Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

When Will NYT Reveal One of al Qaeda's Secret


__Kratos__

Recommended Posts

When is the New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al Qaeda secret program?

In the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government anti-terrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times, last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the United States.

In response, the Bush Administration is sounding very cross -- and doing nothing. Bush wouldn't want to get the press mad at him! Yeah, let's keep the media on our good side like they are now. Otherwise, they might do something crazy -- like leak a classified government program monitoring terrorist financing.

National Review has boldly called for the revocation of the Times' White House press pass! If the Times starts publishing troop movements, National Review will go whole hog and demand that the paper's water cooler privileges be revoked. Then there's always the "nuclear option": disinviting Maureen Dowd from the next White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Meanwhile, the one congressman who has called for any sort of criminal investigation is being treated like a nut. Don't get me wrong: Congressman Peter King is nuttier than squirrel droppings -- but he's right on this.

Unless, that is, the country has simply abolished the concept of treason. We've got a lot of liberals who hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy, so what are you going to do? Indict the entire editorial board of the New York Times? (Actually, that wouldn't be a bad place to start, now that I ask.)

Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots. She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.

Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger has just been named al Qaeda's "Employee of the Month" for the 12th straight month.

Before the Vietnam War, this country took treason seriously.

But now we're told newspapers have a right to commit treason because of "freedom of the press." Liberals invoke "freedom of the press" like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the 1st Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in the New York Times building.

Freedom of the press means the government generally cannot place a prior restraint on speech before publication.

But freedom of the press does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason -- or for any other crime. The 1st Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from the New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page 1 story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans.

What if, instead of passing information from the government's secret nuclear program at Los Alamos directly to Soviet agents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had printed those same secrets in a newsletter? Would they have skated away scot-free instead of being tried for espionage and sent to the death chamber?

Ezra Pound, Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally") and Iva Toguri D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose") were all charged with treason for radio broadcasts intended to demoralize the troops during World War II. Their broadcasts were sort of like Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio -- except Tokyo Rose was actually witty, and Axis Sally is said to have used a fact-checker.

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason for a single remark she made on air: "Orphans of the Pacific, you really are orphans now. How will you get home now that your ships are sunk?" For that statement alone, D'Aquino spent six years in prison and was fined $10,000 (more than $80,000 in today's dollars).

Axis Sally was convicted of treason for broadcasts from Germany and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Pound avoided a treason trial for his radio broadcasts by getting himself committed to an insane asylum instead (which I take it is Randi Rhodes' "Plan B" in the event that she ever acquires enough listeners to be charged with treason).

There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it.

The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000."

Thanks to the New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence -- al Qaeda." You just have to read the New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.

The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency -- our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals -- it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.

Source

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some very good examples and points. Sadly enough the NYT's just keeps going at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • arben

    3

  • __Kratos__

    3

  • scoobysnack

    2

  • explorer

    1

Top Posters In This Topic

Alquaida is not a threat to America. The only threat is the traitor we have within our own government.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.

--Marcus Tullius Cicero

The Press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people.

--Justice Hugo L. Black

Would you be happier to have state sponsored media so this doesn't happen in the future?

Edited by scoobysnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

National Review has boldly called for the revocation of the Times' White House press pass! If the Times starts publishing troop movements, National Review will go whole hog and demand that the paper's water cooler privileges be revoked. Then there's always the "nuclear option": disinviting Maureen Dowd from the next White House Correspondents' Dinner.

National Review- For the people! :sleepy:

Unless, that is, the country has simply abolished the concept of treason. We've got a lot of liberals who hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy, so what are you going to do? Indict the entire editorial board of the New York Times? (Actually, that wouldn't be a bad place to start, now that I ask.)

It didn't take long before they threw the "liberals are the enemy" paragraph in there, did it?

Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger has just been named al Qaeda's "Employee of the Month" for the 12th straight month.

Really? Then the author should use the same sources that told him that fact and use it for good- that is provide the authorities with information to Al-Queda operatives.

On liberals' theory of the 1st Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in the New York Times building.

Cute.

I think the Republican party and the whole conservative movement are pure geniuses. Even though they control the Congress and the White House(which means the majority of the population agrees with their stance on issues) they still have turned it around to seem as though the liberals are this majority that keeps aiding the terrorists and the poor conservatives are a minority that is being oppressed and are trying with all their might to bring peace in America. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Then the author should use the same sources that told him that fact and use it for good- that is provide the authorities with information to Al-Queda operatives.

Really, you should take an insult as a jab not fact. ;)

Cute.

I think the Republican party and the whole conservative movement are pure geniuses. Even though they control the Congress and the White House(which means the majority of the population agrees with their stance on issues) they still have turned it around to seem as though the liberals are this majority that keeps aiding the terrorists and the poor conservatives are a minority that is being oppressed and are trying with all their might to bring peace in America.

That's not the case at all. Simply just pointing out that as the government is tracking down terrorists with a national security level program, the NYT's turned on the American citizens and reported this. This hurts citizens more then it helps. The terrorists are cheering right now for this move by the NYT's to publish this even after the government told them it was a secret program for national security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, you should take an insult as a jab not fact.

Although my post was sarcastic, I get it now. Rather than count on writers/journalists/etc. with reporting of facts we should count on them to throw insults at one another. Gotcha. :tu:

That's not the case at all. Simply just pointing out that as the government is tracking down terrorists with a national security level program, the NYT's turned on the American citizens and reported this. This hurts citizens more then it helps. The terrorists are cheering right now for this move by the NYT's to publish this even after the government told them it was a secret program for national security.

