Tuesday, February 7, 2006
N.Y. Times Probed in NSA Leak Case
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez revealed Monday that the Justice Department is still investigating the leak of national security secrets to the New York Times concerning the NSA’s controversial terrorist surveillance program.
The possibility of criminal charges looms for the suspected leakers, as Gonzalez vowed to file charges if warranted by the findings of the investigation.
Gonzalez offered the information in response to questioning by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was there testifying on the constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program that tracks communications to and from the United States.
"The department,” Gonzalez said, "has initiated an investigation into the possible crimes there.”
But he refused to go further.
"Consistent with our practice,” Gonzalez continued, "I’m not going to talk about an ongoing investigation … But we will look at the evidence and if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution.”
Sen. Grassley evinced indignation toward the unknown leakers. "We do not hear as much public outcry as we did with the Valerie Plame case,” he noted, adding that case "was a two-bit nothing compared with this issue – with this information … being leaked to the press.”
The leaker and the New York Times could be subject to prosecution under the federal espionage law.
One section of that act prohibits authorized persons possessing "information relating to the national defense which … the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States” from passing the information onto unauthorized persons.
Another section prohibits disclosure of classified communications "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.”
If charged, the Times would likely assert the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press as a defense. The case would present an important and as yet unresolved question of constitutional law.
Though the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot suppress publication of classified information before the fact, it has not examined whether government could impose criminal sanctions for publication after the fact.
Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez revealed Monday that the Justice Department is still investigating the leak of national security secrets to the New York Times concerning the NSA’s controversial terrorist surveillance program.
The possibility of criminal charges looms for the suspected leakers, as Gonzalez vowed to file charges if warranted by the findings of the investigation.
Gonzalez offered the information in response to questioning by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was there testifying on the constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program that tracks communications to and from the United States.
"The department,” Gonzalez said, "has initiated an investigation into the possible crimes there.”
But he refused to go further.
"Consistent with our practice,” Gonzalez continued, "I’m not going to talk about an ongoing investigation … But we will look at the evidence and if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution.”
Sen. Grassley evinced indignation toward the unknown leakers. "We do not hear as much public outcry as we did with the Valerie Plame case,” he noted, adding that case "was a two-bit nothing compared with this issue – with this information … being leaked to the press.”
The leaker and the New York Times could be subject to prosecution under the federal espionage law.
One section of that act prohibits authorized persons possessing "information relating to the national defense which … the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States” from passing the information onto unauthorized persons.
Another section prohibits disclosure of classified communications "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.”
If charged, the Times would likely assert the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press as a defense. The case would present an important and as yet unresolved question of constitutional law.
Though the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot suppress publication of classified information before the fact, it has not examined whether government could impose criminal sanctions for publication after the fact.
Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.
