PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON-why we MUST prosecute The NY Times (HEAR Pete King et al)

PETE KING, Hannity & Colmes, Fox News Sunday, Gabriel Schoenfeld | 6.26.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES

by Mia T, 06.26.06

 

 

 

hy must we prosecute Pinch Sulzberger and The New York Times? The answer is really quite simple.

And it is independent of the legalities¹. It must be independent of the legalities.

Prosecuting Sulzberger and the Times is both a moral and a survival imperative: If we don't prosecute them, if we declare Sulzberger and the Times untouchable by virtue of their press status, it follows that anyone intent on doing this country harm can simply call himself 'the press' to be able to commit treason with impunity.

Indeed, it appears some already have.²

---

 

1.

CAN JOURNALISTS REALLY BE PROSECUTED for publishing national security secrets? In the wake of a series of New York Times stories revealing highly sensitive counterterrorism programs, that question is increasingly the talk of newsrooms across the country, and especially one newsroom located on West 43rd Street in Manhattan.

Last December, in the face of a presidential warning that they would compromise ongoing investigations of al Qaeda, the Times revealed the existence of an ultrasecret terrorist surveillance program of the National Security Agency and provided details of how it operated. Now, once again in the face of a presidential warning, the Times has published a front-page article disclosing a highly classified U.S. intelligence program that successfully penetrated the international bank transactions of al Qaeda terrorists.

Although the editors of the Times act as if prosecution is not a possibility, not everyone concurs. One person who is still mulling the matter over is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Asked in late May about the prospect of prosecuting the Times and others who publish classified information, he by no means ruled it out. "There are some statutes on the books," he said, "which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility."

Unsurprisingly, given what is at stake, even that tentative opinion elicited a fire and brimstone denunciation from the Times. An editorial on May 24 dismissed as "bizarre" the attorney general's "claim that a century-old espionage law could be used to muzzle the press." It has long been understood, added the newspaper, that the "overly broad and little used" Espionage Act of 1917 applies only to government officials and "not to journalists."

But this interpretation, even if it were accurate (which it is not), is entirely beside the point. The attorney general did not mention the 1917 Espionage Act or any other specific law. But if the editors of the paper were to take a look at the U.S. Criminal Code, they would find that they have run afoul not of the Espionage Act but of another law entirely: Section 798 of Title 18, the so-called Comint statute.

Unambiguously taking within its reach the publication of the NSA terrorist surveillance story (though arguably not the Times's more recent terrorist banking story), Section 798 reads, in part:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added].

This law, passed by Congress in 1950 as it was considering ways to avert a second Pearl Harbor during the Cold War, has a history that is highly germane to the present conduct of the Times. According to the 1949 Senate report accompanying its passage, the publication in the early 1930s of a book offering a detailed account of U.S. successes in breaking Japanese diplomatic codes inflicted "irreparable harm" on our security.

The Japanese responded to the book's revelations by investing heavily in the construction of more secure codes. Thanks to the ensuing Japanese progress, the report concludes, the United States was unable to "decode the important Japanese military communications in the days immediately leading up to Pearl Harbor." In other words, the aerial armada that devastated our Pacific Fleet had the skies in effect cleared for it by leaks of classified information.

Leaks of communications intelligence secrets pose an equivalent danger today....

READ MORE
Leaks and the Law
The case for prosecuting the New York Times.
by Gabriel Schoenfeld
07/03/2006, Volume 011, Issue 40

 

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.

We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

by Mia T, December 29, 2005

 

 

 

inch Sulzberger scurried to the C-SPAN confessional even as the fires raged under the mammoth heap of ash and twisted steel that was once the Twin Towers and 2801 human beings. He had to make certain no one would blame The New York Times.

The Times' 1996 endorsement of bill clinton¹ was the problem. The endorsement, you may recall, was contingent on clinton getting a brain transplant--specifically of the character lobe.² How could the Times square that shameful, irresponsible endorsement with this monstrous failure³?

Sulzberger quickly explained that the Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man."⁴ (Did he actually buy into the clintons' 'compartmentalization' con⁵? Or was this apparent credulousness simply another cynical expedient for The New York Times?)

Probing questions by the host, Brian Lamb, followed, eliciting this damning historical parallel from Sulzberger: "The Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots."

It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes.⁶ Will it take the Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president⁷ with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9/11 horror and its aftermath⁸? 

Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements points to clinton "policies," not achievements; is this tacit acknowledgement that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real -- that the Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all?

If we assume that the clintons are the proximate cause of 9/11 --- a proposition not difficult to demonstrate --- it follows that The New York Times is culpable, too.

