Exposing the program would tell the public nothing about official misconduct. It would accomplish only the educating of al Qaeda — the nation’s enemy in an ongoing war; an enemy well-known to be feverishly plotting new, massive attacks — about how better to evade our defenses. About how better to kill us.
Sounds like the mission statement for the Gray Old Lady.
The blunt reality here is that there is a war against the war. It is the jihad of privacy fetishists whose self-absorption knows no bounds. Pleas rooted in the well-being of our community hold no sway.
Of course.
Posts
7 comments:
man I just love the contention that the NYT is on the terrorists' side. OBL=NYT - shows a real deep understanding of the issue.
Well, then, why divulge all our secrets to OBL? Just for the sheer thrill of it? Per un pugno di dinari? Cause of a slow news day? I say, let's apply Occam's razor here, and look for the most straightforward explanation: the Gray Old Lady is in bed with Binnie.
yeah - I can only imagine usama: "hey zarkawi, i just read in the NYT that the americans are trying to monitor ourt phone conversations & our financial transactions, who woulda thunk?"
this is not about terror -- it's about extending the power of the executive branch. In a democracy, people should know.
btw do you think that, if i state on dis here forum, that the pentagon is monitoring by satellite troop movements in the Hindu-Kush for the purpose of catching ubl, i am helping out AQ ?
Lets see: "HEY, UBL, THE INFIDELS ARE OUT TO GET YOU!".
Am I a traitor now ?
Fun and games with reductio ad absurdum. But the law of the land (US Criminal Code, Section 798 of Title 18) is crystal clear on this point:
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Frog march to the slammer those NYT journalists who broke the law!
More on the NYT crackup:
Under the Times's otherworldly logic, the United States might be better off with no government at all, because governmental power can be abused. It should not have newspapers, because the power of the press can be abused to harm the national interest (as the Times so amply demonstrates). Police forces should be disbanded, because police officers can overstep their authority. National security wiretaps? Heavens! Expose all of them.
...
The paranoia of the New York Times's editors really has reached astonishing levels. When you think about it, virtually every piece of evidence ever gathered in criminal or national security cases is embedded in harmless activity. On the Times's theory, police officers should not walk beats looking for criminal activity, because they are observing innocent passersby as well.
Liberal dogma pushed to its absurd conclusions.
this is just ridiculous. had the NYT exposed an impending secret raid on ubl safehouse, these allegations would make sense but this is totaly different.
They've exposed a serious threat to privacy without letting out of the bag anything that AQ wouldn't already be on the lookout for.
Post a Comment