Posted on 06/27/2006 11:24:31 PM PDT by airedale
Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published reports about secret antiterrorism programs being run by the Bush administration. Both times, critics have claimed that the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the terrorists. Some have even suggested that it should be indicted under the Espionage Act. There have been a handful of times in American history when the government has indeed tried to prosecute journalists for publishing things it preferred to keep quiet. None of them turned out well — from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the time when the government tried to enjoin The Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers.
As most of our readers know, there is a large wall between the news and opinion operations of this paper, and we were not part of the news side's debates about whether to publish the latest story under contention — a report about how the government tracks international financial transfers through a banking consortium known as Swift in an effort to pinpoint terrorists. Bill Keller, the executive editor, spoke for the newsroom very clearly. SNIP.
The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals. Terrorist groups would have had to be fairly credulous not to suspect that they would be subject to scrutiny if they moved money around through international wire transfers. In fact, a United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They also don't seem to understand what the decision in the Pentagon Papers actually said. It was a prior restraint case. The court plainly said that prosecution after the fact was an option. The way they brought it up is clearly a veiled threat to the administration by the NY Times.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
Wow, the Times must really be feeling the heat. Reminds me of Dan Rather a few days after the ANG story aired, protesting his righteousness, wrapping himself in the first amendment, etc. But just like Rather, these chumps are going down. Let's keep the pressure on!!!
Hey NYT: FOAD. You released OPERATIONAL DETAILS of a CLASSIFIED OPERATION. That is EXACTLY the same as releasing information about troop movements. There was no valid First Amendment grounds such as corruption, illegality, etc. You simply released OPERATIONAL DETAILS because you HATE GW Bush. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF TRAITORS WHO SHOULD BE TRIED, CONVICTED, and JAILED. (If this was a declared was, you should by tried, convicted, and SHOT.)
declared was = declared war PIMF
They can't deny they did it so they try to justify it. They should be prosecuted to the max for disclosing classified information and let the courts decide.
I want them closed, out of business....more pressure for a prosecution may send their already troubled stock spiraling down. They must be eliminated.
"As most of our readers know, there is a large wall between the news and opinion operations of this paper"
This is a desperate attempt to assimilate their readers into a single entity in a bid to retain readers and at the same time use them as human shields.
"There have been a handful of times in American history when the government has indeed tried to prosecute journalists for publishing things it preferred to keep quiet. None of them turned out well — from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the time when the government tried to enjoin The Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers. "
guess what, the general public has gotten a hell of alot smarter since then, and they see this treasonist paper for exactly what it is
"(If this was a declared was, you should by tried, convicted, and SHOT.)"
I assume you meant to say a 'delcared war'?
well it is, and was clearly done so.... so they ARE traitors
adding material to list
The NYT sounds like Natalie Mains. Same tune different "lady."
have apparently never met.
L
Well aint that just Special the UN recomends it so the Slimes figure to take the heat off themselves by pushing it in the UN's direction of a recomendation...
Freakin Traitor's wriggle like Worms on a Hook
Journalist's Go Hang Yourself !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.