Treason at the New York Times

[Double Naught Spy]

The phone tap situation was not a first issue, and I am d**n sick and tired of the media ITSELF defining what the first amendment allows them to do.

Are you saying parties with a particular agenda relevant to the amendment should not be able to interpret it for their own good/needs/wants? We do it all the time on this board with the 2nd Amendment because we know we are right, just like newspaper publishers know they are right on the 1st Amendment.

Mongo, I am not sure you know what treason is, as defined by US law. You may be outraged, but that does NOT make it treason.

 

[BB93YJ]

The NYT has published classified information that aids and abets our enemies. Simple as that. "Aid and comfort" are two words that are part of the definition of Treason. What the NYT editor, (Keller), and the writers of the stories, James Risen and Eric Lictblau(sp?) wrote, gives aid and comfort, or support to our enemies, people and organizations sworn to our destruction. That, people, is treason. Pure and simple.
These same individuals were the same ones that exposed the NSA intercept programs. Revealing a highly classified program that by it's use, protects American lives. In the same manner, their latest treasonous publishing of the "Swift" program alerts our enemies to out methods to combat them.

This is an all out effort by the NYT to subvert the actions of a lawfully elected government, in it's sworn duty to protect the United States and it's citizens.

I don't remember any elections being held that the New York Times, or Pinch Sulzberger won, that allow them to subvert or override the elected officials of this country's government in carrying out it's job of protecting it's citizens from islamofacists efforts to kill as many citizens as possible.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5611

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5611

The First Ammendment does not protect the right of a newspaper to print information that aids our enemies and subverts our government's efforts to thwart those enemies. Plain and simple.

The First Ammendment does not allow government personnel to leak classified information to whomever they wish, whether they leak the classified information "on condition of annonymity" or not.

The person or persons that leaked the information are in clear violation of the law, and the NYT, and the LA Times, (to name a few), are in clear violation of the law.

Traitors, treasonous, seditious traitors. I hope they and all they are connected to rot in Hell.

Edited to add the defintion of Treason, from the United States Code:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381

§ 2381. Treason

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.

 

[1 old 0311]

If we ever have another terrorist attack the address of the NYT editor should be printed.

 

[longeyes]

nasty little secrets

The NYT appears to have an obsession with divulging classified information, especially when it involves phone calls and money transfers. Makes you wonder what they're worried about...

 

[Linux&Gun Guy]

If the adminstration (no matter what it is) asks them not to bring a story, what right does the NYT have to do so?

Every right in the world. By your logic the administration would just place a call to hush up any sort of scandel it wanted. Leaking detailed military plans is one thing - saying that terrorists are being watched is hardly treason.

If terrorists didn't know they ran a risk of being watched and monitored then they are clearly not a threat.

This forum is propaganda also - almost everything ever printed or said is propaganda of some sort. Funny that everyone thinks they have The Truth and everyone that disagrees is wrong - after all they also think that way.

Really no one has The Truth because human sight is imperfect

 

[longeyes]

Really no one has The Truth because human sight is imperfect

Well, that makes "The Newspaper of Record" rather meaningless, doesn't it? You should let them know they're just publishing propaganda.

Now, run by me again WHY the NY Times wanted to divulge classified information leaked in wartime...?

 

[pcf]

The NYT appears to have an obsession with divulging classified information

It's semantics, but the New York Times cannot divulge classified information. The NYT doesn't have access to it. Someone has to violate a nondisclosure agreement and divulge classified information to the New York Times which it publishes. Either it's a fabrication or someone thought what was going on, was bad enough to risk 25 years in prison.

 

[longeyes]

Divulging information they knew to be classified, received from a source that had no right to divulge it.

Yes, semantics, that's for sure.

Actually, I was suggesting psychopathology, not journalistic transcendentalism.

 

[WT]

Just a few years ago the Pentagon declassified the telegram notifying the War Department that the USS ARIZONA had been sunk at Pearl Harbor.

Yup, everything is a secret. Trust the government to let the media know what's good for us.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

More nasty little secrets and FUNNY too.

Want to read some really funny fiction?

United States Constitution, Section. 9. Clause 7:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Haw, Haw, Haw, Haw.

Ask the CIA.

Haw, Haw, Haw, Haw.

I can't stop.

Ask the NSA

Haw, Haw, Haw, Haw.

 

[pcf]

Divulging information they knew to be classified, received from a source that had no right to divulge it.

How does the NYT know that this information is classified? How do you know it's classified and not made up?

 

[cloudkiller]

Some of the stories run in the press

All things being equal, I would rather the press run stories the government asks them not to run than giving in. It is a tradeoff, I know, but I think that is the correct choice.

