Andy Mc Carthy of National Review on the NYT's leak story.
Mark W. Smith, author of the new book Disrobed The New Battle to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts.
Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute (see excerpts and links to her Weekly Standard piece on the NYT leak below).
Andy Mc Carthy of the National Review on the debate over whether to legally stop the NYT from revealing yet more war secrets.
Here's his latest story. Here's what he thinks:
Anger over the leaking of national-defense information by the media may have hit critical mass with the exposure, by the New York Times and other newspapers, of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Since this highly effective counterterrorism tool was compromised last Friday, President Bush and Treasury Secretary Snow have spoken out forcefully in protest, and many commentators — including here at National Review Online — have argued that this rhetoric must be matched by strong corrective action.But what action? New York Republican congressman Peter King boldly contends it’s time for a real nuclear option: an investigation and prosecution directly targeting the New York Times.
And here's what he's said about the outrageous case here and here.
Heather Mac Donald writes in the Weekly Standard:
BY NOW IT'S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.
Get the rest of the piece here.
Here's where you can get Mark Smith's books here and here.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Tonight on the Victoria Taft Show 6-9pm am 860 KPAM, Portland, Oregon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Freedom of the press is well established and long standing. However, there is a degree of responsibility attached tot hat freedom.
The New York Times has not been responsible for some time now. Printing secret programs we use to ferret out enemies and neutralize them during war is treasonous, in my mind.
I seriously doubt any legal steps can be taken, given the ludicrous rulings of the last few years in regards to National Security, but something needs done about this.
First and foremost, I would identify who was leaking and they would be tried for treason. If possible, the individual reporter and editor that wrote and approved printing the story would be tried next.
While the paper itself might not be liable for this, it's shrinking readership will undoubtedly continue to shrink. America is waking up, very slowly, to the leftist driven agenda of papers like the New York Slimes.
While Lew is getting his firing squad ready, you may find it interesting that the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal(LEFTIST?)also published accounts Friday of a secret administration program to monitor the financial transactions of terror suspects. So, in its later editions, did The Washington Post.
What a bunch of fair weather friends! After the NYT duly catapulted the necon propaganda for years they get turned on. But then isn't that always what happens to the mad scientist who builds the monster?
Lew, if you did read or even watched Hardball yesterday you could have watched the video of BUSH describing the tracking of funds eletronically shortly after 911.. and then Treasury Secretary O'Neil doing the same in more detail.. Duh, it appears Bush is the traitor!
Or if you read the Times follow-up... their reason for going public was that most of this was already in the public domain and the terrorist knew about it and had gone to manual means of transferring funds per terrorist experts after BUSH made it public in 2002!
Bushco and ROVE have made you look foolish again with their lies... just like with the Murtha "quote"
Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, this was the President's response.
This was clearly no secret. The New York Times is being scapegoated, once again, during an election season by those who are afraid things might not turn out so rosey after the next election cycle.
In early 1944, prior to the D-Day invasion, The planners of the invasion kept the reporters in England apprised of the invasion with the caveat that, if any of what they were told was leaked to the outside, they would be charges with treason and prosecuted accordingly. This was told to them before, during, and after all of the briefings. Nothing was leaked. This was reported on Paul Harvey's program a couple of weeks ago.
The NYT and it's editors, publishers, and involved reporters should all be cahrged with treason and prosecuted accordingly. Immediately.
Apparently, Fuzziwig and Ingrate (the "loyal" part is unclear at the moment) believe it is just fine for the terrorists to know our every move against them. At least we know where their loyalties lie.
I can't speak for Fizziwigg but no I do not believe it is just fine for the terrorists to know our every move against them. But I don't believe the NYT should be labled as treasonable when the same information previously came from the President's own lips. That hypocritical. BTW D-Day occurred during a declared war.
Apparently Scottiebill does not read all of the posts under this topic and I'll bet my Beavers sweatshirt that Scottiebill has not even read the New York Times article.(of course that goes for Lew too)
Why read when the rightwing sound machine can do your thinking for you.
I just love the liberal hair splitting.
And no, I don't watch Chris Matthews Dodgeball.
Seems I remember a lot of people being quite upset that the name of once covert CIA agent was printed in the news. That seemed to upset everyone on the left.
But, printing information about an ongoing secret program (different that general statements about a program) is no big deal.
That leads me to believe that if the New York Slimes printed the name and address of each and every CIA agent tomorrow, the left would think that was grand (so long as they are conservative).
Spin away, boys, you just keep digging yourself in deeper.
