June 27, 2006
— Ace Good. Let's get started with this already.
As I Was Saying... Belgium probing legality of SWIFT subpoenas.
Thanks, NYT! Thanks so much for serving as a hostile intelligence service providing damaging information to our enemies as well as our very-reluctant allies.
Pat Roberts, writer of the letter cited above, says that the next attack on the US may very well be laid at the feet of the NYT.
Peter King wants to throw the reporters in jail until they reveal their sources to a grand jury.
Some Congressmen calling for a tightening, toughening of espionage laws.
These updates from Brit Hume's show, on now.
Bump the Jail-O-Meter to...
They're making all the right moves to gain the political support they need to throw these sonofabitches in jail for a year or five.
A Treasonous Bridge Too Far... Patterico dreams the impossible dream and ponders if the NYT and LAT realize they committed treason that the American public will not forgive.
The "treason" part they didn't mind, of course. They always understood that.
But it is possible it's dawning on them that this is all very, very close to publishing submarine positions as they're about to attack a target, and that the public may have had just about enough of their arrogance and hostility to American security.
The American public has a reflexive instict against prosecuting journalists. But that's all it is at this point-- reflexive. The more the public considers precisely what the NYT has done, the more they'll realize their reflexive support for press freedom should not apply in such a disgraceful case.
Posted by: shawn at June 27, 2006 12:23 PM (lwPIs)
The best way to do this is to haul Bill Keller and his scumbag reporters to court and question them about their sources. They, of course, will refuse and be found in contempt, but this will keep the story in the media for months which will help Bush make his case.
I'm with ace in believing that this reflexive instinct for protecting press "freedoms" can be overcome if you can keep people's attention long enough to explain to them the usefulness and legality of the program and how they've been betrayed by its exposure.
Posted by: The Warden at June 27, 2006 12:39 PM (rkK3q)
Besides getting canned -- nothing.
Don't you worry none... I'm sure she'll get a nice book deal and a Lifetime movie of the week.
Probably a nice sitcom too... I forsee an Odd Couple type show with her and that nice lady ex-General (nominally) in charge of Abu Grahib. The jokes will practically write themselves.
Posted by: krakatoa at June 27, 2006 12:45 PM (CX6Ok)
It won't happen, of course, but it's really not that far out there (philosophically, at least), when you acknowledge that the actions of Keller and the NYTimes were deliberate acts done with in full knowledge of the likelihood that they would lead to deaths of Americans, either on a street in Iraq in an explosion of an IED or in a skyscraper collapsing following a fiery explosion following an airliner's impact, flying lessons, but not landing lessons, of course, for the "pilots" paid for with suddenly unmonitored SWIFT transferred funds. The arrogance of Keller's subsequent justification confirms that he really does want to be liberated from the law's requirements. Giving it to him would be just.
Sadly, though, outlaw status isn't really an option. Therefore, it's necessary that that Keller, Pinch and the Times take responsibility for what they've done. The legitimacy of government's exclusive claim of the right of retribution requires it.
Posted by: Angry Citizen at June 27, 2006 12:49 PM (pOCDI)
Posted by: T. at June 27, 2006 12:49 PM (5YMbd)
Posted by: pendelton at June 27, 2006 12:50 PM (9VRIa)
Posted by: krakatoa at June 27, 2006 12:53 PM (CX6Ok)
Posted by: UGAdawg at June 27, 2006 01:24 PM (alGm/)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2006 01:27 PM (Pwzb0)
This is a clear cut case of the NYT pushing an anti-Bush agenda. For those who didn't read the NYT editorial from 9/14/06, the Times is now condeming and announcing to the world the very tactics they recommended.
There was a leak. It has done damage to the WOT. Frog march some of the fuckers out of the paper of record and the treasonous bastards in gov't who talked with them. Bring on the special prosecutor.
Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2006 01:38 PM (rnOZq)
I'm surprised the Times guys haven't been hit with Grand Jury subpoenas yet and made to reveal the leaker. That's who gotta go.
Posted by: Iblis at June 27, 2006 02:01 PM (9221z)
Posted by: jayne at June 27, 2006 02:09 PM (m6+3x)
I was trying to build on Christophers point about defending journalists. The writers who exposed this secret program are not journalists. They are reporters. Just because they work for a for profit organization that can't print a sports page without a partisan bent, they have no special right to commit treason in my mind.
Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2006 02:10 PM (rnOZq)
No, it wasn't the NYT. Also, someone on Ace's show today misspoke when they attributed this breach to "the Clinton administration."
The culprit here is Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby. He should have been imprisoned, but the only penalty (so far) is that he lost his plum security-related committee assignments. He's one of several senators who've never been held to account for their egregious security lapses.
Posted by: Brett Bullington at June 27, 2006 02:36 PM (/QYGF)
We're in a fucking war. People seem to forget that.
Nothing personal, Pendelton. I just had to rant.