 

[Lupinus]

It's really plain and simple in my opinion. A news paper, especially one with an agenda as strong as the NYT, really has no place deciding what classified information the public has an interest in knowing. Just because we have a pretty good idea it is happening doesn't give the paper excuse to run more details we don't know because if we know the enemy knows.

Take prior to d-day. We have a bunch of troops in England and it is a pretty safe assumption we are invading mainland Europe to boot Hitler out. Now I am pretty sure the public would have found interest in knowing where and when we planned to invade. Classified things are classified for a reason, they are something that needs to stay hush hush so that the enemy doesn't find out details. Even if it is something that someone can reasonably assume we don't want them knowing for sure or knowing details. Osama knows we are watching him, but we don't want him to know exactly where or what we are and aren't watching. Hitler knew we were coming, we didn't want him knowing where and when. Sure one simply lets Osama know a little more about what we are doing and one protected the lives of thousands because Hitler didn't know where we were coming ashore but they are related. Both were classified to keep the enemy from knowing details of our actions thus making our lives easier and theirs harder. Yes blame falls with the source or leak, but it also falls with the messenger when they broadcast it because without them the leak doesn't have a loud enough voice to tell the world.

Classified information is classified for a reason, details can't be known. When the classified information relates to a government cover up of illegal actions or plans to infringe on the civil rights of Americans, then they have a civic duty to let it be known so that the American people can defend themselves. But information having to do with national security and what actions we are taking against the enemy, that is another matter and a paper has no business printing it. In doing so they aid the enemy. Does it go far enough to be called treason? I'm not sure, but it is most certainly not right and the paper should be punished. Free speech doesn't give you the right to broadcast national security. With great freedom comes great responsibility to not abuse those freedoms, and that is what the NYT's has done here.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

the 20th century was a disaster for the American Experiment.

1913 or so we let Women Vote. Yes, Most women are smarter than most men, but, yes, they sometimes get emotional.

1916 or so, we passed income tax. Personally, I am of the opinion that there must have been some skullduggery afoot. No reasonable citizen would agree to have themselves tazed, (sorry, Fruedan slip) taxed.

Even around the same time we created the "Federal Reserve System" Billderbergers and all that. Another string.

1918 or so we had a dumb a$$ed president that thought we had to make the world "Safe for Democracy". Him and that Meglomaniac from England decided to divide up the world (maybe not all that bad, but maybe in fact, the Ottoman Empire knew more about it, but since they lost the war, they didn't count) and they made at least two awful mistakes.

1) They imposed a bunch of gawdawful punishments on the Prussians and those other Germanic types that lost what we have come to call WW1.

2) They chose to divide up the Ottoman Empire into a bunch of countries that may or may not have had some reason to coalesce. The decision that they made to form 3 divergent cultures into one country called Iraq is coming back to haunt us.

1939 or so we were cursed with another dumb a$$ed president that really wanted to get us out of the mess that was created by creating the Federal Reserve System (otherwise known as the depression) so he embargoed the Nips and manipulated us into WWII.

Both of my parents worked at the Des Moines Ordnance Plant. This factory built ammunition. It was started and in production between 1940 and 1941.

Pay attention. It was in full production in December of 1941, the same month of the terrible unprovoked attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. Are we stupid?

So we win the war.

It took at least 3 years to develop the manpower and equipment for tha Allies (mostly US) to cross the 22 miles of the English Channel and begin to retake Europe.

How many years do you think it would have taken for Hitler to coalesce enough material and manpower to assault USofA over a 3,000 mile ocean.

Please don't waste our time trying to 'splain it.

Finally, after WWII we got the cold war. I yam a cold warrior. Signed up in '62 and got out in '66. I shoulda got a medal.

1990 or so, the Iron Curtain falls. The cold war is over.

Do you think we could go back to the good ole days? No military industrial complex? What, are you stupid?

It broke our back.

It's like the March of Dimes. Once the infrastructure of an organization gets established, you just can't shut it down. Whether or not its established goal has been reached or not.

The Helium Storage commission is still in operation after we defeated all the Hindenburghs in the 30's.

1990 or so, we have an established industry of making war. Almost 100 years of making war. We can't just shut it down. We gotta find new enemies upon which to make war.

Now I come to the Black Budget, the reason for my previous post.

The CIA has created companies (in direct competition with other USofA companies) to use as a front. They do not have to show a profit. They are only a front. South American Bananna Companies come to mind, but there are no limits into what they have intruded.

If you have a house painting company down in Florida, it don't matter whether or not you make a profit, you are potentially competing against a .gov sponsered and funded company that doesn't have to show a profit. No, their mission is to provide a cover for some secret endeavor.

Conclusion:

I am fully convinced that there are thousands of "Americans" that have retired and are living a life of luxury because of the "UNAUDITED" income that they may have received whilst fighting the secret war on Communism.

I guess corruption is the price we must pay to be free.

