Did the New York Times Cross the Line Between a Free Press and Treason?

The National Ledger ^ | 06-24-06 | Jim Kouri

[Coastal]

Liberal columnist Mort Kondracke echoed the sentiments of many Americans: The New York Times leaked information about a top secret banking operation, which was aimed at stopping terrorist financing and money transfers, because of their hatred for President George W. Bush.

President Bush implored the Times not to run their story, but the editors decided to disregard the presidential request. (One cannot help but wonder: If President Bill Clinton were our Commander-in-Chief today, would the editors at the New York Times comply with his request to kill the story? Most probably.)

Americans following the aftermath of the Times leak knew that part of the news story.

[managusta]

I disagree with the majority on this issue.Anger directed at the press is misdirected. The printers are just the middle men between the source and the public.

It should behoove the administration to pursue the source.There should be a witch hunt of unparalleled proportions.

By now with subpoenas in hand, doors should be kicked down,computers and notebooks confiscated and reporters/editors should be hauled before a court and ordered to reveal the names of their contacts.

[mark3681]

Thanks for the info.

[PattonFan]

President Bush implored the Times not to run their story, but the editors decided disregard the PRESIDENTIAL request

I guess the editors have had their ego boost for this week. In their world, they know best.

It is unfortunate (at best) that their world is located in "Toon Town". What I wish upon them, would get me banned in this, my second post.

[IVote2]

Yes, it would take someone with a lot more knowledge than I possess. I wish someone would look at this seriously to see if there is a chance it could work.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

What if you bought stock and held it to a specific day and had everybody who owned it sell at the same time.

Wouldn't that spike the price down? And what if you timed it on say the day of earnings report or something like that?

[Stultis]

Oooooh. Y'all are so harsh. Like Pinch doesn't have the right, indeed the self satisfying DUTY, to expunge his guilt about failing to turn over a socialist Utopia to the next generation at the expense of our national safety and security!

[Brytani]

Fox reported this morning that even members of the 911 commission called and asked the Times not to run this story and that them doing so would hurt the US's ability to detect money transfers to suspected terrorists.

[RedWireNut]

All three need to be put on trial.

[ArtyFO]

Pinch is a pillow biter?

[IVote2]

I see that The American Thinker has found a book to be released that will coincide with the release of the latest classified information. Selfish interest? No doubt in my mind.

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5434

"The latest SWIFT disclosure coincides with the June 20th release of the new book, The One Percent Doctrine, by New York Times reporter (and Bush critic) Ron Suskind , which relays the story of how Israel and America cooperated with Western Union in tracking financial transfers to terror groups, an investigation that led to the destruction of terror cells in the West Bank."

I also believe that the editor and reporters COULD be prosecuted under existing law. I hope that avenue is being explored right now.

BTW, isn't it amazing how the MSM has made so much of Valerie Plame and her "outing" and yet nothing touches them when they themselves publish classified information from whatever source?

Jen

[NJRighty]

Sounds like there's no way to overcome the Class B stock issue.

Not by buying up Class A shares. But others with a financial stake have made their views known, for whatever it's worth:

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=media&storyID=nN18375520

[No Truce With Kings]

"According to their editor, because they could."

Sounds like the Bill Clinton defense.

More like The Stepford Wives defense.

[Bommer]

bush will poo-poo an investigation on the grounds of being bestest friends with the left

BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER!! All this talk on how tough he is on the terrorists, and yet the oath Bush took was to DEFEND the country against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC! I would send in the Elian Gonzalas Stormtroopers, beat the living hell out of Pinch and the NY reporters and ship them out to Guantanimo to be treated as an enemy combatants. Military tribunal and then a hanging 2 days before Bush leaves office! These are traitors in a time of war, treat them as such! Let the ACLU scream like a stuffed pig and send the message to them as well!

[No Truce With Kings]

"If Freepers purchased stock in the NYTs could we make a difference and demand accountability?"

No.

NYT stock has two classes. The family owns the promary class, which has most of the voting rights. The stock available to the public goves you an opportunity to share in the profits of the corporation (which have been non-existant), but not to control the corporation. It is a weird, almost-prefered type of stock, without the guaranteed dividends.

