Posted on 06/27/2006 11:24:31 PM PDT by airedale
Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published reports about secret antiterrorism programs being run by the Bush administration. Both times, critics have claimed that the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the terrorists. Some have even suggested that it should be indicted under the Espionage Act. There have been a handful of times in American history when the government has indeed tried to prosecute journalists for publishing things it preferred to keep quiet. None of them turned out well — from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the time when the government tried to enjoin The Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers.
As most of our readers know, there is a large wall between the news and opinion operations of this paper, and we were not part of the news side's debates about whether to publish the latest story under contention — a report about how the government tracks international financial transfers through a banking consortium known as Swift in an effort to pinpoint terrorists. Bill Keller, the executive editor, spoke for the newsroom very clearly. SNIP.
The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals. Terrorist groups would have had to be fairly credulous not to suspect that they would be subject to scrutiny if they moved money around through international wire transfers. In fact, a United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They also don't seem to understand what the decision in the Pentagon Papers actually said. It was a prior restraint case. The court plainly said that prosecution after the fact was an option. The way they brought it up is clearly a veiled threat to the administration by the NY Times.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
Wow, the Times must really be feeling the heat. Reminds me of Dan Rather a few days after the ANG story aired, protesting his righteousness, wrapping himself in the first amendment, etc. But just like Rather, these chumps are going down. Let's keep the pressure on!!!
Hey NYT: FOAD. You released OPERATIONAL DETAILS of a CLASSIFIED OPERATION. That is EXACTLY the same as releasing information about troop movements. There was no valid First Amendment grounds such as corruption, illegality, etc. You simply released OPERATIONAL DETAILS because you HATE GW Bush. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF TRAITORS WHO SHOULD BE TRIED, CONVICTED, and JAILED. (If this was a declared was, you should by tried, convicted, and SHOT.)
declared was = declared war PIMF
They can't deny they did it so they try to justify it. They should be prosecuted to the max for disclosing classified information and let the courts decide.
I want them closed, out of business....more pressure for a prosecution may send their already troubled stock spiraling down. They must be eliminated.
"As most of our readers know, there is a large wall between the news and opinion operations of this paper"
This is a desperate attempt to assimilate their readers into a single entity in a bid to retain readers and at the same time use them as human shields.
"There have been a handful of times in American history when the government has indeed tried to prosecute journalists for publishing things it preferred to keep quiet. None of them turned out well — from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the time when the government tried to enjoin The Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers. "
guess what, the general public has gotten a hell of alot smarter since then, and they see this treasonist paper for exactly what it is
"(If this was a declared was, you should by tried, convicted, and SHOT.)"
I assume you meant to say a 'delcared war'?
well it is, and was clearly done so.... so they ARE traitors
adding material to list
The NYT sounds like Natalie Mains. Same tune different "lady."
have apparently never met.
L
Well aint that just Special the UN recomends it so the Slimes figure to take the heat off themselves by pushing it in the UN's direction of a recomendation...
Freakin Traitor's wriggle like Worms on a Hook
Journalist's Go Hang Yourself !
The New York times demands transparency from the government, yet claims the cloak of secrecy for themselves. They live in bizzaro world. The Times is openly giving aide and comfort to the enemy -- and now a pattern exists to demonstrate this. Between the NSA story and the Banking story, the NYTimes have done nothing but help AQ in their planning. They can claim all they want in editorial pieces, but the truth is known by most americans. I wonder how much of a bonus check Mr. Keller, et al, received from our enemies for the publication of these stories? It is not Mr. Keller's decision to make on what to declassify and what not to; he should be in jail until the leaker is identified. Messers Risen and LIchtlau should be in jail as well. They are trying to be the new Woodward and Bernstein, but it ain't gonna work any more. These people simply do not understand the threat, nor to they care about the citzenry on New York City. Why should our tax payer dollars continue to go to support counter-terrorism programs that protect New York, when the city's paper of record just publishes those programs on their front pages? It is beyond disgraceful, it is treasonous.
Got it for Friday's uasge. Thanks.
Do you have the URL to the link for the story on Drudge yesterday, about the NY Slimes advocating financial investigations right after 9-11/ I can't find it on his site, anymore.
Lest us not forget... The reporting of the this is one thing...THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO LEEKED IT IS ANOTHER!
All I get when I click on the URL is a full-page flash ad about Verizon with no where to "skip" or advance to story!
Get a load of this crap, further down in the piece:
"From our side of the news-opinion wall, the Swift story looks like part of an alarming pattern. Ever since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has taken the necessity of heightened vigilance against terrorism and turned it into a rationale for an extraordinarily powerful executive branch, exempt from the normal checks and balances of our system of government. oversight role."
"I want them closed, out of business....more pressure for a prosecution may send their already troubled stock spiraling down."
I could not agree more. I short sold the NYT stock on Mon., Sept. 13, 2004, as soon as I was certain the Dan Rather ANG story (which ran on Wed., Sept. 8)was completely bogus, but the NYT and Boston Globe continued to run with the story on the front page above the fold.
As a result, I short sold NYT at $40.75 and it is currently trading at $23.63!!!
You did good, AC!
They understand completely, they are running a political campaign.
They don't have to be fair, truthful, or accurate.
Never, ever, forget that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.