Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: When Will NYT Reveal One of al Qaeda's Secret Programs?
Source:
Human Events
URL Source: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15823&o=ANN001
Published: Jun 28, 2006
Author: Mann Coulter
Post Date: 2006-06-28 19:02:24 by Jhoffa_
Keywords: None
Views: 1099
Comments: 6
When Will NYT Reveal One of al Qaeda's Secret Programs? 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: All (#0)
1) Who? Which major terrorists have been apprehended as a direct result of this program, Ann? 2) Where's the oversight? How do I know they aren't using this information in a manner other than described? Interesting that you'd mention that. Other media outlets have indeed reported on troop movements, where Bush on that one? Why isn't he bitching at them and screaming his chimpy little head off? Probably because they show troops coming home and since it hints at a draw down, it's politically expedient for him to keep his little ape mouth shut. In fact, he likely leaked the info intentionally and just for this purpose. Speaking of leaks, what about Valerie Plame? You know what your problem is? Well, becides that giant adam's apple sticking out of your throat, you want to have it both ways.. You want to leak info that makes the Administration look good, and threaten to jail anyone with information that makes the administration look bad. It's transparent, and that's why no one is taking you seriously anymore, they're just sick of the hypocrisy, flag wrapping and double standards. Before this administration and the politics of hate.. we took the Constitution seriously. There is NO Constitutional authority for the Executive to go on a fishing expedition like this one. It's not mentioned ANYWHERE. On the other hand, there most certainly IS an express right for the press to operate freely. Oh, and.. by the way, we're not at "war" you stupid, transvestite bitch. 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? Did the NYT print information from Los Alamos? No. Did they even print specifics asides from the acknowledgement of the existance of this program. No. This is a pathetic straw man. It's ridiculous and only makes sense to you because you are ridiculous and pathetic. And SPARE ME the " Tokyo Rose" and "Axis Sally" diatribe. Fact is, the NYT is operating under it's legitimate first amendment protection as an agent of the press. They aren't posing for photo's on anti-aircraft guns, they're acting in the best interest of America and her citizens. Frankly, it would be refreshing to see you stop hating our country and our freedom and do the same. You stupid, transvestite bitch.
I wish mann coulter would choke on something and die. The bitch deserves it.
I know.. It's hard for me to imagine how someone so stupid could have a following. She's comparing the NYT to "Tokyo Rose" for crying out loud. Why isn't she laughed off the planet for this?
#4. To: Jhoffa_ (#3)
She is the enemy of freedom and the constitution. She should be put on trial and
shot once convicted
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
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.
Before the Vietnam War, this country took treason seriously.
#2. To: Jhoffa_ (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
Replies to Comment # 3.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]