Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The liberal media, the NY Times, and a question of treason.

Less than a week ago, June 23 to be exact, a story broke that blew me away. The New York Times ran a story that blew the classified program that seeks to trace al-Qaeda related bank transactions.

Okay, I have argued all along that the American Press is liberal, hates Bush, despises the war in Iraq, and will do anything to undermine the effort overseas. . . but this is too much. I never dreamed that they would stoop so low as did the New York Times did with this story.

Well, okay, I wasn't totally surprised. The American Press (minus Fox News and a handful of rightwing TV and radio Hosts) is unscrupulous, and will stop at nothing to make us lose this war so that they can say, "See, we were right. It's a loss of a war."

Now, because the NY Times published the details of America's effective terrorist tracking system, al-Qaeda operatives now have an increased opportunity to avoid being caught. Does the liberal press, specifically the Times not understand what the term "government secrets" means, or why it is important that such operations remain in a stealth mode?

We thought the greatest enemy in Iraq was the insurgents and the terrorists, and it turns out that the worst obstacle in this war is our own press. This was one of the best tools we had in tracking terrorism and they published it, and on top of that, they did so after being asked not to release the information they had obtained by our government specifically because it may jeopardize the effectiveness of the system. Since when does the liberal press have the right to leak classified information like that?

Then on top of that, the Los Angeles Times released a companion story.

First the New York Times exposed the NSA's terrorist surveillance system, which got all of the idiot liberals in an uproar about their own privacy, and now this. I hope that the U.S. Government prosecutes the Times -- this is espionage and treason, and they should be tried and found guilty and somehow be forced to pay restitution regarding the damage they have inflicted, and the idiots that allowed the story's release should be jailed for a long long time. The Times obviously wants to do whatever it takes to force us out of Iraq, and force us out of the war against terrorism. Do they think that the terrorists haven't hit the U.S. since 9/11 for another reason? Do they truly believe that if we cut and run that terrorism will not return to our shores? The terrorists have not hit us because we took the war to them. That is all the enemy understands. They don't negotiate, and they don't care about the liberal feel good attitude that we just all get along in this new age of Aquarius. The terrorists have one thing in mind and one thing only: the destruction of any nation that is not primarily run by radical Islam. Period.

The greatest threat to the war on terrorism is not the insurgency. The greatest threat to our nation is the traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home.

Now, thank God, Congress has made a statement about it. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican, Kansas, stated yesterday, "That the press wouldn't have better sense than to leak critical information on terrorists so that they know what we're doing -- that scares the devil out of me. . . In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; therefore it is an act of treason. . . What you write in a war and what is legal to do for the federal government, or state government, whoever it is, is very important to winning the war on terror."

Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Monday accused the NY Times of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," as well, a term that fits the definition of treason.

On Sunday the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Republican Peter King of New York, urged the Bush administration to seek criminal charges against the Times for its reporting on the secret financial monitoring program. "We're at war," he declared, "and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

Unfortunately, ever since Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots, and then resumed her acting career without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal action during the Vietnam War, the prosecution of treason seems to be something we just don't do anymore.

What? Does the press have the right to commit treason because of "freedom of the press?" Liberals always invoke the "freedom of the press" card anytime they do something wrong. Apparently those idiots don't realize what freedom of the press means. Government cannot control speech before publication, but it does not mean that the government can't prosecute the press for treason, or any other crime. It's common sense (a resource that seems to be in less abundance in the U.S. of late) that you don't spread the word about information that is classified by the United States Government, hence, information that could put the safety of the nation in jeopardy!

The federal statute on treason (18 USC 2381) reads: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States...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 not less than $10,000.

My question is this: Why hasn't the Republicans taken charge and prosecuted these traitors? Am I correct? Did the idea of treason being punishable go out when Jane Fonda betrayed her nation over thirty years ago?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The current state of the law probably ptotects the NYT from charges of treason. Freedom of the press DOES NOT protect LEAKERS, and the leaker should be sought and prosecuted. The Times reporters and editors should be thrown in jail until they divulge the name--and if they don't, let them rot.

D. Ox