Guests: Congressmen Peter King (R-NY) & Edward Markey (D-MA)

"In a rare display of directly confronting his opponents in the press, President Bush is condemning the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal for exposing a covert money-tracking program designed to pinpoint terrorists. The editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, defended his decision to print the stories, saying there is not enough oversight of what President Bush does in the terror war. But the bottom line is this - the committed left media believes the Bush administration is damaging the country and is using the war on terror as an excuse to do it. That kind of extreme thinking is putting all Americans in danger. There's not one valid reason to expose a covert operation that is by all accounts entirely legal and designed to track money going to terrorists. The New York Times may have reached the tipping point. The paper is chock full of far-left columnists, and now its news pages could be damaging national security. So what should be done? I don't want to see these people prosecuted, and I don't think they will be - that would send a terrible message about freedom of the press. But in the court of public opinion, each American should make the call - who's looking out for you? Media that expose anti-terror secret programs that are legal? Or the government that is instituting those programs?"

Fox News Video: FoxNews.com

The Factor was joined Republican Congressman Peter King, head of the House Homeland Security Committee. King actually called the Times "treasonous," and explained why. "This was a program about international financial transactions. Al Qaeda did not know we had a program of that extent and with that level of international cooperation. In a time of war you don't want to make the enemy's job any easier." King urged the Justice Department to charge Times executives with violating secrecy laws. "They should be prosecuted because we are talking about American lives here. This was a program that is entirely legal, effective, and is saving American lives. I'm calling on the Attorney General to launch a full investigation and prosecution of the New York Times."

From the other side of the ideological divide, Democrat Congressman Edward Markey accused President Bush of overstepping his legal authority when monitoring suspected terrorists. "The administration did not go through a federal court, and that is a very serious Fourth Amendment violation. We want the President to be as aggressive as possible in fighting Al Qaeda, but this debate is whether or not the Bush administration has to go through a federal judge. There have to be rules and guidelines." The Factor defended the anti-terror program as effective, necessary, and legal. "I'm an aggressive reporter and I don't want to hide anything from the American people they need to know. But I don't know one American who needs to know how the government is surveilling wire transfers to suspected terrorists."

Guest: Karen Hanretty, Republican strategist

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has arguably been soft on border security, most recently refusing the federal government's request that he deploy more National Guard troops along the border. Republican strategist Karen Hanretty defended Schwarzenegger's immigration policies. "The federal government has an obligation to secure the border, not the state of California. This problem is not a creation of California or the governor, and I don't think this will hurt him in the election." But The Factor predicted that immigration will make the difference in this year's gubernatorial election. "The number one issue in California is chaos caused by illegal immigration. I don't think Governor Schwarzenegger understands the anger of his base, the conservatives who would likely vote for him. You remember this conversation - I think this is the night that he lost the election."

Guests: Fox News chief judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano & Fox News correspondent Megyn Kendall

The Supreme Court is about to decide whether the government can try suspected terrorists in front of military tribunals. The Bush administration wants to use the tribunals, while "human rights" groups say terror suspects should be tried in regular civilian courts. Fox News correspondent Megyn Kendall predicted a victory for the administration's opponents. "These tribunals are in jeopardy, and I don't think the Supreme Court will uphold them. The court may find that the President didn't have the power to set these up in the first place, or they could find that the tribunals weren't set up with the proper rights afforded to the defendants." FNC judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano explained that suspects obtain certain protections the moment they touch American soil. "I'm sure President Bush today ardently wishes he had kept these guys in Afghanistan or Pakistan where they were arrested, rather than bring them to Guantanamo Bay. The Factor agreed that the Supreme Court will rule against the administration. "Ideology is in play here just as much as the law, and say goodbye to military tribunals."

Guests: Fox News analysts Kirsten Powers & Michelle Malkin

There is continuing fallout from last week's cartoon in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in which Mike Luckovich depicted US interrogators as masked torturers. Fox News analysts Kirsten Powers and Michelle Malkin both criticized the cartoon and its timing. "It's stupid," Powers declared. "Beyond the fact that it's offensive, it has no connection to reality and they'll hear from their readers." Malkin predicted the paper may lose some readers forever. "Military families have very long memories. This cartoonist ran this just after Privates Menchaca and Tucker had just been butchered, their bodies booby-trapped. And this is the first thing he thinks of publishing?" Malkin also agreed with Congressman Peter King that the New York Times should be investigated. "It's about time that a message be sent to our colleagues in the mainstream media who are so reckless about printing secret information in wartime."

Guests: Attorneys Nathan Clark & Albert Levin

Finally, The Factor was joined by attorneys Nathan Clarke and Albert Levin, who represent two of the terror suspects arrested last week in Miami. Both men implied that their clients were entrapped by the FBI. "It seems to me," Levin said, "that the government targeted guys in an impoverished neighborhood and made a terrorism case out of nothing. This was a case written, produced, and directed by the FBI. The idea was planted by the FBI undercover agent." Clarke suggested that his client will be hard to convict. "There's going to be a question of whether there is even sufficient evidence to sustain the burden of proof on a conviction. My client has absolutely no animosity or resentment toward the United States."

Viewers inundated The Factor with letters about the New York Times' decision to print secret information about government anti-terror measures. Some excerpts:

Bob Garrett, Daly City, CA: "O'Reilly, ordinarily I would call you a traitor to your profession for your lame attempts to demonize the legitimate press for doing its job by publishing the money tracking story. But that would be giving you credit for being a journalist and we all know that's not the case."

Cathy Hazard, East Windsor, NJ: "The New York Times would not publish the anti-Muslim Danish cartoons, but will print national security secrets. How do these traitors sleep at night?"

Ron Lee, Tucson, AZ: "It seems like Mr. O'Reilly would like our government run like the Russian government. Secrecy and big brother watching!"

Len Carrescia, Ridgefield, CT: "Because I don't want to fund any organization that undermines the security of our country, I've cancelled my subscription to the New York Times after 24 years."

Linda Myers, Arlington, VA: "You're right, Bill, the New York Times has become an early warning system for al-Qaeda. This used to be called 'treason.'"

Andrew Morris, Sacramento, CA: "With no accountability in Washington, thank God the New York Times is keeping Bush in check."