The New York Times breaks silence

Powerline ^ | 02/12/2006 | John Hinderaker

[tsmith130]

In today's article on the investigation of the leaks underlying the New York Times's December 16 disclosure of the NSA terrorist surveillance program, the Times finally acknowledges its own legal jeopardy:

[C]onservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as an illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information. An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper may be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and says, "What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism." Unfortunately, however: Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he defended the paper's reporting.

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

Here's hoping the adminstration finds the intestinal fortitude to seek to convince a jury of Keller's peers.

[tsmith130]

Here's hoping is right!

[Paloma_55]

"Conservatives"????

How about "Federal Prosecutors"!?!?

[darkwing104]

"We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

I'll remember that during the next act of terrorism on U.S. soil.

[Jim Noble]

We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security.

I was not convinced then, and I'm not convinced now, that robbing the bank because I needed the money was wrong.

[mhuye]

Be carefull, those pink things in the sky are really pigs, and yes, they are flying today. Not only do thay admit it, but once again in the wonderful model of Mary Mapes, they still don't think that it effected National Security...THANK GOD for the fact that THEY DECIDED what is best for the other 300 million Americans...Sick, disgusting, immoral and seditionists...

[wouldntbprudent]

Exactly.

[b4its2late]

They should be out of business for it. Treason.

[W04Man]

Yes, and they may have to pursue some congressmen or senators too!

[paguch]

The only the general public will realize we are in a war for our lives is when we take action, serious action against treasonous events. If reporters. operatives, and a senator or two face long prison sentences and receive them, people will begin to understand.

Republican or Democrat, anyone involved in these disclosures should serve serious time in jail.

[popdonnelly]

Hello? The law requires that the leaks be investigated, not conservatives.

[Wasanother]

Well that's comforting, Bill Keller, newspaper idiot with no idea of national security, says they didn't jeopardize national security. sarc

[xcamel]

... and there arose a great chorus of moonbats, chanting "Chill !, Chill !", and the great disturbance in the force was ignored with a yawn, as the usual suspects, bawling and squalling, were dragged away to their impending fate...

[last line of the book "Press Wars: Revenge of the truth"]

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Guess we won't hear a whimper when the NYT is incinerated.

[muawiyah]

Gee whiz, guys, I'm convinced that the New York Times damaged our national interest and endangered our people and our military in the field.

Wonder if any of these putzes would be willing to duke it out in Central Park early some Sunday morning?

Bet not ~ the whole lot of them are cowards and traitors.

[kittymyrib]

Charge, try and convict Pinch and his cohorts. Publishing our intelligence secrets certainly is more harmful than anything Scooter Libby did. They all need to do jail time and the NYT needs to be fined out of existence for breeching national security for the rest of the nation during wartime.

[muawiyah]

Not just Pinch, but selected executives who manage institutional funds that have New York Times stock in their portfolios.

Let's spread the damage to all the sectors of society who conspired, knowingly or otherwise, in this treachery.

[hershey]

What does it take to get through to these dunderheads? Wild-eyed Muslims renting a van, filling it with fertilizer, etc., and parking it in the lobby of the NYTimes?

[TADSLOS]

"We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

Maybe a 30 year tour of this place will convince him:

[hershey]

Early this am, the three letter word, WAR was spoken and underlined in Fox. As in wake up, folks, we are at WAR.

[bkepley]

Here's hoping the adminstration finds the intestinal fortitude to seek to convince a jury of Keller's peers.

I'm not worried at all about the administration's intestinal fortitude but I doubt the courts would hold up a conviction.

[Wasanother]

Here's some free advise for Risen, If you drop the soap just let it go and if some burley man says,"boy you sure got a purdy mouth", ask him what color lipstick does he prefer.

[tsmith130]

Well that's comforting, Bill Keller, newspaper idiot with no idea of national security, says they didn't jeopardize national security

Bingo! He gets to decide why?

[Beagle8U]

"Let's spread the damage to all the sectors of society who conspired, knowingly or otherwise, in this treachery."

I agree, and I want the trial to start by mid Aug. and be live on C-span for everyone to see the damage these RATS have caused to national security.

[TalBlack]

"Here's hoping the administration finds the intestinal fortitude to seek to convince a jury of Keller's peers."

In 'no balls' America that's just not happening.

This neutered condition extends as well to journalists who print what they please and are explicitly proud of it until they have something to print that may anger someone who they believe may blow their lying liberal heads off--then they become "prudent".

No balls and scumbag cowards to boot.

[Fruitbat]

Yeah, no kidding.

An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper may be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act...

I'll believe that when I see it.

