If this was truly a secret project, and not also illegal, then the tipster should be found and prosecuted. A larger question that delegates in Portland will have to confront is "What measures are appropriate to take to ensure another 9/11 doesn't happen?" What measures may the FBI take to infiltrate potential terror groups, gather information, run down tips, etc. without violating Constitutional rights? Didn't efforts to combat communist spies (such as the Philbrick
"I Led Three Lives" infiltration) or the effort to round up the Nazi saboteurs who landed on Long Island and found succor in the U.S. German community involve constitutionally questionable
means? The LP must - like it or not - offer a program that gives some comfort to the millions of Americans who live in fear of another terrorist attack.

What the Times did was not treasonous. How could it be treasonous if no war has been declared?

The comment about the Constitution being thrown away is beyond hyperbole. That's just silly.

I can't believe anyone even trusts the media to report on these things accurately.

-Mary McCarthy gives "evidence" to Dana Priest, who then wins a Pulitzer for reporting on secret prisons in Europe where torture is taking place. The kicker? An international investigation revealed -no- torture in these prisons. The Pulitzer remains with Priest for her bogus story.

-Newsweek reports that guards at Guantanamo are flushing Korans down the toilet. The story spreads throughout the country and around the world. Only one problem: it wasn't true.

-Time and Newsweek both ran cover stories on Haditha in Iraq, one with a leading subtitle about "what is too far?" as if anyone had been prosecuted yet. The Bill of Rights, by the way, tells us that all accused parties are INNOCENT UNTIL proven guilty. Not the case with Haditha, just like with the Duke rape investigation.

-One word: Rathergate. (I bring this up just as one example out of many where the press is hostile toward the Bush administration, and thus stories that discredit current policy have to be taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by an entity other than CBS news, the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, etc.)

These stories come out with such haste that they have little to no credibility within weeks or even days. The media wants to get credit for the best story and refuses to take proper avenues for investigation and fact-checking. The result is publication of stories that are borderline libel.

We have a freedom of the press, and we shouldn't infringe upon that. Though running stories that deliberately undermine our ability to wage war successfully against a particular enemy may not be treason according to the Constitution per se, it's pretty darn close.

Regardless, to suggest that these media outlets are just reporting the news and exercising their First Amendment right is to misinterpret what's happening.

"The Bill of Rights, by the way, tells us that all accused parties are INNOCENT UNTIL proven guilty."

A Point of Order to the Honorable Marcus Brutus:
Uh, no. It does not. A right to a speedy and public trial, yes. A right to a jury of ones peers when the amount in question exceeds $20, yes. A right to counsel, yes. Innocent until proven guilty, not a Constitution-based term.

(Just a minor correction.)

1) How is it that within the very same amendment, "freedom of the press" is interpreted as allowing the disclosure of classified information by journalists while "freedom of speech" doesn't allow Joe Citizen to do the same?
2) Why do the Justice Department and the courts allow them to get away with it?
3) There are legal ways to report perceived abuses of power within any of the Gov't Branches without jeopardizing our nation or its citizens, why didn't they pursue any such alternatives?
3) If the press admittedly finds no abuses, where is the "public interest" served by reporting information, classified or otherwise, that obviously jeopardizes our nation or its citizens?
4) Lastly, why can't they just admit that they are journalists first, Americans second? Their desire for headlines, awards, and advertising revenue obviously outweigh any sense of loyalty to fellow Americans and the country whose Constitution they try to hide behind.

Disregard the numbering error, trying to do to many things at once...

A Question & Responses to jscjsc:
1) In what way do you mean 'Joe Citizen' is not 'allowed to do the same'? I am just a little confused by the statement.
2) By 'them', I presume you mean journalists? Do correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, the rationale is, since 'Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech, or of the press', the journalists have done nothing illegal, for no such law exists for the journalists to break.
3) They (presuming you mean journalists) did not need to. Publishing the information always was and still is a perfectly legal way of reporting the abuse.
3a) The public interest in such a case you describe would be increased scrutiny of and greater accountability of government officials. Leaders can only leader if they gain the trust of the people they wish to lead. That trust can only be gained if the people understand exactly what is happening and why.
4) While I would be reluctant to state Americans have any definite 'public duty', if I were to do so, I would certainly say one duty is helping other Americans and government officials at least understand one another; if not, then at least making sure any potential for abuse by government is minimized or, preferably, removed. What evidence shows the journalists were not doing so?

My apologies for the faux pas regarding the constitutionality of "innocent until proven guilty." Instead, such a statement is derived from the burden of proof and the necessity of prosecuting "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's implicit, but well understood, although I do deserve to kick myself (just did) for changing the constitution with that previous post. What am I, a liberal?

As a response to Frank's (2) response above, when you publish something that facilitates the transfer of classified information to an enemy in a time of war, that could technically be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Granted, that's all a matter of interpretation, and to make that argument requires, as you alluded to, mandated responsibilities of U.S. citizens (because if it is aiding and abetting, then the person who leaked the information would be the one who committed the crime first; publishing information is a right.)

It's more about questioning the desire of the editors to publish such a story when (1) it provides sensitive information to our enemy and (2) when the government had asked explicitly not to run it. The government cannot force them to publish or not publish certain things, but why would they do that unless they cared more about awards and recognition than commitment to their own country?

Patriotism is not mandated, nor should it be. But when your lack of it comes not from dissent but rather a desire to perform an action that can hurt America while aiding its enemy, a warning light should click on. Unfortunately for the NY Times and the LA Times, such a thing did not exist.

Maybe they'll be charged for treason, and maybe they won't. Maybe they should, maybe not. But one thing is for sure: What they did was reprehensible, even if it was their right to do it.