MB Civic

WASHINGTON, May 26 — Recent disclosures of classified information by the press have damaged national security, several Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee said Friday at a hearing on news organizations’ legal responsibilities.

The criticism focused on articles in The New York Times concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program and, to a lesser extent, on disclosures in The Washington Post about secret C.I.A. prisons overseas.

Some Republicans on the committee advocated the criminal prosecution of The Times. Their comments partly echoed and partly amplified recent statements by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Justice Department had the authority to prosecute reporters for publishing classified information.

“The press is not above the law, including laws regarding unauthorized disclosure and use of classified information,” said Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who heads the committee.

Mr. Hoekstra added that he was “not yet willing” to advocate criminal prosecution of reporters or newspapers.

Some of his colleagues were less restrained.

“I believe the attorney general and the president should use all of the power of existing law to bring criminal charges,” said Representative Rick Renzi, Republican of Arizona.

Democratic members of the committee, while praising the role of the press in informing citizens, responded only indirectly to the comments concerning The Times. Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, said she was disturbed by Mr. Gonzales’s statements.

“If anyone here wants to imprison journalists,” Ms. Harman said, “I invite them to spend some time in China, Cuba or North Korea and see whether they feel safer.”

Lawmakers in both parties said that too much information was classified and that disclosing it to the press was commonplace.

Ms. Harman expressed concern about a pending espionage prosecution of two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee accused of receiving and passing classified information.

The legal theory used against the lobbyists, she said, could be applied not only to routine news reporting by journalists but also to discussion of published information by newspaper readers.

The hearing was interrupted when an aide showed Mr. Hoesktra an electronic message. “It’s a little unsettling,” the congressman said, “to have a BlackBerry put in front of you saying there are reports of gunfire in the building.”

The hearing ended around 12:30, but no one was allowed to leave the room until nearly 3 o’clock.

The law professors and journalists who were witnesses had starkly divergent views of the recent disclosures in the press.

“We may be living in the golden age of journalism,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said, calling the reporting an important public service.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, an editor at Commentary magazine, told the committee that the disclosure of the security agency’s program, which involves the monitoring of international phone calls and e-mail messages without warrants, was a flat violation of a 1950 espionage law.

“It compromised a program that allowed us to find Al Qaeda terrorists,” Mr. Schoenfeld said of the disclosures.

The Times has disputed that, saying it published the first article on Dec. 16 after thorough reporting and careful consultation with the Bush administration. Mr. Hoekstra said information about decision making at the paper had not been made public.

Addressing the witnesses who said they applauded the decision to publish the articles, Mr. Hoekstra said, “You might reach a different conclusion as to whether they actually handled it well” if the paper released additional information.

He did not elaborate, and George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company, declined to comment on that assertion.

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, said The Times and other news organizations should not be allowed to decide for themselves what classified information may be published.

“Why should a for-profit corporation be the sole arbiter of what is or is not in the public interest?” Mr. Rogers asked.