Once again, the New York Times has shown us that al-Qaeda doesn't need to infiltrate our country to ferret out secret information that might help them. Why should they, when details of classified programs used to track and arrest terrorists are routinely splashed across the front page of what used to be a great American newspaper?

When President Bush promised us right after 9/11 that he would "starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest," he meant every word of it. Responding to subpoenas from the Treasury Department, the Belgium-based financial organisation SWIFT -- Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication -- began helping US agents track down sources of terrorist funding.

As nearly every international transaction travels through the SWIFT databases, the program was a vital source of information, while the Society was able to protect the interests and confidentiality of customers who were not sending money to terrorists. "SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas," a SWIFT representative said. "Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with."

So, the secret program was both useful and legal -- as even the New York Times has acknowledged. What's more, the tracking program has even borne fruit. Hambali, the Bali nightclub bomber and al-Qaeda's Southeast Asia chief, was captured because of the ability to track his financial dealings. Terror operations require money, and bank transfers moving through multiple dummy corporations and fake charities were obviously thought to be "Bush-proof" until now. Terrorists may have known that the US government was trying to track their financial transactions, but not the details of how and through which banks it was done. Those who commit tax fraud, rob banks and launder money still do so even though we all know the FBI looks for criminals, because the FBI doesn't publish every detail of how they work.

For two weeks, Representatives, Senators and other government officials from both sides of the aisle practically begged managing editor Bill Keller and publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger not to print the classified information. Former NJ Governor Thomas Kean (R) and former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, asked Keller and Sulzberger to keep the classified program under wraps. Even Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) -- no friend to President Bush -- asked Keller and Sulzberger to preserve the program's secrecy. They carefully explained how useful the program is to our fight against international terror networks, and showed that the program has broken no laws. However, Keller and Sulzberger decided that their interpretation of the public's "right to know" everything the government does is more important then the government's ability to stop terrorists -- especially if it boosts declining sales of their paper. Details of the secret program were first published on the NY Times' web site, and the story appeared the next day in the print version of the paper, as well as in the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal.

If the NY Times is willing to publish details of an ongoing classified government program that a) has caught major terrorists and b) was not even alleged to be illegal or intrusive, then where do they draw the line? Would they publish troop movements, citing the "public's right to know?" If they had learned of the air strike on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before it took place, would they have felt the public had a "right to know" about that, too? Will the next major terrorist targeted for arrest find out in time to escape, just by walking past a newsstand? The New York Times fulfils all the functions that would be expected of a spy network, but only costs a dollar a day. That's good news for the terrorist on a budget.

Anyone who knowingly publishes classified information regarding national defense, or allows it to be published, ought to be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. The US Code (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793.e) states, "Whoever having unauthorized possession of ... information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted ... the same to any person not entitled to receive it ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Since those responsible for the NY Times were duly informed of the consequences of publishing the classified information, they certainly had "reason to believe" the information "could be used to the injury of the United States," yet published the information anyway. In my opinion, Keller and Sulzberger ought to be imprisoned, and the Times heavily fined.

The editor and publisher of the NY Times are not the only ones to blame, however. Someone with access to classified information deliberately committed a breach of his or her non-disclosure agreement, as well as a violation of the public trust, in order to give information to the media that did nothing but help the enemy. These leaks of classified information just to damage the Bush administration have got to be stopped. Whoever gave details of this particular program to the media must be found, even if the entire staff of the NY Times has to be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath by the Attorney General on penalty of imprisonment. If such treatment was good enough for NY Times reporter Judith Miller when she refused to reveal her source in the Valerie Plame case, it's certainly appropriate when a real breach of national security has taken place. And when he or she is found, the leaker should be tried for treason against the United States and sentenced to death. Period. This is a war, not a tea party, and these leaks are serious business.

Some argue that the NY Times has every right to publish anything they want, damaging to the US or not. They climb on their soapboxes to proclaim that freedom of speech is absolute, and that the government should keep no secrets... though they also argue that the NY Times should not have to name its source. The next time a major terrorist attack takes place somewhere in the world, the same people will be the first to scream that the Bush administration didn't do enough to prevent it.

As for freedom of speech: with rights and freedoms come responsibilities. It's about time members of the mainstream media learned that lesson.