NYT Helps the Terrorists Again, Reveals Another Secret Program
Whose side are they, blah, blah, blah.
The duo of Eric Lichtblau and James Risen have published the details of yet another classified national-security program. This time, they exposed the workings of a database of financial records that the administration has used to track al Qaeda’s banking transactions.
I’m not surprised, or even enraged. I’ve accepted as a matter of fact that the New York Times could care less if we win or lose the War on Terror or how many Americans later die as a result of their recklessness. He goes on:
According to the NYT’s own reporting, the program is legal. The program is helping us catch terrorists. The administration has briefed the appropriate members of Congress. The program has built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. And yet, with nothing more than a vague appeal to the “public interest” (which apparently is not outweighed in this case by the public’s interest in apprehending terrorists), the NYT disregards all that and publishes intimate, classified details about the program.
And this is about the third time this has happened? The fourth, maybe? Let’s see. We had the CIA detainee transport program, the “secret prisons” story, the NSA data-mining operation, and now this. So yeah – four. A couple of those may be the work of the Washington Post. It’s hard to tell these days, what with major newspapers scrambling to sell our lives for a taste of the Pulitzer Prize.
It’s become one of those things that happen. Snow falls in the winter, the sun rises in the east, the New York Times cuts our legs out from under us and gives a big helping hand to international terrorists. I’m not actually sure what sort of revelation would surprise me from that newspaper. Osama bin Laden on the Board of Directors? They’re sending small ricin packets in every home delivery? No photos of women unless they’re covered head to toe? Yeah, you could see it coming. It was only a matter of time.
Yeah, I know the counter-argument. They’re doing it in the name of freedom, man! You’re supposed to be a Libertarian, man, so how can you get behind that freedom-choking President? We’re losing our civil-liberties!
I don’t know how to answer that in any way that the questioner would acknowledge, or even comprehend. You’re still free to do everything you could do before September 11th. No government squad of jack-booted thugs is going to drag you or anyone else out of your house in the middle of the night and take you off to a gulag. That the Times could even publish this article is pretty much all the evidence I need that we’re not even close to descending into a fascist maelstrom. I may be a Libertarian, but I’m not stupid.
No related posts.
Category: Oh, THAT liberal media.
Oh really Jimmie!? Let's hear what you have to say when a Democrat is in office. I'm sure you'll demagogue him just as those who do Bush.
And you are an idiot if you think the NYT is out get the conservatives. The left complains just as loudly as you. Don't get your panties up in a wad over objective journalism. I know you psycophants from either side can't stand to be called on the floor. You are not happy unless some "reports" from your objective. Read that shill over at Wash Times or Reason or just shut up. The argument is elementary and I think we are all tired of it.
Oh yeah, by the way, your quote, "I may be a Libertarian, but I'm not stupid.", the first and second parts are contradictory.
Have a good weekend Hack!
Dan, may I ask what in the name of the medication you're obviously not taking are you talking about?
Bu$hCo’s Bank Surveillance Program™
So now the Dear Leader is checking out some bank transactions along with email, phone calls, and maybe even your tire pressure. Can we say whether it’s legal? No. Can we say for sure whether it’s made us safer? No
From The Right Valley:
http://www.cliffordcroft.com/rightvalley/index.as…
The New York Times has delighted in revealing confidential information about the methods our security services are using in the war on terror. These disclosures naturally compromise our efforts to fight terrorists by making the terrorists alert as to how we track them, making the terrorist plots harder to discover and increasing the risk that terrorist attacks against the US will be undiscovered. In other words, their disclosures potentially put lives in danger.
But the Times seems to feel that the public's "right to know" outweighs all this. If the public's "right to know" is so strong, I think the public also has a "right to know" more about the New York Times. I think the government should do the following:
o) Tap the phones of all columnists of the New York Times and then print the names of all their sources in their articles (if these sources actually exist). The public has a "right to know" who these anonymous sources are, to better judge the credibility of their statements. This might inhibit people from giving off-the-record information to the times, but hey, the public has a right to know.
o) Print the income, net worth, and credit card and bank account numbers and balances of all editors and reporters for the New York Times. Sure, people could misuse this information, but the public's right to this information is more important.
o) Publish the net worth and distributions from the Sulzberger trust fund. Again, this is private financial information, but the public has a right to know who is funding the Times and where the money is going. And besides, once this disclosure is made, we can find out how much the Sulzberger's are giving to "the poor" every year!
o) Publish the political affiliations and political donations of all reporters and editors of the times, as well as political organizations they belong to. A small invasion of privacy, but that still doesn't trump our "right to know". If this information is displayed in a pictorial format, we can play "Where's Waldo" to find the single Republican!
[...] I am not at all impressed with Bill Keller’s defense of printing the SWIFT-monitoring story. I think he’s not only severely wrong about what the First Amendment actually does, but he’s also more than a bit arrogant about the role he, as a member of the press, actually plays in an ongoing war. [...]