National Review Online published an editorial today on the unfolding outrage over the New York Times deigning itself the country's Moderators-in-Chief -- we shall declare what the nation shall debate! -- and called for the government to take away their press credentials, their little badges of honor and access:
The president should match this morning’s tough talk with concrete action. Publications such as the Times, which act irresponsibly when given access to secrets on which national security depends, should have their access to government reduced. Their press credentials should be withdrawn. Reporting is surely a right, but press credentials are a privilege. This kind of conduct ought not be rewarded with privileged access.
Moreover, the Justice Department must be more aggressive than it has been in investigating national-security leaks. While prosecution of the press for publishing information helpful to the enemy in wartime would be controversial, pursuit of the government officials who leak it is not. At the very least, members of the media who report such information must be made to understand that the government will no longer regard them as immune from questioning when it investigates the leakers. They should be compelled to reveal their sources, on pain of contempt.
To those who would say it’s outrageous to consider prosecuting the Times -- and let's be plain, Liberal World would explode (okay, explode again) about the arrival of the Bush Dictatorship -- there is the point that the Times editorialized all in favor of prosecuting a leaker of Valerie Plame’s identity, whether or not anyone knew if she was a covert agent or not. Does the Times really think the disclosure of Plame, regardless of her status, is more damaging to national security than what it’s doing? Please.
