How's this? DHF
Posted on 6/29/2006, 3:35:33 AM by Jameison
This morning’s New York Times editorial on the Swift program displays the same reasoning and persuasive powers we have come to expect from this venerable institution.
And I mean that most sincerely.
The misleading claptrap begins in the very first paragraph:
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.
Note to Times editors: the Pentagon Papers case did not involve a prosecution of the newspapers involved, despite your implication to the contrary. It involved the government’s effort to get a court order to prevent publication of the articles in question. Obtaining such an order is much more difficult than prosecuting newspaper staffers after the fact.
If the issue had been the viability of a criminal prosecution, rather than that of a pre-publication injunction, the result might have been quite different.
---snip---
The editorial also stumbles with this now-familiar argument:
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. ----snip---.
I am getting tired of refuting this argument again and again, so I’ll simply refer you to this post of mine with links and arguments that fully debunk it. The postcard version: Drug dealers know they are sometimes monitored by officers, but somehow I think the cops would still be upset if I showed the dope dealers where the cops are stationed with their binoculars.
(Excerpt) Read more at patterico.com ...
They seem to be daring the Administration to act against them.
What else are they keeping under their hats?
Looks like their whine-orgy is continuing.
My guess is that they are looking for a huge fight with the administration that believe they can win and which will improve their flagging sales (and stock price).
They love the attention, and sadly, it probably helps their sales. Just ignore the Slimes and let them sink into oblivian.
Why does anybody read the NYT? Do they expect to get the truth?
As a Great Freeper once said, "Nuke em"
Anyone, (Army Pvts., Pro Golfers, Toll Gate attendants, etc) can be charged for exposing classified info. REGARDLESS OF THEIR OTHER OCCUPATION!!! Reporters, Listen up.
Did you know that Ann Coulter once said it was too bad that Timothy McVeigh hadn't picked the NY Times building instead? I could almost agree with her!
All three branches of the federal government should revoke the NY Times' press credentials.
"Journalists" live & die by access. Remove their access and it's just that much easier to investigate and prosecute their continued treason.
How's this? DHF
Living in OKC, let me tell you, I couldn't agree more!! Just damn.
If there was a choice between OKC and the NYT, well, maybe I can understand Ann`s point.
I`m not sure what side the Times is on, I just know it`s not on mine.
And they are apparently a shrinking species as well. Especially considering that they have been aborting themselves into oblivion for years.
Hitting the NYT bathhouses would suffice.
bttt
As usual, Ann was being firebrand. As for the Times, they would seem to be for lies, injustice, and the anti-American way.
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.