http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...8/NEWS0104/606280533

Bunning: New York Times committed treason with story
Information helps terrorists, he says

By James R. Carroll
jcarroll@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal



WASHINGTON — The New York Times committed treason by revealing an anti-terrorism program that checks international banking records of Americans and others, U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning said yesterday.

"That the press wouldn't have better sense than to leak critical information on terrorists so that they know what we're doing -- that scares the devil out of me," Bunning told reporters in a conference call.

The Kentucky Republican said Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez should empanel a grand jury to decide whether the New York Times' publisher, editors and writers who were involved in the story should be indicted for treason.

Bunning also said prosecutors should examine whether to charge those who leaked the story and journalists involved in earlier stories on the existence of a National Security Agency program involving eavesdropping on Americans' telephone calls.

Bunning's call for Justice Department action was not endorsed by other Kentucky and Indiana lawmakers who commented on the issue.

Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Ky., said in a statement that he supports President Bush's efforts to fight terror as long as they are legal.

As for prosecuting journalists, he said, "While I believe the media should exercise extreme caution and judgment when reporting on programs designed to protect our national security, I also believe in protections provided by our Constitution, namely freedom of speech and of the press."

At the Justice Department, spokesman Bryan Sierra declined to comment on Bunning's remarks.

Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, was on vacation yesterday. His executive assistant, Diane Ceribelli , said Keller's letter to readers Sunday made his arguments.

Keller wrote that the newspaper did not tip the terrorists to anything they wouldn't have known because the Treasury Department has "trumpeted" its efforts to track the international network that pays for terror operations.

Keller said the newspaper published the story after weeks of discussions with the Bush administration, which contended that the program is legal and effective and that making it public would endanger the program.

"A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it," Keller wrote. "That said, we hesitate to pre-empt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it."

Public discussion needed
Roy Peter Clark, vice president of the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla., said Bunning's accusation of treason is "an unpatriotic idea."

"It appears to me … there were consultations with the government and there was a careful weighing of the case that the government produced," Clark said. "And the decisions were made, I think, reasonably and in the public interest by a group of very, very experienced editors at one of the world's important news organizations.

"The issues related to surveillance involving telephone conversations, involving bank records -- I'm not suggesting there's a right answer here -- this is something the country should be talking about. There's no way talk about it unless these policies and practices are described."

Bunning has said he doesn't read newspapers, but his spokesman said the senator "relies on far more reliable sources for his news than The New York Times, but did read the article after seeing reports of this treasonous act."

He is singling out the New York paper because it was first with the story, said spokesman Mike Reynard.

But when told that the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and New York Times published similar stories on the same news cycle, Reynard said: "The New York Times was the one to go with it. The New York Times drove this story."

'Aid and comfort'?
Bunning equated the Times' story last week on the bank records to publishing the phone number of Osama bin Laden, saying the al-Qaida leader would be tipped and change his number immediately.

"In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, therefore it is an act of treason," Bunning said of the story, which detailed how the government is analyzing a massive database on international money transfers.

"What you write in a war and what is legal to do for the federal government, or state government, whoever it is, is very important in the winning of the war on terror."

Asked if that could be a recipe for government abuse of civil liberties, Bunning responded: "It could be."

But lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees have been briefed on the secret program, he said.

"We don't want to break the law. If we are breaking the law, the Supreme Court should say, 'Stop doing it. You can't do this. It's illegal,' " Bunning said.

Other views
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., also has said the Times engaged in treasonous conduct by revealing the secret program. He also called for an investigation.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have both criticized the media for disclosing the existence of the banking program. Bush on Monday said the disclosure "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

But Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was not as critical. Specter has tangled with the administration over civil liberties.

"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 said on "Fox News Sunday."

Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that he has been told that U.S. intelligence officials are assessing the impact of the newspaper stories.

"I will withhold judgment on either the responsibility to report this story or the national expense in terms of security until our intelligence leaders have presented their conclusions," Lugar said

quote:

"That the press wouldn't have better sense than to leak critical information on terrorists so that they know what we're doing -- that scares the devil out of me," Bunning told reporters in a conference call.

The press did not leak the information. It seems much more reasonable to call the person that leaked the information a traitor, rather than going after the free press.

In Sunday's St. Louis Post Dispatch, a writer pointed out that in late 2001, a Bush-appointee spoke to the public, saying that the administration intended to go after the money that terrorists use, including how they transfer it. Looks like we found the leaker! Of course, the terrorists, being stupid, would never have thought that the US might actually look at international money transfers. (Gee, I hope no one lets the cat out of the bag about our having spies! If they do, we'll never win the war against terror.)

This article has a list of references by Bush and his administration to tracking of money, beginning on September 11, 2001, when 'Bush announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." He added, "It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement, and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions."'

The terrorists would need to be pretty unobservant. Every time you transfer money, through the banking system, from one country to another you are required to state the reason. European private citizens cannot transfer money internationally, even within the European Union, without appearing at the bank in person: they cannot do it online. If the sum is substantial then you'll find that the clerk is required to ask you for precise details of the reason and record the answers.The clerk may require documentary proof.So you'd need to be pretty naive to think that nobody ever monitors international transfers in general.

Heavens, that happens with credits of anything more than average sums within the UK (and France), let alone transfers abroad.It's done under our rules for preventing money-laundering You'd need to be pretty naive to think that nobody monitors such transfers done online. [Not that the French always take the money-laundering rules too literally: years ago I paid in about 50,000 Francs (about £5000 or $10,000 ) at a bank in Cannes and when asked for the source of the money, straight-faced told the clerk that I was a pimp . She raised an eyebrow but still stamped the payment .]