Espionage is not reportage
Many of the 'experts' who really should know better (like Fox's legal eagle Napolitano) have fallen into the trap of assuming that the First Amendment protects espionage, and thus there is no way to prosecute newspapers for treason.
You don't need to plumb the minds of the Framers to knock down this idiotic idea.
Just a simple example:
Let's say Chen is spying for China, and he sends his information to his masters by meeting them directly and whispering the information in their ears. This is unquestionably not
publication by any definition of the word, so it can be prosecuted as espionage.
Now let's say Schultz is spying for Germany, and he sends his information by placing innocuous-looking coded messages in the classified ads of the New York Times. This is historically a common trick.
Now let's say Risen is spying for al-Qaeda, and he sends his information by placing uncoded articles on the front page of the New York Times.
By the absolutist argument, both
Schultz and Risen are totally immune from punishment, because they transferred their illegally acquired information in the form of a 'publication'.
Since spies can (and often have) posed as reporters, and spies often use newspapers and radio broadcasts to transfer their information, it's just fantastically silly to claim that the mode of transmission
is what distinguishes between a spy and a 'whistleblower' who is 'serving the public interest'.
Common sense says that anyone who knowingly participates in giving otherwise unobtainable war information to an enemy is a spy, regardless of the physical mode of transfer of the information.
Later (Tues morning)... Fred Barnes is making the same argument, though not quite so clearly, in a brief discussion with Ellen Whatchamacallit on Fox. Ellen says in response that the whole kerfuffle is just political. Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Ellen, because the Second Ford Administration hasn't done anything serious yet. If they were truly serious about conducting a war that depends heavily on intelligence and monitoring, they would already have arrested all the bureaucrats and congresscritters involved (which must be a small and easily identified set), and they would already have shut down the three enemy newspapers who participated in this act of espionage. Since they haven't taken any
of these steps, I'll have to go along with Ellen: Karl Rove is more interested in 'having the issue' than in actually solving the problem of espionage.