[Socratic]

What does it take to get through to these dunderheads? Wild-eyed Muslims renting a van, filling it with fertilizer, etc., and parking it in the lobby of the NYTimes?

Perhaps this is their insurance that such a thing won't happen. After all,"The enemy of my enemy........."

[carlr]

"We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised believed that this information would be extremely damaging to the Bush administration which is far more important than national security."

Just reporting the real story.

[rock58seg]

A little enlightenment of what we are looking at, for those of us not on a lanmarks preservation committee, might be helpful.

[muawiyah]

It is highly noteworthy that the New York Times was not subjected to any sort of attack on 9/11.

[TADSLOS]

Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary

[Socratic]

It is highly noteworthy that the New York Times was not subjected to any sort of attack on 9/11.

QED

[Fruitbat]

It's also "no balls" politicians. If the roles were reversed, GOP and Dims, the Dims would back any measures to get conservative publications nailed, and even on falty information.

Well, here we have real data, generally speaking, and when we sorely need a period whereby we, the government/people, could sorely use some solutions for treasonous behavior, those in control politically will probably back off in the name who knows what for reasons of political expedience.

[JoeSixPack1]

So they weighed their options and surely had the countries best interest in mind when they decided this little tidbit of information was an unnecessary national security secret.

Who knew the NY Slimes were top notch national security experts?

(/sarc)

[ops33]

Its irrelevant whether you think your actions may or may not compromise national security. That's not the legal standard. The NY Times has no legal right to publish classified information. Period. It doesn't matter what you think of the war, or even if there is a war. They can't compromise classified information.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

"We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

These Ivy League elites who run the major media learned many things in college, among them:

1) Ethics are circumstancial and relative

2) The Press has little to fear from the government, due to endless legal complications and the perennial 'Freedom of the Press' defense. Did Ellesberg do time for releasing the Pentagon Papers?

[Moonman62]

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

So the integrity of our national security depends on the judgement of the NYTimes. I'm not feeling too warm and fuzzy about that.

[Fresh Wind]

It is highly noteworthy that the New York Times was not subjected to any sort of attack on 9/11.

See, that proves that BushRoveHitlerCo wasn't to blame for 9/11 because their first target would have been the NYT.

[kanawa]

Geez, what were you doing at that URL?

[Mike Darancette]

How about "Federal Prosecutors"!?!?

They are called Conservatives when the Administration is conservative. Federal prosecutors were called Liberals when they went after Clinton.

What, they were called Conservative then too? I don't understand.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

The NY Times has no legal right to publish classified information. Period.

Such absolute pronouncements really stick in the liberal craw, lol.

[tsmith130]

I know I shouldn't be, but I am amazed at how pompous that statement is. Absolutely, amazed!

[elhombrelibre]

Frankly, I'm aware of secret information which, if disclosed, would be front page news. I'm not convinced it should be classified. But that's not for me to say. I do not feel so arrogant that I will disclose what others in our government feel must be a secret. The whole role of the NYT begs some questions. Is there any tool we're using in the war on Islamic terrorists that the NYT would not share with the terrorists to assure their safety? Would they tell them when we are going to counter their attacks or where? Who would trust the NYT to know anything that might give free citizens the advantage against mass-murdering terrorists whom the NYT seems to see as an alternative lifestyle. Whose side is the NYT on in the war on terror? The NYT has distorted news and lied many times. Take the famine in the Ukraine, as just one example, and the fact that they never gave back Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize. Surely the NYT knows today that Duranty lied. How can the NYT pretend that it's some how above the law and that it views itself as a news organization that always tells the truth? Today, it has become the best friend al Qaeda has. Castro must be jealous.

[The Drowning Witch]

I for one, cannot WAIT to see James Risen under oath....AND Pinch Sulzberger....

[Paloma_55]

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

The Rosenburgs could have used that line...but it wouldn't have worked back then.

[standing united]

They have admitted that before they printed the disclosure, they were asked NOT TO PRINT IT BECAUSE OF NATIONAL SECURITY!

Malicious intent anybody = TREASON!

They should be executed, and run out of this Country on a rail!

[scan58]

...all part of that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (of which I am a card-carrying member, thank-you).

[muawiyah]

Very good.

[TADSLOS]

Geez, what were you doing at that URL?

LOL! Yeah, I shoulda caught that one...Just picked it out of the google image lineup. There's not too many images of the place, not surprisingly.

[RayChuang88]

I have this feeling that a certain Arthur Ochs "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr. might be doing a perp walk within the next few months.

[Starboard]

THANK GOD for the fact that THEY DECIDED what is best for the other 300 million Americans

Well said. This is a perfect example of the liberal superiorist mentality.