But we automatically assume that whenever someone reports a breaking story such as this, they are liberal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although my post was sarcastic, I get it now. Rather than count on writers/journalists/etc. with reporting of facts we should count on them to throw insults at one another. Gotcha. :tu:

Indeed. There is little reason not to jump on the NYT's for treason.

But we automatically assume that whenever someone reports a breaking story such as this, they are liberal?

Read this:

A 2005 study by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo of media coverage over the past ten years ranked the New York Times as the third most liberal of twenty major media outlets ranked by Americans for Democratic Action's guidelines for lawmakers' votes on selected issues of importance to liberals.

Source

Yeah, I think the history of the NYT's is pretty good on breaking these stories. One that jumps to mind is the reporting of our brave SOG forces behind enemy lines during Vietnam, putting them at great risk (as if they weren't already outnumbers, out gunned and had an insane high death rate for operations) for going in and attacking the NVA.

October 26, 1970 the NYT's headline was: U.S. Casulties Reported In Secert Actions: Special Forces Said To Have Suffered Losses That Were Never Disclosed.

Which was actually one of the harshest operations for the SOG members and the biggest intel haul since the beginning of the war.

BUT yeah, thanks NYT! Nothing like putting out soldiers in larger danger. <_<

Edited by __Kratos__
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the NYT reports on a government program in a supposedly free, democratic society is not wrong, for it is in the interests of that free society that knowledge of a program to protect that freedom is open to all.

Freedom is what it suggests. It is beautiful but vulnerable, but if it takes a backward step to government secrecy, it is freedom no more. I won't vote for a government that keeps secret what it does for my freedom, for it invites dictatorship.

Is your outrage at revelations of finance monitoring really suggesting that terrorists funneling money through SWIFT would have no idea that the US government, so vocal against terrorism and it's resourcing, would not carry out such monitoring? Terrorists are much smarter than your anger suggests.

Or are you saying that any unsupportive comment on the Bush Administration is in fact threatening and not aimed simply at public awareness? Especially considering recent polls on the Bush Administration have been consistently against it.

Are you scared to wake each morning knowing that the actions of a democratically elected government are known outside the government? Would you feel better with a Communist dictatorship where no-one knows anything but what is whispered between the most trusted friends?

If yes, then obviously Al Qaeda is winning your mind, for you do not want to stand by the actions taken on behalf of your objection to the terrorist threat against your life. You want them kept secret in a false belief that the terrorists haven't thought of them either.

If the US has 'abolished' the concept of treason, why has Scooter Libby, former Chief of Staff to the VEEP, been indicted for involvement in releasing to the media the name of Valerie Plume as a CIA agent, a blatantly treasonable offence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2005 study by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo of media coverage over the past ten years ranked the New York Times as the third most liberal of twenty major media outlets ranked by Americans for Democratic Action's guidelines for lawmakers' votes on selected issues of importance to liberals.

Should that surprise anyone? The general public tends to view the media as liberal in the first place and with the New York Times being one of the popular news-papers in the country, I am surprised that it is not number one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the NYT reports on a government program in a supposedly free, democratic society is not wrong, for it is in the interests of that free society that knowledge of a program to protect that freedom is open to all.

Freedom is what it suggests. It is beautiful but vulnerable, but if it takes a backward step to government secrecy, it is freedom no more. I won't vote for a government that keeps secret what it does for my freedom, for it invites dictatorship.

Is your outrage at revelations of finance monitoring really suggesting that terrorists funneling money through SWIFT would have no idea that the US government, so vocal against terrorism and it's resourcing, would not carry out such monitoring? Terrorists are much smarter than your anger suggests.

Or are you saying that any unsupportive comment on the Bush Administration is in fact threatening and not aimed simply at public awareness? Especially considering recent polls on the Bush Administration have been consistently against it.

Are you scared to wake each morning knowing that the actions of a democratically elected government are known outside the government? Would you feel better with a Communist dictatorship where no-one knows anything but what is whispered between the most trusted friends?

If yes, then obviously Al Qaeda is winning your mind, for you do not want to stand by the actions taken on behalf of your objection to the terrorist threat against your life. You want them kept secret in a false belief that the terrorists haven't thought of them either.

If the US has 'abolished' the concept of treason, why has Scooter Libby, former Chief of Staff to the VEEP, been indicted for involvement in releasing to the media the name of Valerie Plume as a CIA agent, a blatantly treasonable offence?

That was a really good post. Nice to have you on board. :tu: I agree with you completely. Why are we the minority who thinks like this. Everyone else is wrong, and brainwashed. That's a fact.

9/11 was a false flag attack, but the "terrorists" are winning. Bush claims they attacked us because they hate our freedoms. Well then why would George Bush take away our freedoms to solve the problem. Isn't that what the terrorists wanted in the first place. Since the real terrorists are in our own government, yes, the government/terrorists wanted to take away our freedoms.

The Bush administration blamed 9/11 on foreign intelligence failures; yet, the administration has convinced about half of the public that mass surveillance of American citizens is the solution!

Many Americans have turned a blind eye to the administration's illegal and unconstitutional spying on the grounds that, as they themselves are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. If this is the case, why did our Founding Fathers bother to write the Constitution? If the executive branch can be trusted not to abuse power, why did Congress pass legislation establishing a panel of federal judges (ignored by the Bush administration) to oversee surveillance? If President Bush can decide that he can ignore statutory law, how does he differ from a dictator? If Bush can determine law, what is the role of Congress and the courts? If "national security" is a justification for elevating the power of the executive, where is his incentive to find peaceful solutions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.