You Are Among The Elite!

Friday, June 23, 2006

The New York Times Commits Treason AGAIN

As if the December revelation about the NSA program wasn't enough, the NYT, the liberal rag of record, has committed treason again by publishing details of an anti-terror program.

Don't be fooled by the NYT pleas that they carefully considered the information given by the Bush Administration. Because there is no such thing as bad publicity, they thrive on their role in ferreting out those things that are government secrets, and revel in the publishing of the details. I am sure there was a huge party the night the paper was printed.

The government takes steps to protect us. There have been no complaints about the process. The Administration took 1 1/2 hours to explain in detail the program to the NYT. Yet they still published it.

It is dishonest to claim that the President did nothing before 9/11 to protect us, and then criticize and undermine everything done since 9/11 to protect us.

No matter what else, please don't ever vote for a democrat. This is what they are made of.

6 Posts From Readers:

TM said...

Hello Robert.

You know, I've been a huge fan of the first amendment and freedom of the press all of my life. And I never thought I would find myself thinking this, or taking this position, but I think some sort of criminal charges need to filed at someone in the NYT. And that really freaks me out that it has gotten to the point that I am thinking that we need to put some reporters or editors in jail for what they printed in a newspaper.

I mean, I was furious when they leaked the NSA story. But I figured that I would give them the benefit of the doubt that there were enough legal ambiguities involved in the program that you could argue that perhaps the public should have been informed so we could have a public debate or what not. I didn't believe it myself. I thought it was a great program for getting terrorists. But that was just me.

But this? No way. These people just decided that their future Pulitzer prizes and book deals were worth more than our physical security.

The People vs Larry Flyntt (aka the Jerry Falwell cartoons): First amendment trumps Falwells humiliation.

Piss Christ "artwork": First amendment trumps Christian outrage.

Mohammad Cartoons: Same as above.

But this? No way.

BTW, as far a voting for a democrat? Well, in all fairness to the democrats, Joeseph Liebermann is someone I'd vote for. Heck, I'm actually more in favor of him now in office, than I was when he was running for VP. Why? Liebermann supports the War on Terror. Bottom Line Up Front. Support the GWOT, and you are 90% of the way to getting my vote.

Oppose it, and I don't care what sort of pork you can bring to me or my district. You are dead to me... Gay rights, labor, freedom of speech, right to privacy, search warrents, racial profileing, education, immigration, Medicare, Medical, Social Security reform, national debt, taxes, none of those issues is worth squat if you aren't alive to fight for them. Or if you are enslaved by whoever has conquored you.

We took one heck of a hit on 9-11 because our intell was messed up and we didn't connect the dots. So now we try to fix our flawed system and it gets sabotauged by the NYT?

Very respectfully,


Robert said...

I believe that the first amenedment is our greatest protected right. One does not need the 1st Amendment for popular speech, but for the unpopular.

I understand your frustration, but even in my anger and rage about the NYT, I do not support criminal charges. They did nothing illegal. Those who leaked the info, should be hanged from the yardarm.

What I espouse is some patriotism and integrity. Maybe some good intentions and seriousness on the part of the NYT. I tell my kids all the time that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean that it needs said.

Yesterday, I didn't see or hear a single left wing source that addressed this. All I heard was "the 1st amendment protects..." Of course it does, but a little common sense and maturity on the part of the NYT would be in order.

The next time those on the left tell you that "no one is in favor of America losing...", you know better.

TM said...

Hello Robert.

Here are a couple of quick links that address the issue of the legality or lack thereof in what the times published. One is by Patterico, a LA county prosecutor. The other is HotAir, by Michell Malkin.

I include both of them, because they start to comment back and forth.

In particular, I would read carefully the comments in the HotAir comments section of "AllahPundit", "Byran" and "Patterico" as they look at opposing sides, and have the most coherent and well thought out arguemtns.

The above is the Patterico post that was linked to and referenced in the above HotAir article.

