Breaking: House passes resolution condemning media blabbermouths

posted at 7:32 pm on June 29, 2006 by Allahpundit

Waiting for the exact vote count. It was in the ballpark of 227-183 — a much more party-line outcome than I expected. But that’s the Democrats for you.

I’ll have the roll when it’s up. Here’s the text of the resolution.

Update: And here’s the roll. 227-183.

From the resolution:

Whereas at some point before June 23, 2006, classified information regarding the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was illegally and improperly disclosed to members of the news media;

Whereas beginning on June 23, 2006, certain media organizations knowingly published details about a classified program that the United States Government had legally and with appropriate safeguards used to track the financing of terrorism, including specific intelligence gathering methods;…

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks here and abroad, including through the use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program;

(2) finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program;

(3) condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as well as individuals and organizations that support United States efforts; and

(4) expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

It’s probably number 2 that accounts for the party split. Or is it number 4?

Update: The AP reports. Barney Frank is whining that the resolution’s incomplete; check out Media Blog to see how he wanted to complete it.

Update: Patterico posted this morning to say that he supports the resolution regardless of the fact that it doesn’t name the Times. So do I, but errr:

Direct media-bashing-by-name at this juncture could give Democrats political cover to vote against the resolution.

Heh. Yeah, we wouldn’t want them to do that.

Update: The Freepers, Protest Warriors, and a few others have obtained a sound permit and they’re planning to put it to good use outside the Times building on July 10th. Click for details.

Update: No less a personage than Ted Olson supports a federal shield law protecting journalists from having to reveal confidential sources at trial — except in cases involving classified information or national security. The Senate is considering a bill to that effect right now. Note Section 3(3). Bloggers are SOL, I’m afraid.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Blame #2 for the split. How can they impeach Bush if they admit that he has been law abiding?

DannoJyd on June 29, 2006 at 7:51 PM

And they passed offshore drilling!

Kevin M on June 29, 2006 at 7:55 PM

No, I’m afraid it’s #4. They don’t want to hamstring the best friends they have left.

Pablo on June 29, 2006 at 8:06 PM

What a waste of time. The fact that can draft a meaningless resolution like this and yet can’t take the time to give it teeth and seek restitution through NYT & LAT prosecutions is absurd. Congress care ZERO about it’s constituency.

Asmodeus on June 29, 2006 at 8:18 PM

They passed off-shore drilling????

NTWR on June 29, 2006 at 8:20 PM

The fact that can draft a meaningless resolution like this and yet can’t take the time to give it teeth and seek restitution through NYT & LAT prosecutions is absurd.

The administration needs to cowboy up and do that.

Pablo on June 29, 2006 at 8:30 PM

protest at the NY times?
I always wanted to go to new york, is their a group discount for hotel rooms?

Wyrd on June 29, 2006 at 9:07 PM

This seems a little weak, is the House in the business of passing non-binding resolutions? Are they the UN all of a sudden?

It would have been party line anyway. Why not just name the NYT and tell ‘em they are scum? They are obviuosly working against the administration and the American people.

Theworldisnotenough on June 29, 2006 at 10:48 PM

This seems a little weak, is the House in the business of passing non-binding resolutions?

Yes. They have been for a long time.

Are they the UN all of a sudden?

No, they also do things that matter from time to time.

Pablo on June 29, 2006 at 11:24 PM

Section 3.3 contains this:

Internet news service

In other news, please visit JunkyardBlog InternetNewsService!

see-dubya on June 29, 2006 at 11:40 PM

You have to be a salaried employee or independent contractor, though.

Which I am. Ka-CHING.

Allahpundit on June 29, 2006 at 11:48 PM

Know what? I think I am too.

At least, Rove tells me I’m independent. Except when it’s underwear day.

see-dubya on June 30, 2006 at 12:50 AM

Hey Michelle, I really like your gang signs. I want to be “jumped in.” (Be gentle ’cause I bruise more easily now that I’m an old geezer.)

Anyway, remember when the NY Times was on their high horse about the Valerie Plame leak? They wanted an investigation and a prosecutor because of the “outing” of a “covert” agent. “National Security” and all that. And I believe the liberals were in general agreement because it looked like a chance to bring down Rove or Cheney.

The silence of the left is deafening now.

Khyber Pass on June 30, 2006 at 12:52 AM

After reading the resolution, why would anyone vote against it? It states the obvious, but of course, anything that might be pro-Bush, such as protecting Americans through legal intelligence gathering, will get the full condemnation of the Democratic Party. Make sure you note which Congressmen voted for the public disclosure of legal and effective national security information and for the terrorists. Note those who are crowing following the SCOTUS decision on Hamdan (I won’t call it a victory – just a redirection. Expect legislation to remedy the issues soon…). When they grab the bully pulpit as November approaches and try to convince voters that they will be strong on national defense, we’ll see if any of the legacy media remembers yesterday’s votes and statements.

SOI on June 30, 2006 at 4:50 AM

The fact that can draft a meaningless resolution like this and yet can’t take the time to give it teeth and seek restitution through NYT & LAT prosecutions is absurd.

But that is our law – our legal system prevents a legislature from passing a law that makes something retroactively a crime. But the US Attorney can prosecute current crimes, which the leaker and the NY Times have committed. If Congress attempted to direct the US Attorney to “go get” the NYT, they would then be breaking the law (something about separation of powers comes to mind). The US Attorney needs to have a news conference to declare that he is going after the perpetrators of this crime against the people of the United States and that he will not rest until the perps are found and the leakers punished to the full extent of the law (including Keller of the NYT).

SOI on June 30, 2006 at 5:00 AM

A resolution. That’ll teach ‘em.

Kid from Brooklyn on June 30, 2006 at 8:24 AM

What was the breakdown of the vote by party? It appears the Dems voted almost unanimously against the measure. This truly defines them as the party that encourages treason, as long as it is committed against a Republican administration.

ptolemy on June 30, 2006 at 8:45 AM

I hope the resolution is just the first step. Next should be hearings and/or a Grand Jury.

David on June 30, 2006 at 11:06 AM