Too bad that the constitution requires that .gov give a full accounting of all the disbursments made.

Woops!

National Security.

I don't know, when 1900? Teddy Roosevelt? Walk Softly, carry big stick?

Tell the truth?

Work for a living?

So far we have sunk.

 

[Koobuh]

My frank answer to all the whooping beating of chests, etc.

So?

This isn't new information, and even if it was classified it isn't the paper's place to censor itself if it wants to print a story.
I severely doubt lives or even intelligence vectors will be harmed by this story.

All this 'loose lips sink ships' talk is just amazing- anything is available online, there's virtually no point in attempting to keep large programs like this secret.
And it SHOULD be that way. If I have to walk a deadly path, I would rather do so without being blindfolded and led by a government that -may or may not- have my best interests in mind.

Also, Lupinus; you cannot abuse your own freedoms, you can only abuse the freedom of others.
Committing a crime is not an abuse of a freedom, and that is an important distinction.

Longeyes; has congress declared war? We're in a protracted period of combat of course, but the real wars ended a couple years ago. Spook activities are not war, they're intelligence gathering and throat slitting. The more light shed on the dark places in our government the better, in my opinion. If I must accept invasions of privacy to meet the government's standard of 'safe', I would prefer 'unsafe'.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

The Helium Storage commission is still in operation after we defeated all the Hindenburghs in the 30's.

CCW, great post, and I agree with most of your points and views of history, but the Helium Storage issue was a new one on me... I stopped and researched it. Wow, what a wonderful agency which serves.... other agencies of the government (NASA, the military, etc.).

Oh, and back on post, those of you who say we should "expect" the NYT to be political and "anything" can be found on the web (witnessed above, btw.)

First, the press have a unique position under the law. The First Amendment guarantees free speech for ALL Americans, not just the press. The press has assumed that it is the "watchdog" for the people, and sold itself that way. That is why the people give it power. That is why we allow them not to reveal sources.

If the press were a policeman, I would submit that "profiling" is going on. Anything one group does, the press pulls em' over, frisks them, questions them. The other group can go merrily on its way, even while committing obvious infractions. There is always an excuse for group two, or most frequently, the press (police) simply ignore and don't report the abuses.

Now, what would happen to a police officer who was caught red handed in such actions?




Oh, and researching stuff on the web, although I am certain there are many of our enemies who are extremely intelligent, there are most likely a bunch who are not. Why give them the information? Or why solidify what they suspect? Keep them guessing.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Earlier it was posted that if the NYT printed a story about BATF doing something illegal, we would applaud it. While this is true, many here acted like because the NYT wouldn't do that, it means it is okay to send the editor to jail awaiting a trial for treason!

What? ***?!

Look, did you even read the article, are you even paying attention? It isn't that the administration is going after terrorists' financial records, it is that they are going after everyone's financial records involved in international financial transactions. Regardless of whether they have a warrant to do so, regardless even if any evidence exists that there was wrongdoing.

Look, already, Bush ignores his constituents who want the border closed. Look at the NAFTA superhighway, and read about plans to have a common trade zone encompassing Canada, Mexico, and the US which the citizens in none of these countries will be voting on. In which it is likely none of the people's representatives in these countries will vote on.

And you think the fact that the Bush Administration has been "fishing" through wiretaps, and culling through the thousands of financial records has been to fight terrorism? The most basic step to defend our nation (protecting our broders) hasn't been undertaken. This isn't about controlling terrorism. It's about controlling us.

If the Bush Admin wasn't able to control it's people, and news of the government violating the spirit if not the word of the 4th Amendment got out, tough luck for the government. I'm all for the NYT breaking this story. It just gives me one more instance of this administration acting nothing at all like the Republicans who took the House in '94. It illustrates just how nasty this neo-con regime is.

Honestly folks, when the Bushs are out, and Hillary is in, do you think she'll bat an eye, or shed a tear before she uses the same wiretaps and financial tracking info to go after gunowners? Do you think she'll even allow talk radio to air on the excesses of her administration? How long until the Patriot Act makes you a terrorist? The same weapons at work in America's "War on Terror" can also be used in America's War on Guns. Or war on Religion. Or war o any right any politician, on the right or left doesn't like.

The sooner you quit drinking the neo-con koolaid, the better off you'll be.

 

[No Quarter]

The government tries to keep secrets, the press tries to divulge them. Easy as that.

Personally, I want to know everything that OUR government is doing. If you own or manage a busuiness, don't you want to know what YOUR employees are doing?

I would hate to think we would try to limit reporting on any subject. Who would define what is acceptable or not? How would that make us any different than China, NK or any other country that limits what it allows its citizens to hear about?

