Sanity in the World?

Into all lives, a little Sanity must fall.

My Photo
Location: Michigan, United States

See post here: About Me

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

New York Times Paper of Treason?

This seems to be the reaction from most around the Blog-O-Sphere, meanwhile the media outlets seem to be circling the wagons around the New York Times.

Old Soldier has a break down on Security Classifications - The Long and Short of it. Explaining the classifications of Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. What it takes to get the required clearances to view such classifications are also explained.

Violations are clearly stated in:

Title 18, United States Code Section 798. Disclosure of classified

(a) 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--

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Old Soldier seems to nail the concern most American's share:

Callous disclose of classified information is a betrayal to all the citizens of this nation, both liberal and conservative alike. Printing information pertinent to a classified program in an internationally circulated newspaper bears the stain of treason. In regard to last Friday's classified program revelation, without exception, these newspapers and reporters should be brought under the scrutiny of the Justice Department for possible violation of US Code. If found in violation; they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In my estimation, there are no mitigating circumstances that warrant the betrayal of this nation.

It is a great post, and definite read.

The outrage against the New York Times is growing and has not diminished any, so much so that Lawmakers now have sat up and began to take notice:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.


King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times _ the reporters, the editors and the publisher."

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told The Associated Press.

King's action was not endorsed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

"On the basis of the newspaper article, I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it's premature to say that the administration is entirely correct," Specter told "Fox News Sunday."

It is not suprising that Spectre seems to not want to endorse investigations and prosecution of those responsible for the leaks and news agencies that received Classified and Top Secret Information, and asked by the Government not to reveal Classified and Top Secret information to the public so it will not inform the terrorists of how America is protecting itself, the New York Times ignores the pleas of our Government and publishes the information anyways.

When the paper chose to publish the story, it quoted the executive editor, Bill Keller, as saying editors had listened closely to the government's arguments for withholding the information, but "remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Treasury officials obtained access to a vast database called Swift _ the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The Belgium-based database handles financial message traffic from thousands of financial institutions in more than 200 countries.

In my opinion, the New York Times and any other publications are helping terrorists evade detection in the US and abroad by divulging Classified and Top Secret information leaked to them from disgruntled or individuals with different ideals or plans for this country.

Do you really think the NYT de-classification of a Top Secret Program (Something only the President has the power to do); a program that is COMPLETELY LEGAL, and used to monitor money flow of terrorists, so our government can see where that money is coming from and who it is going you really think that HELPS America stay safer from terrorist attack or do you think it is one more program that will have to be scrapped that was helping ensure our safety because the New York Times and other publications have decided it was in the public (terrorists?) best interest to know?

Democrats and civil libertarians are questioning whether the program violated privacy rights.

Yes, I am not surprised that Democrats and civil libertarians (code word ACLU?) are questioning if it violated privacy rights. It has already been found to be completely LEGAL, but lets disclose the information anyways, because we feel it MIGHT have violated privacy rights...MIGHT HAVE. To completely put out in view of the terrorist the operation the US had in place in tracking them because it might, MIGHT, have violated privacy rights is ridiculous.

My opinion, whoever leaked the information is most likely a Democrat trying to undermine the Administration, but what he or she who is doing the leaking doesn't understand, (or maybe they do and the hatred of the current administration is so much they don't care how much they damage the United States in trying to disparage the current administration), is that if or when a Democrat does become President again, you have killed any ability they will have to monitor terrorists plans for attacking America or it's allies, and will have made it that much harder for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to try and keep America safe.

The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States, but it does not execute those transfers.

The service generally does not detect private, individual transactions in the United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.


He said the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security.


Freedom of the Press does not give "Carte Blanche" to the Times or any other publication to disclose whatever information they feel like.

Stop the ACLU has the reaction of a variety of bloggers concerning the NYT at The Pirate Armada Vs. The New York Times.

A reader from Powerline makes a great catch on the hypocrisy of the New York Times:

Reader Douglas Rose has drawn our attention to this September 24, 2001 New York Times editorial ("Finances of Terror") (access limited to TimesSelect):

Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies...

Great catch!

A good read and break down on the New York Times arrogance concerning this at Michelle Malkin: WHY THEY BLABBED: IT'S THE ARROGANCE

Michelle also posted Messages for the DOJ, multiple letters that have been sent from American Citizens.

Michelle Malkin has the run down on the Anti-Blabbermouth Photoshop Crusade HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

An example from the Anti-Blabbermouth Photoshop Crusade, and one of my favorites:

You know, here's the thing about military plans:
You don't disclose them.

Tony Snow, to the White House Press Gaggle, June 26, 2005

Others Blogging on this MAJOR concern:
Texas Rainmaker with "New York Times Traitors"

Leaning Straight Up with "NY Times post's troop reduction plans from classified briefing"

Expose the Left with "Yet Another Lib Who Defends The NYT, At Least He Went On O'Reilly"

Sister Toldjah with "Keller: not all of them urged us not to publish"

Tamy Bruce with "GOP Acts Against New York Times"

The Influence Peddler with "House Criticizes Times; MSM Ignores the Question"

Newsbusters with "Inside the Post, Kurtz Laments 'Piling On' the Secret-Spoiling N.Y. Times"

Patterico's Pontifications with "(See-Dubya) Bill Keller: Doofus."

The Q and O with "NYT: The editorial side speaks"

Sweetness and Light with "WaPo: National Security Up To Editors, Not Government"

BuzzMachine with "Tell all"

Dadmanly with "Security and Secrecy"

Don Surber with "Not every newspaper has lost its mind"

The Squiggler with "Bill Keller responds ... arrogancy meter burned out over this one"