Yahoo! News runs a New York Post editorial "The Gray Lady Toys with Treason": Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror? The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months. It has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.
A Grand Jury should immediately be called and every reporter that reported on any of the recent stories that the Times reported should be called to reveal their sources, and if they refuse, they should be jailed, just as in the trivial case where the CIA attempted a Coup against America, and had one of it's agent's "outed" even though she (Valerie Plame) was no longer a covert agent, but just a Dem pushing the CIA to send her husband to Niger to discredit sixteen words Bush said.The most notorious example was the paper's disclosure some 10 days ago that, since 9/11, the Bush administration has "secretly" engaged in warrantless eavesdropping on U.S.-based international phone calls and e-mails. It's not secret anymore, of course — though the folks who reacted to the naming of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative aren't exactly shrieking for another grand jury investigation.
No, but I am.On the contrary: Democrats and their news-media allies — particularly on CNN and CBS — are openly suggesting that the president committed an impeachable offense and could (read: should) be removed from office. In fact, the Times managed only to blow the lid off of what President Bush rightly calls "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists" — one that already has uncovered several terrorist plots.
They are upset at that, because they think that if there had been a second 9/11, it would have forced Bush to resign.Is it legal? The administration insists so, and notes that congressional Democrats got repeated briefings on the program, with few objections. Sure, the legality can be debated — but the case against it is far from a slam-dunk. As for taking action without court-issued warrants, both the last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, used warrantless searches — and strongly defended them as fully justified under the authority granted the president by the Constitution. In fact, the Washington Times reports that Clinton expanded their use to purely domestic situations — such as violent public-housing projects.
The Times says it held the story for more than a year, provoking a predictable uproar on the left. So why did it finally go ahead? According to a Los Angeles Times report, New York Times editors knew that a book by the article's author was to be published in just a few weeks — and they feared losing their "exclusive" to their own reporter's outside work.
So they betrayed their country to promote a reporter's book?????But the exact timing is highly suspect. The article appeared on the very day that the Senate was to vote on a Democratic filibuster against renewal of the anti-terrorist Patriot Act — a vote the Bush administration then lost. At least two previously undecided senators said they voted against the act precisely because of the Times piece.
Yes they don't like the Patriot Act because it has foiled a number of terrorist attacks as well.BUT it's not just the National Security Agency story. Last May, the Times similarly "exposed" — in painstaking detail — the fact that the CIA uses its own airline service, posing as a private charter company, as "the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism."
Those reporters should be called before the same grand jury.In fact, as the Times itself reported, "the civilian planes can go places American military craft would not be welcome." In an unconventional war, like the one against terrorism, the ability to move personnel around quickly and inconspicuously — or to deliver captured terrorists to a third country — is indispensable. Thanks to the Times, that ability has been irrevocably compromised — costing Washington yet another vital tool in the War on Terror.
Then, not content to merely sabotage the federal government, the Times last week blew the whistle on the fact that the New York Police Department has been using plainclothes officers during protest demonstrations. In particular, the cops have been exercising their vigilance on the group called http://critical-mass.info/Critical Mass, which the Times refers to benignly as "a monthly bicycle ride." Not quite. Yes, it began as peaceful, law-abiding rides — orderly protests. But it deteriorated last year into mass disruptions of traffic. A federal judge unwisely refused the city's demand that the riders obtain a police permit in advance — but still admitted that the monthly protests were "spawning potential dangers." All along, the NYPD has not been trying to shut the Critical Mass protests down or abridge anyone's First Amendment rights. It has only insisted on safeguards — like permits — to guarantee that no laws are broken and traffic disruptions are held to a minimum. Unable to get the courts to agree, the cops instead used plainclothes cops "to prevent and respond to acts of violence and other unlawful activity." In other words, to protect the people of New York.
Apparently the NYT does not like protecting the people of New York. I wonder if the would have had a different opinion of on 9/11 the planes had crashed into the NYT building.Now, the Times has "exposed" this police work — and not just in words, but by splashing the pictures of these undercover officers across the pages of the newspaper, without making even the slightest effort to protect their identities. And make no mistake: The result will be to compromise the ability of the NYPD to work undercover at a time of increasing danger to the city from back-pack-toting terrorists — a la Madrid and London. Does The New York Times consider it self a law unto itself — free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens? The Times, it appears, is less concerned with promoting its dubious views on civil liberties than with undercutting the Bush administration. The end result of the paper's flagrant irresponsibility: Lives have been put in danger on the international, national and local levels.
The ability of the nation to perform the most fundamental mission of any government — protection of its citizens — has been pointlessly compromised. The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fias coes were high-profile embarrass ments for The Times, but at the end of the day mostly damaged the newspaper alone. The NSA, CIA and NYPD stories are of a different order of magnitude — they place in unnecessary danger the lives of U.S. citizens. The New York Times — a once-great and still-powerful institution — is badly in need of adult supervision.
Michelle Malkin adds Preferably adults with subpoenas.
Rob blogged In doing so, the New York Times is advocating for the very enemies who have stated as their objective the destruction of America and the lives of her citizens. All for the simple hatred of President Bush. And they say we conservatives are the uncultured masses.
Phil blogged It would be nice if we could feel like we were on the same side, but the NYT and others in the MSM had rather lose the war on terror than to see George W succeed. It's obvious that they are willing to undermine our National Security for the sole purpose of embarrassing the President. It's pathetic and treasonous.