[Dems_R_Losers]

IMO, we really need to stop using the word treason. That plays into liberals' hands. I think the Times is daring President Bush to prosecute it, knowing that the media echo chamber will turn on the Prsident with full fury and accuse it of the ultimate stamping out of freedom. It will be much more effective if we instead turn the Times' rhetoric back on them and blast them for their hypocrisy, as a few of the cleverer conservative commentators have:

The New York Times believes that President Bush is arrogating too much power to himself. But who elected Bill Keller to replace the judgment of our elected President as to how best to prosecute a war on terror and how best to safeguard our privacy while pursuing terrorists around the globe? Does not Mr. Keller's unilateral decision to assume powers previously reserved to the President make him a dangerous autocratic politician, exactly what he and his paper accuse President Bush of being?

The New York Times believes the "public interest" required it to publish state secrets. So why is it not in "the public interest" to reveal the sources of the secret information published by the Times? Now that Mr. Keller has revealed himself to be a mere politician, cannot Congress subpoena him and demand he reveal his reporters' sources?

[FormerACLUmember]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The New York Times--The Official Newletter of the Fifth Column

AMEN TO THAT!

See what Investors Business Daily has to say....

Issues & Insights [NYT & War On Terror]

The Headline is Mild, the article is not!

[SE Mom]

From the article linked for this thread:

However, what most didn't know was that the co-chairmen of the 9-11 Commission -- Tom Keane and Lee Thompson -- also contacted the New York Times and told them disclosure of the Treasury Department's counterterrorism operation would hurt national security. The editors at the Times couldn't care less and disregarded their plea, as well.

"In the past, I believe the New York Times got too close to the line separating honest journalism and betrayal. Now I think they crossed that line," said a former intelligence officer who now works as an undercover detective for a large city police department.

"I also don't believe someone from the [Treasury Department] leaked the information to the Times. I believe one of the lawmakers -- either in the House or Senate -- who opposes the war on terrorism leaked the information," he added.

---

Now if a couple of hacks like Tom Keane and Lee Thompson call the Times on this- you KNOW this was a serious leak. I'm not defending either one of these two and their PAST behavior- but obviously even THEY thought it went too far.

[IVote2]

No.

Well that settles that.

Jen

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is a book,:

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

*******************************

And a review:

****************************************

Communism is dead. Long live Islam!, September 30, 2004

Reviewer:

Kevin Beckman (Sacramento, CA) - See all my reviews

It sounds absurd: why would Leftists make common cause with a religion that is diametrically opposed to everything the Left stands for? David Horowitz explains that it is really quite logical given the Left's first principle: America is evil and anything or anyone opposed to America is good.

Part I of the book is a brief history of 9/11 through the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and the Left's behavior during this time. Horowitz includes the reaction of Katha Pollitt of The Nation magazine: "The flag stands for vengeance, and jingoism, and war." Anthropology Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia University said he hoped for "a million Mogadishus." His colleagues objected, not to the despicable sentiment, but because of the bad publicity it brought their "teach-in." Our tax dollars at work!

Part II is the heart of the book: a history of the American and international Left. Horowitz calls them Neo-Communists or Neocoms. The Neocoms of old believed in the Soviet Union the way religious people believe in God. Those who spied for the USSR didn't see themselves as traitors to their country, but rather loyalists to humanity and an ideal of America that's never existed. When the Soviet Union fell, a few of them stopped for some introspection but most pressed on as if nothing happened. Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm put it nicely: "Without the Revolution, my life and my work are meaningless."

Now that they no longer have to defend an indefensible regime, modern Neocoms are simply nihilists. They know what they oppose but they have no plans for the aftermath of the revolution which they still believe will happen. They don't know what they want, but they know what they hate: the United States, capitalism personified.

So why are they allying with radical Islam? Horowitz says that the Neocoms still believe in Marx's dictum that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Once private property is abolished, the need for religion will vanish, and Islamic radicals will stop being Islamic and radical. The only thing standing in the way is the United States.

Sound insane? It is. They are. I highly recommend this book. Horowitz makes the insanity understandable.