Indicting Treason

The American Thinker ^ | June 30th, 2006 | Vasko Kohlmayer

[el_texicano]

The New York Times apparently sees nothing wrong with disclosing the existence of two vital national security programs, but deems the non-outing of a non-undercover CIA agent a grievous threat to this nation’s survival. So much so that in the minds of its editors it merits indicting everyone from Dick Cheney on down.

Although their hopes ultimately proved groundless, the left still managed to make hay out the Valerie Plame affair. They even succeeded in destabilizing the administration for a time by hamstringing some of its most capable operatives. It would, however, be short-sighted not to see that the trouble was entirely of the administration’s own making.

[el_texicano]

I searched and did not see this. A bit of an indictment on the Bush Adminstration. What say you?

[el_texicano]

One interesting point made in this article was this one:

"George Bush was not elected to shower his enemies with magnanimity, particularly when they imperil America’s security. Neither was he elected to nominate wavering attorneys general who step aside or blink confusedly when confronted with treasonous acts."

I would hope that Bush is not doing this. But from the first day of Bush in office this new tone I know royally has irritated many conservatives.

[ansel12]

The writer wants the administration to be more hard nosed.

[gotribe]

I wish he would be more hard-nosed or tell us why he isn't. Guess I'm a bit naive to expect either.

[Graymatter]

I trust the administration will take care of this matter to our satisfaction. Sometimes, it takes them a while to hear the Who.

So we'll keep hollering.

[LtKerst]

First the Plame,Fitzgerald,crap was more a distraction than a problem. Rove is off the hook, and probably did his job even while answering questions etc.

As for Bush As President, he looks better by not being drug into the gutter to risk saying or doing something these Scumbags could use against Him. It is always better to let others fight for him and Stay above the fray.

So I would say the article is mostly correct except for these points made.

Bush and his Administration will come out on top and history will win out just as it has for Reagan.

Every time Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy and the rest of the Morons open their mouths they look more and more like the Bitter Drunks they are.

[RAldrich]

The article is strong - maybe in places unfair - but I think it's necessary. Pressure needs to be applied to this Administration. I think we need to exert all the pressure we can on our elected representatives otherwise we'll all wind up like on 9/11. The NY Times is very powerful and intense, relentless pressure is needed to defeat them.

[Truth-The Anti Spin]

The reason they haven't indicted anyone for treason?

They wouldn't have a case. There wasn't a thing in the NY Times article(yes, I read every word of it) that exposes operational details of the program that weren't already in the public domain.

From a 2002 UN report:
"The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/725/72/PDF/N0272572.pdf?OpenElement

[el_texicano]

"The article is strong - maybe in places unfair - but I think it's necessary."

I would tend to agree with your assessment. It still bugs me that the AG Gonzalez just seems to poopoo any actions on NYT. The American people want action. I know I do.

For Bush to come out an be "really ticked off" by this revelation by NYT, but doesn't apparently do anything legally, comes across as a indulgent parent with NYT just thumbing their noses at the administration.

[el_texicano]

If what you say is true, then why the outrage by President Bush and their administration????

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

A bit of an indictment on the Bush Adminstration

. . . and entirely justified. It's true that Atty General Ashcroft choked when he allowed an independent counsel to be named over a trifle like Valerie Plame; everything that counsel did afterward is Ashcroft's fault.

Even in the SCOTUS ruling on the Gitmo detainee: the administration should have put the court on notice that they had no jurisdiction, and that any attempt on their part to meddle would receive no cooperation or respect from the admistration than if were Daily Kos which announced that the administration was required to treat al Qaeda as a state, and its clandestine operatives as POWs.

[el_texicano]

Totally agree with especially the last point. To me it just points up the unwillingness of this adminstration to show some cajones. Whatever happened to checks and balances? For crying out loud, SC totally ignored the 2005 law Congress passed saying they had NO JURISDICTION!!!

[outofsalt]

This is why we need to get "US OUT OF THE UN"!

[Truth-The Anti Spin]

If what you say is true, then why the outrage by President Bush and their administration???? Because it makes them look bad? Or perhaps it widely dissemenates information that was only available before if you were someone that was actively paying attention(i.e., a fed or a terrorist). The only new information in the Times article was about the lack of explicit legislation authorizing the action or other oversight. That being said, the program, unlike the FISA/warantless wiretapping business, it very clearly legal.

[WhiteGuy]

The New York Times apparently sees nothing wrong with disclosing the existence of two vital national security programs, but deems the non-outing of a non-undercover CIA agent a grievous threat to this nation’s survival.


Just trying to make sense of this.


"Someone" a government insider, leaks "top secret" information to the media. (in this case that NY paper)

And it's the newspaper that is at fault.

Where am I missing the point? Whomever divulged the "secret" info is the traitor, no question.

[Alberta's Child]

Amen.

I'll even take this one step further . . . Even if the Times DID expose details of the U.S. monitoring that was not already in the public domain, the U.S. would probably be unable to file any criminal charges against the Times anyway.

If the Times' source is a foreign national who works for the organization in Belgium that oversees this database, then the U.S. can't possibly charge anyone in the case.

[Enchante]

"First the Plame,Fitzgerald,crap was more a distraction than a problem"

Well it hasn't proved to be exactly the annihilation of the Bush presidency that its propagandists wanted, but I disagree when you dismiss its significance. The whole Pflamegate affair has been a big set of lying MSM propaganda points for 3 years, helping them to erode (most unfairly) public confidence in the honesty and judgment of WH officials. And let's not forget that Scooter Libby was knocked out of office and out of being Cheney's right-hand man by this nonsense, so it's not as though it hasn't had harmful effects - just nothing as major as the leftist bozos hoped for......... Libby is still facing trial early next year, even though I find it hard to believe he could convicted on this fraudulent case - but stranger things have happened, and it will be a DC left-liberal-DNC jury, I believe.

[Alberta's Child]

If what you've posted here is true, then I think we should all go out and buy boatloads of New York Times stock on Monday. Any media company that can print a headline story about something that has been known for four years and pass it off as "news" -- and engender the kind of response we've seen from the GOP -- ought to inspire a lot of awe in us.

[Grateful One]

To me it just points up the unwillingness of this administration to show some cajones.........

Geez, does this mean that they're still not going to do anything about Sandy Berger stealing national secrets?

[roses of sharon]

LOL, more like an indictment on Times ruthless partisanship.

Had this been Clinton, they would have had headlines naming the Republican who dared to try to leak classified info to them, and would have called the DOJ immediately to turn him in.

Then we would have had months of stories on evil Republicans, who are traitors to their country, a witch hunt to find more, a trial, and a hanging of said Republican who tried to leak.