This Patterico guy is really steamed about this. He has obviously a lot more expericence with the law than I do, seeing as he has been a lawyer/prosecuter in LA for quite some time. Anyway, below is his homepage link. He has written about 5 or 6 post about this whole NYT thing.

My two cents? Free speach is not absolute. You have good speech (stuff I agree with) and bad speech (stuff I don't agree with). But both types are totally legal under the 1st amendment. But illegal speech is not protected. Libel, slander, inciting a riot are not protected. This is illegal speech. So the question is, was what the NYT did legal or illegal?

I am leaning towards illegal. No, actually, as far as my non-lawyer mind is concerned, it is illegal. A classic example is giving up troop movements in wartime. If the NYT divulged the Normandy Invasion plans to the Nazis, and we suffered 1,000 extra casualites because of it, would the NYT be covered by the 1st amendment? No. No way. And I see these as comparable. Is it an exact comparison? Of course not. Nothing ever is an exact comparison. But I see enough that as far as I can tell, they are close enough.

Very respectfully,


P.S. When I previewed this comment, the hyperlinks don't seem to be working. So here are the links. You can cut and paste them if you want.

Robert said...

TM, you know I am not an attorney, nor a constitutional scholar in the vein of being an expert.

I do know that the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken to the issue many times. You may print or speak anything you wish, unless it does damage to someone such as slander or libel. "Fire" in a crowded theatre is off limits, because it is dangerous speech, and causes unecessary alarm.

I don't think that one could prove some damage in this instance;after all, you can't prove a negative. we can't prove who we didn't catch, or who we can't look for. But common sense applies. Of course this makes things easier. I believe there was a bomber for something in Bali that was caught using these techniques, although I am working here from a dusty, cobweb covered memory.

The reveal and oppose anything that can be found, and yet criticize when things don't go right. I firmly believe that questining government in most instances can be a form of patriotism. Taking deliberate action to undermine the national security? I find it appaling and shameful.

Now that I sa that, it may be possible to show that it does intentionally undermine nationa security interests. I don't think they can be prosecuted, but it sure would be nice if I were wrong.

TM said...

Hello Robert.

You are right, you can't prove a negative. However, let's look at the crying fire example.

If I go to a theatre, and shout "fire", and people panic, and flee the theatre, even if no one is injured, I should be prosecuted. One, because it causes unnecessary alarm, and is dangerous. But also, to deter anyone else from getting the idea that this is acceptable.

So even though no-one is hurt during when I shout "fire", I am prosecuted because we don't want someone else to do it at a later date where someone may get hurt or killed for real.

I think the same prinicple could be applied here. Even if we can't prove that someone was hurt from this NYT disclosure, we can prosecute them to discourage the next time.

Keep in mind I really don't like the ideal of putting reporters in jail. But I like the idea of people being killed because of lawfull intelligence operations being exposed even less.

For example, the Pentagon Papers. As far as I have heard, they were classified because they were embarassing to the White House durning the Vietnam War. So when the press revealed them, the only person who was hurt was the presidents ego and poll ratings. So I have no problem at all with that being revealed.

I am a President Bush supporter. No doubt about it. But I have no constitutional problem at all with a newspaper publishing anything that is true, but embarrassing to Bush. Leaking his past DUI's right before the election got me angry because it seemed like an attempt to sway the election, but I had no problem at all with it from a constitutional perspective. The first amendment is to protect speech we don't agree with, even speech I don't agree with. ;-)

Very respectfully,


P.S. I know you aren't a lawyer. Neither am I, so I guess we are both on the same level of knowledge.

Robert said...

I think your knowledge may surpass mine...It is a good point about the prosecution when here is no fire.

I think you and I are equally outraged about this story. I can't imagine anything more pathetic than the release of this type of information. Here: They complain about how Bush "did nothing", now complain about everything he does. They complain about the number of troop deaths, then create more danger for them by releasing this information. They complain that the Administration doesn't reveal any of this information to them, and then when they do, they tell the world.

I am glad I was raised to a better standard.

Other Stuff