Elie Wiesel makes a distinction between "information" and "knowledge."⁶ Information is data; it is devoid of an ethical component; it is neutral. Knowledge is a higher form of information. Knowledge is information that had been internalized and given a moral dimension.

At a minimum, the Times' failure -- whether concerning clinton endorsements, or classified leaks or the Holocaust -- is a failure to make this distinction. More likely though, it is a failure not nearly so benign.

 

 

READ MORE
FOOTNOTES

2.

The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent₂

by Mia T, 4.6.03

 

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

Mia T, THE ALIENS, June 9, 1999
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000

 

l From is sounding the alarm.

"Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean, pre-Cindy Sheehan variety, with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint these days.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

 

America's Real Two-Front War

 

by Mia T, 4.17.04

merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both quite insane.

If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.

Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in Washington--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford.

Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps.

To borrow from the Bard, let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent.

America must not pull her punches.

To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.

ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.

neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) distain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04

 

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅


PARTY OF LINCOLN AND THE WAR ON TERROR


THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)


MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)


Carpe Mañana: The (bill + hillary) clinton Terrorism Policy
('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')


HILLARY CLINTON VOTES FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BEFORE SHE VOTES AGAINST THEM
HEAR HER NOW


sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)


A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA


NEWT: CLINTON COMMITTED ONE OF WORST CRIMES, ENDANGERED COUNTRY, IF HIT ABDULLAH UP FOR CASH


Listen to this and ask yourself if America Ever Had the Remotest Chance Under a clinton to Avoid 9/11
(To paraphrase Einstein: "The unleashed power of terrorism has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes.")


Is the 9/11 commission calling bill clinton's statement '"unreliable," or did it choose willful ignorance this time, too?


WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)


'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)


THE (oops!) INADVERTENT (TERRORISM) ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON (HEAR HILLARY IN SF) ^{~PART ONE~}


ON THE FICTIONALIZED MEMOIR (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)^{~PART TWO~}
THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF HILLARY AND JANE IN SAN FRANCISCO


CLINTON 'CULTURE OF CORRUPTION'


~SEE VIDEO~
IRAQI GENERAL: SADDAM MOVED WMD TO SYRIA BEFORE INVASION
(ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE, CINDY SHEEHAN)


THE 'BORED,' BEFUDDLED POLITICS OF JOHN KERRY RETURNS
CALLS FOR ALITO FILIBUSTER FROM 'SKI SLOPES'


REDACTION LOOPHOLE: ACCESS TO THE BARRETT REPORT


THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY:
HOW DECADES OF CLINTON DOUBLE-DEALING COMPROMISED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY


DUBAI-ITIES:
HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON STRIKES AGAIN


DICK MORRIS:
CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI


WHY HILLARY IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS A NATIONAL-SECURITY NO-NO^{PART ONE}


My New York Times Review of Munich
CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
(please FReep)


Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000


WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)


ON WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND WIRETAPS:
THE ABYSMAL CONSTITUTIONAL RECORD OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON


CHRIS MATTHEWS: 'BUSH BELONGS ON MOUNT RUSHMORE'
IF HE WINS 'GREATEST GAMBLE SINCE ROOSEVELT BACKED BRITAIN BEFORE WWII'


THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH) -- part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie


AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS
(BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT)


WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?


IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY


BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA


I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


NANO-PRESIDENT, MEGA-DISASTER
history will not be kind to bill + hillary clinton


NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton


HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman


CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)


JENNINGS DOES A DIMBLEBY: clinton legacy-RAGE redux


'UNITED 93' vs. 'MUNICH'
Paul Greengrass--thank the stars--is no Steven Spielberg


Republican-voting, Hollywood-dwelling, Bill-Maher-writing Master of Tongue-in-Cheek, Paladin of Truth, Reviews 'United 93' AND Bill Clinton


UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."


HEY CLINTON!
SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.


HILLARY REMEMBERS


HILLARY DOES NOT RECALL, DOES NOT REMEMBER, HAS NO MEMORY, HAS NO RECOLLECTION, BUT DOES NOT BELIEVE SHE SAID IT BECAUSE SHE WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED IF SHE DID.


"I DON'T RECALL"
(THE CLINTONS COMMIT PERJURY WITH IMPUNITY)


KARL ROVE'S MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION: MOI
HEAR HILLARY, CHRIS MATTHEWS ET AL.


BILL MAHER WARNS DEMOCRATS:
HILLARY WILL TAKE YOU OVER A CLIFF IN '08


'REFUSAL TO LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'
... IS HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON'S MIDDLE NAME


HILLARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT THE RAPE: HEAR JUANITA BROADDRICK


ROCKEFELLER SEDITION: WHO IS CALLING THE SHOTS?