The NYT leaked nothing. They (along with two other major papers) reported about a program, that was leaked to them by someone, that the public has a right to know about.
Newspapers have a right, and in some cases, a responsibility, to publish information about the government. That's part of what makes America a free country.
This is just a smear campaign, pure and simple. That and a distraction from the poor job the Republicans have done of governing this country. It has nothing to do with catching terrorists.
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.
This isn't about whether the Times (but, uh, not the Wall Street Journal) violated national security, not really. It's about changing the subject, about diverting attention, once again, from an administration that has systematically been bending and breaking the law and the Constitution in order to assemble ever more information about all of us. The convenient scapegoat, once again, is the press, and the liars -- come on, let's call them what they are here -- are proving once again that when it comes to political gain, no fundamental American value will stand in the way.
moderatelew,
You are wrong. You have to be alive to enjoy freedom. Your way of thinking is going to get someone killed.
The terrorists are using cash to by weapons and explosives on the black market. Just you do you think they are planning on using these munitions on? Go look in a mirror.
The person or persons who gave the times this information broke the law period.
If Bush was a democrat there would be no leaks and you would be supporting his actions.
The laws being broken have existed prior to this administration taking office.
The times does not have the right to publish classified information whenever it wants. The first admendment does not protect the times either.
When will libs put country first before personal power?
To the Libs blogging here,
The responsible arm of the Government that determines what is Constitutional or not is NOT the NY times or any other newpaper or any other court of public opinion.
The United States Supreme Court has sole responsibility to determine the Constitutionality of any law government program or policy.
The proper route for determing Constitutionality is to take the issue to court and follow the legal process.
I for one do not want the NYT or any other paper making this determination and you should not either.
If your way of thinking were to prevail get someone killed.
Given the choice between patriots (def: people who actually believe in the Constitution of the United States) and collaborators (def: the Republican Party dead set to strip the Constitution of the United States of any meaning), 49% will always choose the Patriots, 31% will always choose the collaborators, and 20% will be fooled by the collaborators for a while, but will eventually wake up.
Yeah that WMD story they wrote sure turned out to be wrong, didn't it? Oh, wait...
This is just a smear campaign, pure and simple.
Oh, you mean like all the leftist 'outrage' over Valerie Plame?
Just love the hypocrisy and double standard.
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.
Ho hum;
"I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them... These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief... This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit." --Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814.
"Our printers raven on the agonies of their victims, as wolves do on the blood of the lamb." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1811.
"From forty years' experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of what is not done in open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1816.
"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers." --Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806.
"Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819.
"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.
"We know how to destroy people. It's what we do. We do it without creating liability. That's our specialty." Reporter Jared Paul Stern, 2006
And, the plot thickens;
Because we don’t know, Jack …*
On the Monday, June 26 edition of CNN’s “Situation Room,” hosted by Wolf Blitzer, New York Times editor in chief Bill Keller discussed the newspaper’s decision to publish last week details of a secret U.S. Government program to track terrorist financing.
Here’s a part of the exchange:
KELLER: To the best of my knowledge, three people outside of the administration were asked by the administration to call us. I spoke to one of them. One of them spoke to our Washington bureau chief. One of them spoke to Jill Abramson, our managing editor. All of them spoke, they thought, in confidence, and I don't think I will breach the confidence of what they said, although I will say that not all of them urged us not to publish.
BLITZER: Because in the letter from the treasury secretary, he specifically refers to former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, who, together with the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean of New Jersey, appealed to you not to print this information. I assume you can confirm Lee Hamilton, since the treasury secretary has disclosed his name.
KELLER: I am happy to tell you who we spoke to. I think I'll leave it to them to tell you what they actually said, but I will say that...
BLITZER: Who were the three people outside of the administration that asked you not to report this information?
KELLER: Tom Kean, Lee Hamilton and Congressman Jack Murtha.
Some analysts have noted that because Treasury Secretary John Snow has publicly named former 9/11 Commission co-chairmen Tom Kean, Sr., and Lee Hamilton as people he knew to have talked to officials of the New York Times, and because Mr. Keller has indicated that New York Times officials received calls from three people outside the Administration – to wit, Tom Kean, Sr., Lee Hamilton, and U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha – but then goes on to say that “not all of them urged us not to publish,” the question is raised as to whether or not Jack Murtha actually urged the New York Times not to publish.
Today’s question for Jack Murtha:
Did you or did you not urge senior officials of the New York Times not to publish the offensive article?
*An ongoing investigation of Jack Murtha, brought to you by Diana Irey for Congress.