Posted by: ErikW at June 27, 2006 02:59 PM (YBHW4)
Posted by: spurwing plover at June 27, 2006 03:51 PM (bzZNq)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2006 04:10 PM (Pwzb0)
If the NY Times and the LA Times had done anything for which they could be prosecuted, I expect that officials would have told them in advance.
However, any reporters who know the government source should go to jail until they give up the source.
Posted by: Steve O at June 27, 2006 04:19 PM (R0Csm)
(Die Hard, in case you missed the ref.)
Posted by: Scott Free at June 27, 2006 04:25 PM (my9JA)
If you have questions or concerns about The Times' journalistic standards and practices, or you believe we have made an error, you may contact:
Los Angeles Times Readers' Representative Office
Telephone message line: (877) 554-4000
Fax: (213) 237-3535
Postal mail: 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
Newspaper delivery hotline: (800) 252-9141
Posted by: Steve O at June 27, 2006 04:35 PM (R0Csm)
Want to voice your opinion? Write to email@example.com to send a Letter to the Editor of The New York Times to have your comments considered for publication in the printed newspaper (please see our Letters to the Editor help page for details). Or visit our Forums to voice your view on the Web.
Need to contact NYTimes.com's editors? Please write to firstname.lastname@example.org and we'll get back to you if a followup is necessary.
Posted by: Steve O at June 27, 2006 04:38 PM (R0Csm)
Public Editor: To reach Byron Calame, who represents the readers, e-mail email@example.com.
Posted by: Steve O at June 27, 2006 04:39 PM (R0Csm)
Bret / Jayne,
Your link Bret seems to be mere speculation. If I recall correctly, it was Orrin Hatch of Utah that blabbed about the satellite phone tracking of OBL.
You know what they say in the senate, don't count your Hatch until he's chickened.
Posted by: MC at June 27, 2006 04:47 PM (3bFaP)
It's true that no one officially nailed Shelby for it, but I think it's all but a foregone conclusion that he did it. There was talk of ejecting him from the Senate for it. Apparently, through an arrangement with the Senate leadership, he got to keep his seat but he lost his committee assignments. That may have been done in anticipation of possible legal action--I don't really know.
Posted by: Brett Bullington at June 27, 2006 04:56 PM (/QYGF)
I fail to see how publishing classified information in a newspaper does not violate the law. Given today's political climate and what they've gotten away with so far, why would the papers be worried about prosecution?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2006 05:02 PM (Pwzb0)
Well, if we are, in fact, by the legal definition of what war is, in a situation of war (since the description of the unlimited use of force act/law, matches exactly with the definition of war, then we are in fact at war) then all it takes to be found guilty of "Treason" is either an admission by the traitor, or two witnesses, who can confirm it, right? Since it is the only constitutionaly defined crime, period.
Well, the NYT Admitted (confessed) that they acted counter to the desires of the executive (who are the exclusive arm of foreign policy, especially in a time of war, and since we are ACTUALLY at war, though the words of the declaration are technical) They have confessed to treason. Since the NYT contacted at least 3 former and current congresmen or officials, I believe, they have identified more than two witnesses, who can validate that the NYT acted in a treasonous way.
I don't know where this deconstruction of law though I'm not a lawyer, came from, but actually, by Kellers very own words in his description of the program basicaly is a confession with identifiable, and valiable witnesses, Keller admitted that he wasn't guilty under the espionage act, but rather under the constitutionaly defined crime of treason.
Is that as horrible an interpretation as I myself think?
If it is, then it should work, after all, Edwards is a multi-millionare because of a fucking POOL PUMP!
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 27, 2006 06:02 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: The Machine at June 27, 2006 06:30 PM (L/jMX)
At the local level, we can't get away with irresponsible journalism... I have a hard time understanding why the national level doesn't have the same rules.
Posted by: tmi3rd at June 27, 2006 06:41 PM (0I7rf)
Posted by: pendelton at June 27, 2006 08:20 PM (9VRIa)
William T. Sherman
Posted by: pendelton at June 27, 2006 10:32 PM (9VRIa)
Posted by: pendelton at June 27, 2006 11:25 PM (9VRIa)
Most of our 'allies' and enemies at SWIFT are professional operations officers and probably won't be outed like Plame did when she admitted who she was at 'Vanity Fair.' No, no one counted the operations officers in Iraq, but, I guess, Spain and Japan would say that's okay.
The source for the leak is in the ne
Posted by: at June 28, 2006 05:33 AM (LdD6+)
I would only imagine that the same angry terrorists that have access to computers are the same angry terrorists that surf the internet and stumble upon sites like the above.
In sum, I can rest peacefully knowing that numerous people will attack me, as opposed to the mesage that I carry; this is because you can make only loud noises, but no sense at all.
Posted by: Messenger at June 29, 2006 04:21 AM (yUGOy)
62 queries taking 1.0417 seconds, 269 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.