A week later, a Republican Congressman
called for an investigation and a special prosecutor. Right-wing blogs exploded with the themes of "treason" and
"crime." Right-wing pundits began to call in unison for Bush to invoke the 1917 Espionage Act against the publisher
and editors of The New York Times.5
In San Francisco, KSFO radio host Melanie Morgan "called for New York Times editor Bill Keller's potential execution
if both charged and found guilty of treason." She said:
I made it clear with my very first words that I saw this as a case of treason. Yes, for those of you in the "cut and run"
crowd, I said TREASON.
[Chris] Matthews was shocked. He seemed to think he misunderstood me. I couldn't have really meant that, could I?
Long prison sentences for reporters because they repeatedly leaked classified information on America's efforts to
combat terrorism?
Absolutely.
... New York Times editor Bill Keller and his accomplices should face prosecution by the government of the United
States for willfully and repeatedly undermining the war effort against terrorism by repeatedly violating the law and
reporting on classified anti-terrorism programs.6
(Nikolai Bukharin, the editor-in-chief of Izvestia, who had been a critic of Stalin, was accused of "espionage" and
"treason" in the Moscow show trials, found guilty and actually executed.7)
The blogosphere also invoked the 1917 Espionage Act. Weekly Standard editor William Kristol demanded that the
Justice Department prosecute the Times under the Espionage Act.8 National Review Online contributing editor Deroy
Murdock wrote:
Strict punishment for the Times's crimes (and it has behaved criminally) is in order.... So, what is to be done with this
irresponsible rag? . . . Congress in 1950 passed something called the "Comint statute". . . . the resulting law, U.S.
Criminal Code Tide 18, Section 798, reads:
"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an
unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for
the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning
the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
not more than ten years, or both."
Murdock concluded: "Under this law, and perhaps also the 1917 Espionage Act, the Times deserves to be indicted
immediately for its NSA and Swift stories."9
During the Swift banking story controversy, conservative pundits' calls for the prosecution of the Times were still
rhetorical still a play, if a rough one, in an open society's game.
But the Justice Department was actually using the Espionage Act, and not rhetorically any more: In 2005, it prosecuted
two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, for having
accepted a leak from a government employee.10 The 1917 Espionage Act makes it illegal for an unauthorized person to
have "unlawful possession" of "information relating to the national defense." This revived use of the law could
potentially criminalize conversations in many serious newsrooms not to mention even conversation at many
frivolous Washington dinner parties.
And if the Justice Department only goes after reporters who disclose classified information as did the reporters who
exposed the Pentagon Papers and My Lai you still have a minefield: This administration classifies and declassifies
material continually. If this new benchmark prevails, American reporters can be charged, convicted, and sent to prison
for tripping over any number of newly electrified tripwires: if you run a photograph of Vice President Cheney's house
that inadvertently reveals where security staff are posted; if you publish an expose of interrogation conditions at Abu [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Pokrewne