THE ABSURDITY OF A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY


HILLARY'S ARMOR: A decades-old story...


CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS:
Justice Undone in the clinton White House


WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

(ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP--oops!--FOR HILLARY DEFEAT)

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
December 7, 1941+64


IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)


IS DICK MORRIS AN IDIOT? OR IS HE STILL ON THE CLINTON PAYROLL?


clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .


Yitzhak Shamir Validated: THE CLINTONS ARE "A GREAT DANGER TO JEWS"


for the birds
(THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)


1st Feminist Prez Impeached
(clinton, pushed by the "smartest woman in the world," managed to impeach himself)


THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update


TALL-TALE TWEAK:
In honor of Rosa Parks, 'burning church' becomes 'bus' for 'first black president'
(clip included)

For the children?
the clintons ARE pornography downloads


"I support the poor but not the war on poverty."


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power
REASON 1: SHE HIRED JAMIE GORELICK


HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall


HILLARY'S MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET (MAD COVER 2)
Do you really want THAT finger on the button?


"What, me worry?"


ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON + CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


How did the flower children fall for the clintons, 2 such self-evident thugs and opportunists?
(FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!)


Alfred E. Neuman + the threat of terrorism, according to hillary


HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS ^{part 1}
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.


HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS ^{part 2}
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.


KLEIN BOOK CAUSES HILLARY TO (oops!) CONFIRM "THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY"
CLINTON'S REACTION EXPOSES FASCISTIC MINDSET, TEXTBOOK CASE OF PARANOIA + MEGALOMANIA, AND A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT IN BROADDRICK RAPE


DEMOCRATIC FASCISM [beware hillary clinton]


THE OLYMPIC HILDABEAST FLOPS
hillary stupidly invokes clinton utter failure: 9/11


Who in heaven's name is writing missus clinton's speeches?
A "handling the hillary dud factor" AFTERWORD


SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor


REINVENTING HILLARY... AGAIN
(clinton machine dumps Geena Davis for Margaret Thatcher)
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor₂


AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


hillary's burqa


HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)


HILLARY IN AVIARY


ROE, MEDICAL SCIENCE, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, ROSS PEROT + HILLARY CLINTON


the significance of missus clinton's gratuitous gerundial g-droppings


HILLARY CLINTONSTAHL
clinton agitprop machine censors truth about hillary


CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN


hillary clinton is a "CONGENITAL LIAR"
("I am not a crook")


retrograde feminist fraud positions herself as victim (again) in order to win White House
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]


NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN CLINTON REACTION TIME AND CONTENT TO THE TWO RAPE CHARGES


CATCHING THE CONSCIENCE OF THE KINGFISH
differential reaction to the two rape charges snares the clintons


the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape, according to Susan Estrich


HEAR CHRIS MATTHEWS + MAUREEN DOWD DEVOUR HILLARY


THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)


ESTRICH IMPEACHED BY HER OWN WORDS,
EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN
my amazon.com review


STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ED KLEIN AND SUSAN ESTRICH AGREE ABOUT HILLARY


HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes


ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN


OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK
(with additions, corrections, addendum)


HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue


HILLARY!?? WHAT IS THIS MORIBUND LOSER DOING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, ANYWAY? (bill's bud explains)

• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₄
  

• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₃
  

• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₂
  

• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₁
  

• dox in sox (on lummox in box on fox)?

•  CINDY SHEEHAN'S JUMP-THE-SHARK MOMENT?
  

• "SONNY" CALLAHAN + BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS
  

• DEBUNKING CINDY SHEEHAN
  (HEAR ABE LINCOLN/JOHNNY CASH + PBS' NEIL CONAN)
  

• CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT (hear them all here)
  

• BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS (courtesy Sean Hannity)
  

• THE ROOTS OF CINDY SHEEHAN
  (COURTESY JAMES TARANTO VIA RUSH LIMBAUGH)
  

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

 

 

[Sic Luceat Lux]

I say we should prosecute the bastard along with all of the liberal malcontents at Defense, the CIA and State Department.

Exactly!
Bttt!

[xzins]

We must go after the leakers.

Without them, the papers have no info to print.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

Make it 40 years /$1,000,000 - this is almost as bad as Bill and Hillary's Chinagate.

[nopardons]

Great post...thanks for the ping.

[Navy Patriot]

plug the leakers

You may need my services.

Have Gun, Will Travel

Wire Patriot, San Francisco

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[Mia T]

Have gun, will travel reads the card of a man
A knight without armor in a savage land.

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Mia T]

thank you :)

[nopardons]

Welcome. :-)

[FlyVet]

Make it 40 years /$1,000,000 - this is almost as bad as Bill and Hillary's Chinagate.

