Aid and Comfort, and Love Beads at the NYT

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, June 24. 2006

Aid and Comfort, and Love Beads at the NYT

I don't know what the New York Times is thinking, but I suspect it feeds their vanity to imagine that they are being valiant journalists by publishing the methods we use to track down terrorists. Legal methods, mind you.

If I had the time, I would post more on this - but for the moment, I just have to say that this behavior is treasonous and contemptible, not to mention dangerous. Not to mention provocative: are they hoping the Justice Dept will charge them with something, to boost shrinking sales?

Like adolescents, you might almost think that they keep testing the limits. Then, when they get into trouble, imagine what they will scream? "Fascism, freedom of the press, Bush=Nixon=Hitler=my mean parents who grounded me, etc."

A classic 1960s Leftist maneuver was to "expose oppression" by pushing the limits and breaking laws until somebody was forced to react. Then you get to be a martyred hero of the Revolution!

"Like wow, really cool, dude. Let's smoke one more and go protest something, and maybe get us arrested or else pick up some groovy chicks, and buy us some groovy love beads and a bottle or two of Mateus, and bring the hippy chicks back to our pad and light the herbal candles. Far out, man. We have a plan! And we might get lucky. I hope they shave their legs or I'll barf, dude. Hey, slow down man - come on, and pass me that joint. And yo, hey - is there any pizza or ice cream or beer left from last night? Shoot, now I think I need a nap before we go to protest. Let's get arrested later, OK, man? Ban the Bomb, or Ban Bush or whatever - just don't ban the bong! Dig ya later."

God forbid, if we have another 9-11, the NYT will quickly exchange their love beads and pot for their grown-up suit and Scotch, and be the first to complain that no-one connected the dots. If I were Gonzales, I'd be on them likes flies on horse poop. Can you imagine this sort of thing during WW2? Would they have published that we broke the Enigma code?

Editor Update: I see the Anchoress has had the same thought. She summarizes other reactions to the NYT's treachery. I added a few sentences to this piece. Some readers ought to take a moment to forward this post to the Times' Public Editor, so they might have the chance to get into reality before they go to jail.

Posted by The Barrister in Our Essays, Politics at 20:05 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Been there. I think you nailed it. I almost forgot about love beads!

#1 Art on 2006-06-25 08:03 (Reply)

Please. Such idiotic reactionay drivel is beneath rational consideration. Here's a reasoned discourse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaaeyVoqLhA&feature=Recent&page=1&t=t&f=b

#1.1 Anonymous on 2006-06-29 18:54 (Reply)

Oh my God! You remember Mateus? Who would drink that now? If you remember Bob Fass then you are too old to be on a blog. You are clearly a New Yorker, at heart.

#2 Sally on 2006-06-25 09:02 (Reply)

I remember him well. The "cabal."

#3 The Barrister on 2006-06-25 09:30 (Reply)

Criticising those who protest for 'pushing limits', rather than criticising those in power for grossly abusing their power in spying on American citizens ? This argument is utterly topsy turvy.

Without willingness to break laws in the name of Freedom, there would never have been a civil rights movement.

#4 Jon on 2006-06-25 09:47 (Reply)

Part of liberty is freedom to protest. Part of protest is a willingness to bear the consequences.

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, � 2381. Treason, states "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

The editor and publisher of the NYT should be indicted and tried. If executive power was abused, they will be declared innocent. If the power of the press is being abused, they will be punished. In either case, the truth will come out. That is honest protest.

#4.1 Gywnnie on 2006-06-25 14:40 (Reply)

I swear to God, that last commenter is right out of the satire.
Life imitates art!

#5 Ted on 2006-06-25 11:18 (Reply)

It's interesting how top-level government entities revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent and her false-front employer, thus directly aiding our enemies. Result? The Right scrambled to find every excuse under the stars to claim it wasn't a treasonous act.

Now the press exercises their Constitutionally protected right to unveil a heinous act by the Bush admin along with freely available public information, and suddenly the Right claims 'treason' and wants to see their heads on the chopping block.

Why the disparity? Could it be because the Times brought to light potentially egregious acts by the government to circumvent personal privacy, without judicial oversight? How dare they hold the government accountable!

I suppose we should hold the Dept. of the Treasury accountable also then, since they aided the terrorists by telling them their finances were being targeted:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040910-4.html

Perhaps the financial-tracking consortium itself should be indicted and tried for openly advertising their existence on their website:
http://www.swift.com/

No, all the information dispensed by the Times in this case was readily available, most if it from the Bush Admin touting their efforts in fighting the "war on terror".

All the Times really revealed is that the Bush admin is obtaining this information by once again circumventing the legally established process. No wonder the Republican apologists are up in arms.

#6 Bud on 2006-06-25 19:39 (Reply)

Isn't it interesting that although Valerie Plame was not covert and was not an agent, the left simply repeats the lie and repeats the lie until they come to believe it?

Is there really a "Bud" or have we fallen for a parody? He cites a White House release that we froze terrorist funds in 2004. OK, good for us. Bad for the terrorists and Bud.

Then he cites SWIFT, the transactions clearing house, saying that it has acted above-board on advice of counsel. OK, good for them.

SO, therefore he would have us believe that the Times has reported than an event that happened in 2004 was legal. Well I agree that wouldn't be treason. But why would they think it was news?

No, Bud, they told far more than is on those two irrelevant web sites you use as a foundation for your invective - remember, if as you say "all the information dispensed by the Times in this case was readily available", it wouldn't be news, now, would it?

#6.1 Gwynnie on 2006-06-26 14:37 (Reply)

Isn't it interesting that although Valerie Plame was not covert and was not an agent, the left simply repeats the lie and repeats the lie until they come to believe it?
First, I'd say the judge's opinion in the case supersedes your Rush Limbaugh talking point:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

Second, I stated not only Plame but her false-front employer were compromised. You don't hear much about that because then the Republicans would have to admit treason. There were several deep undercover NOCs working for Brewster-Jennings along with Plame, and when Plame was outed so were all of them. That's why it was the CIA that requested the investigation into the leak. Perhaps you should refresh yourself with the facts instead of the talking points.

He cites a White House release that we froze terrorist funds in 2004. OK, good for us. Bad for the terrorists and Bud.
I'll ignore your typical anti-right wing = terrorist parallel and just explain the comment. I was pointing out that the entire premise of the Barrister's article, "the hippy press is publishing the methods used to track terrorists" has already been stated - on numerous occasions - by the Bush admin and the White House itself. I linked to one of those times as proof. I think it's funny you believe the White House's website is irrelevant, I'll remember that.

As for the rest of my comment, I'm glad you now agree that what the Times did wasn't treason. But you seemed to miss the point as to why it was news worth reporting. I'll state it again:
The Bush administration is again circumventing the legal process that's in place to spy on Americans, with no oversight. The NYTimes felt the people had a right to know and the government should be held accountable, and I agree.

#6.1.1 Bud on 2006-06-26 16:01 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, June 24. 2006

Aid and Comfort, and Love Beads at the NYT