Still no confirmation by the President or DOD of WMDS found. Nothing outside hardright media. Strange.
Not a word from the Whitehouse about Wall Street Journal's publication of the same material. I guess it is not a rightwing target of opportunity.
The White House must know something is blowing in the wind for them to get so upset over this story. You can visit this SWIFT organization on line, no passwords needed, and they publish a magazine stating how they help track accounts around the world. The fake uproar over this story is going to be exposed. I can't wait to see what they are trying to divert our eyes from with all this fuss. Must be something big!
Uh, not a word about others because they all printed it AFTER the New York Slimes spilled the beans.
The Wall Street Journal's explanation for why they published the info on banking transactions:
"...What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a "leak," it was entirely authorized...."
Exactly. Republicans are experts at talking out of both sides of their mouths. Why did WSJ publish the story?
First of all, fizzi, please provide where that quote came from and who made it. As for why, you need to ask them, but look at dates and you will find the rest of your answer.
Incidentally, I don't have as much faith in the WSJ as you seem to think I do. Quite often their stories come from the same sources as the New York Slimes does,
See, here's how you do it:
That quote can be found here, at the WSJ Opinion Page online.
It is dated 6/30/06. It takes the NYT to task for printing the story and explains why the WSJ decided to print it as well.
First, iknow, thanks for the link. I find I get far too busy to seek each and every unlinked source.
Second, did you or fizzi even read the article you linked?
"We published a story on the same subject on the same day, and the Times has since claimed us as its ideological wingman. So allow us to explain what actually happened, putting this episode within the larger context of a newspaper's obligations during wartime."
To place fizzi's quote in proper context, "Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a "leak," it was entirely authorized."
"Would the Journal have published the story had we discovered it as the Times did, and had the Administration asked us not to? Speaking for the editorial columns, our answer is probably not. Mr. Keller's argument that the terrorists surely knew about the Swift monitoring is his own leap of faith. The terror financiers might have known the U.S. could track money from the U.S., but they might not have known the U.S. could follow the money from, say, Saudi Arabia. The first thing an al Qaeda financier would have done when the story broke is check if his bank was part of Swift."
"Just as dubious is the defense in a Times editorial this week that "The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals." In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America's main weapons."
"Which brings us back to the New York Times. We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters."
I encourage all to actually read the ENTIRE article fizzi lifted a quote from.
"Second, did you or fizzi even read the article you linked?"
I did, otherwise I would not have previously written "It takes the NYT to task for printing the story and explains why the WSJ decided to print it as well." I would not have known this had I not read the article.
I'd like to ask you and others who think that the Times should be charged with crimes what you think about this line from the end of the column:
"Once a government starts indicting reporters for publishing stories, there will be no drawing any lines against such prosecutions, and we will be well down the road to an Official Secrets Act that will let government dictate coverage."
Thoughts?
iknow, perhaps you should return to my first comment and reread it with both eyes open. Did you miss, "I seriously doubt any legal steps can be taken,?"
Like I said earlier, it seems everyone was up in arms over a formerly undercover CIA babe having her well known name printed, with the entire left drooling over proving Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Popeye "outed" said babe.
I don't recall anyone defending the reporters then that the left felt acted improperly.
The NYT was specifically asked not to print the story as they did. The WSJ, also not a favorite of mine, was not aware of the asking, feeling it was no longer of a sensitive nature.
The article also states, "Would the Journal have published the story had we discovered it as the Times did, and had the Administration asked us not to? Speaking for the editorial columns, our answer is probably not."
As for your last quote, I doubt that would happen. Just because one was prosecuted for treasonous actions doesn't implicate all.
Don't forget, it was the Chicago Times that barely escaped prosecution for printing treasonous matters in 1942, by a Democrat Administration. Somehow, the media survived that.
Interestingly enough, reading in the Book "Unheralded Victory" by Mark W. Woodruff, as far back as 1966 hte New York Times was being referred to as the New Hanoi Times for it's irresponsible reporting of the coverage of the Viet Nam War based off of "statistics" supplied by the Communist NOrth Vietnamese after a trip to Hanoi by Assistant Managing Editor at the time, Harrison E. Salisbury.
At this time, ABCs Howard K. Smith even commented, "The Times carelessness about the simple basic practices of fair and accurate reporting has become suspicous."
Harrison Baldwin, of the Times also noted, "[Salisbury's articles] seemed to put the Times squarely on the side of North Viet Nam."
Eventually, the Times admitted the series of 14 articles by Salisbury were "grossly exaggerated.
Post a Comment