 

[Camp David]

I use to give the media a pass thinking they were working in the public's interest; now I know the media, particularly The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, are working against us. In sum, the editors at these two papers are aiding the terrorists, guity of treason and sedition, and I hope they are all soon arrested and sent to Guantanamo. These two newspapers and their editors are working against this nation; they are aiding terrorists against our nation.

More detail about these two terrorist newspapers - The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, - is provided here. Yes there is a need for a free press in this nation, but not a press that works against our nation. I hope these newspapers, and their editors, are likewise targetted as this nation targets terrorists. Editors at both newspapers are guilty of both treason and sedition.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Honestly folks, when the Bushs are out, and Hillary is in, do you think she'll bat an eye, or shed a tear before she uses the same wiretaps and financial tracking info to go after gunowners? Do you think she'll even allow talk radio to air on the excesses of her administration? How long until the Patriot Act makes you a terrorist? The same weapons at work in America's "War on Terror" can also be used in America's War on Guns. Or war on Religion. Or war o any right any politician, on the right or left doesn't like.

And answer honestly Mordecai, do you REALLY BELIEVE the NYT would report ANYTHING Hillary would do? Check your Koolaid supply if you do.

 

[GTSteve03]

And answer honestly Mordecai, do you REALLY BELIEVE the NYT would report ANYTHING Hillary would do? Check your Koolaid supply if you do.

They reported on the Echelon surveillance system that the US was using to spy on foreign countries back during Clinton's administration.

But I guess that's not drinking the kool-aid, is it?

Source:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFA3A540C778EDDAB0894D8404482
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0811FA355D0C758CDDAE0894D8404482
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0F13F83B5D0C768CDDAE0894D8404482

 

[No Quarter]

For those of you wanting to limit or punish the NYT...

The same laws put in place or legal actions taken against them since, as conservatives, you don't like their reporting, could be used by those you consider "liberals" against your "conservative" media friends when the pendulum swings in our governement - which it invariably does and will.

The same "media" broke stories on the various Cllinton, Bush the 1st, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter era scandals and on and on and on and on. While individual outlets may have a bias one way or the other, the sums of its parts is far greater than any one institution.

NQ

 

[Camp David]

For those of you wanting to limit or punish the NYT...

The same laws put in place or legal actions taken against them since, as conservatives, you don't like their reporting, could be used by those you consider "liberals" against your "conservative" media friends when the pendulum swings in our governement - which it invariably does and will.

Sorry... I don't see it that way. When you have media working to further the cause of terrorists you have a bi-partisan problem; its not a conservative or liberal issue... simply one of the media giving away state secrets which furthers the terrorist cause. Why are you giving the media a pass? Their job is not to make terror easy or facilitate domestic terror but that is exactly what the NYT and the LAT are doing! When did the media inheret the right to jeopardize the state? How many soldier and civilian deaths will it take to foster sedition and treason charges against these editors? They are complicit in both treason and sedition...

 

[HankB]

Mongo, what you and I might perceive as pertaining to the security of the country or success in our war against the Jihadists is unimportant to those of the NYT and others. What's important to them is getting rid of the Republican control of the federal budget and restoring it to the Democrats.

+1. This has been called "Bush Derangement Syndrome" . . . I'm not a real big fan of Bush myself, but in some circles the hatred for Bush is so deep, so visceral, that anything - literally anything at all - that hurts or is perceived to hurt Bush is desirable.

If today's big media were around in the early 1940's, they would . . .

* Broadcast our plans to launch B-25s against Japan from aircraft carriers . . .

* Announce that the Japanese naval codes were broken, and we we laying a trap at Midway . . .

* Print that German "Enigma" ciphered messages were being broken by the ladies of Blechley Park, complete with maps of the buildings in which they worked . . .

* Break a story, weeks in advance, that we were going to invade Europe at Normandy - not Calais - on June 6.

* Try to tie FDR romantically with Betty Grable . . . or maybe even J. Edgar Hoover.

 

[No Quarter]

I am not giving the "media" a pass. I am allowing them to operate in the manner which they should be according to our 1st ammendment rights.

Your arguments could be used in ANY situation which compromises the reputation or integrity of any of the aspects of our governement. It can be argued that they never should have reported on the Monica and Bill affair since it compromised the office of the president and made it look as if the leader of America was a bumbling oaf that was too busy getting blown to concentrate on our security. Of course, you probably relished those stories though!

There are a myriad of other conflicts in your reasoning. The access of the media has much to do with the development of technology which allows us to communicate globally. If our own sources don't report it somone else will - shall we limit our access to other media as well? Not allow it into our borders?

Freedom of the press has to be a completely neutral, unbound process. To limit it in ANY way sets the stage for us to degrade into a government sanctioned propaganda society that only gets the news and information that the government deems fit to print.

The fact is, all news stories add to the collective understanding of what is going on in our world. Limiting parts adversely effect the whole of our understanding and awareness.