He is probably guilty of accessory to murder. I find it hard to believe no one has died due these disclosures.

[TigersEye]

Complaining about it won't stop this behavior. Prosecute with extreme prejudice!

[Jameison]

"However, the 1st amendment seems pretty air tight to me"

When did the first amendment start covering leaking classified national security secrets to Al Quaeda so they can kill more Americans?


"Like I said, they can still print whatever they wish."

And Saddam Hussein is mother Theresa too.
No one is above the law.

[xzins]

Simply read the amendment and look at past interpretations of it.

In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court's decision included this: "Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraint." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/decision.pdf

There is no claim, however, that LEAKERS are not subject to prosecution.

If I want the other amendments (religion, guns, etc) interpreted strictly, then I must do the same with the press.)

[Jameison]

"Simply read the amendment and look at past interpretations of it. "

Nice try.
The legal eagles at Powerline have gone all over that.
No one is above the law, whether they work for the Slimes or not.
Giving national security secrets to the enemies of America is treason, even if you do it through the front pages of The Slimes.

From Hugh Hewitt:

"Again, I quote McManus to Baquet:

HH: Sure. Do you agree, Doyle McManus, that the press has no exemption from the national security statutes?

DM: I do agree with that."

McManus btw, is the Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/

From Dr. John Eastman, Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, testified Friday, May 26, before a hearing conducted by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence "

"Eastman contended that the First Amendment's Freedom of Press clause does not provide the institutional media a special exemption from the Espionage Act and other laws, and that enforcement of those laws is particularly important in the present assymetrical war against international terrorist organizations. A copy of his prepared testimony is available here."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905167


"In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court's decision included this: ""Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraint." "


The US Supreme Court also recognised these:


Abstract:
"Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, contending that Section 798 of the Espionage Act, prohibiting the publication of classified information regarding U.S. communications capabilities, can constitutionally be applied to the media, for several reasons: 1) A majority of the Justices in the Pentagon Papers case recognized that prior restraints on publication of highly sensitive, classified information regarding ongoing military and communications operations would be permissible; 2) The prospect of post-publication liability for violating the Espionage Act was also recognized by a majority of the Justices; and 3) the Freedom of Press Clause of the First Amendment is equally applicable to citizens and the the institutional media. "

[xzins]

There's an easy way to tell.

If the DOJ indicts the NYT, then they believe that the press can be punished for publishing information that they received from a 3rd party.

If the DOJ does nothing or attempts in some manner to indict a leaker to the NYT or attempts to force the NYT to reveal its source(s) so they can be indicted, then the DOJ does not believe that the press can be punished.

We'll see which happens, and from it get some sense of where the correct legal interpretation lies.

[P-Marlowe]

If the DOJ indicts the NYT, then they believe that the press can be punished for publishing information that they received from a 3rd party.

If the NY Times knew that the information they received was classified or top secret and that the leaker committed a felony in giving that information to the NY Times, then the NY Times is culpable as an accessory to a felony. If the NY Times knew that the information was classified and they in any way conspired with the leaker to have the information made public through the presses owned by the NY Times, then that makes the NY Times a co-conspirator and a principle and not an accessory.

If the NY Times actually paid for this information and then published it, then it would make the NY Times guilty of espionage

There are a lot of scenarios in which the NY Times itself could be seized and where the editors and the publishers could find themselves behind bars for the rest of their lives.

There is a limit to the freedom of the press. Giving the playbook for the war on terror to the enemy is clearly beyond that limit. The tools we had to detect the positions and the activities of terrorists have been compromised beyond repair. The leaker needs to be publicly executed. The NY Times needs to be seized and the property auctioned off. Finally those responsible for publishing the leak need to be jailed for the rest of their lives.

[xzins]

We'll know when they get prosecuted.

It clearly was classified info. They clearly came across it in an unauthorized way. They clearly published it.

I'm betting they'll not be prosecuted.

After the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent their publicatin. The Scotus ruled against them 6-3. The decision was essentially that there are no limits on the 1st amendment freedom of the press.

The administration attempted to prosecute the leakers....only to discover that we didn't have a law that made leaking illegal. (Since remedied.)

My point is that the Nixon Admin wanted to go after the leakers because they COULD NOT go after the Times. Likewise, we'll not have anyone go after the Times in the Finance Leak because they don't think they can. They'll go after the leakers.

If they succeed that will be as effective as going after the NYT. It will stop it in the future.

[Mia T]

 

When the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

<snip>

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

READ MORE

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)
by Mia T, 6.27.06

[jude24]

Do not post your over-the-top, frantic propaganda to me again.