Friday, June 23, 2006

Frog-March Bill Keller!

While the lefties masturbate to the thought that Karl Rove may yet one day face a jury for daring to lead the Republicans to victory in successive elections, their spiritual leader, Bill Keller (the executive editor of the New York Times), is hell-bent on leading the terrorists to victory over America. Oh, well - what do they say in the Middle East - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Keller sides with those whose victory would be a death blow to international security, but if it might topple George Bush, hey! Keller's on board!
Here's Andrew McCarthy from NRO:

Yet again, the New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda.
For the second time in seven months, the Times
has exposed classified information about a program aimed at protecting the American people against a repeat of the September 11 attacks.

On this occasion, it has company in the effort: The Los Angeles Times runs
a similar, sensational story. Together, the newspapers disclose the fact that the United States has covertly developed a capability to monitor the nerve center of the international financial network in order to track the movement of funds between terrorists and their facilitators. The effort, which the government calls the “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved.

What could outweigh the need to protect a valid effort to shield Americans from additional, barbarous attacks? Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, smugly decreed that the Bush administration’s “access to this vast repository of international financial data” was, in his singularly impeccable judgment, “a matter of public interest.” And you probably thought George Bush was the imperious one. And that the public’s principal interest was in remaining alive. Wrong again.

From Michael Ledeen at
The Corner:

Keller et al have confirmed yet again that they don’t care about national security, at least in this war (sorry, the current circumstances; they don’t think we’re at war). What they really want is the defeat of George W Bush, and the devil take the consequences. They have forgotten that the terrorists love to behead journalists. But Daniel Pearl, well, it’s such a long time ago, you know...

...These people are not acting like journalists at all. They are acting as a fourth branch of government, co-equal with the others. They arrogate to themselves the power to classify and declassify, to protect or reveal secrets and sources, as they see fit. Which is to say, according to their political ambitions.

Let's define treason for a mnoment, OK?

Treason - violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.


Let's look at the opening lines of the Times' article:

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda .

So the Times admits A) The program was a government secret and B) it is limited to suspected terrorists and their allies. So why betray this secret program that was helping track terrorist funding and alliances? Let's look closer at Keller's comments:

"Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Really, Bill? May I suggest a different motive, that of trying again to smear the President and damage the war effort? Look at some of the unfounded phrases tossed about in this article:

While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."

...all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information...

"There was always concern about this program," a former official said.

These are opinions or unattributed comments, all used in defense of exposing what even the Times admits was a successful tool for capturing terrorists; a number of examples of which are given within the article. So why expose this wonderful program that has helped keep America safe since 9/11? Let's look at that definition of treason again:

Treason - violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Bill Keller is guilty of treason.

Let the cry begin: Frog-march Bill Keller out of his palatial New York offices, from whence he distributes classified government information related to the War on Terror, and toss him in the federal lockup! Let a jury of his "peers" decide if he is guilty of the charge of treason; perhaps Bill can convince a Bronx jury that he exposes American secrets in order to somehow better protect them.

But do you know what? I seriously doubt that argument would hold much water with Editor Bill's precious "common man"...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

From The Right Valley:
http://www.cliffordcroft.com/rightvalley/index.asp

The New York Times has delighted in revealing confidential information about the methods our security services are using in the war on terror. These disclosures naturally compromise our efforts to fight terrorists by making the terrorists alert as to how we track them, making the terrorist plots harder to discover and increasing the risk that terrorist attacks against the US will be undiscovered. In other words, their disclosures potentially put lives in danger.

But the Times seems to feel that the public's "right to know" outweighs all this. If the public's "right to know" is so strong, I think the public also has a "right to know" more about the New York Times. I think the government should do the following:

o) Tap the phones of all columnists of the New York Times and then print the names of all their sources in their articles (if these sources actually exist). The public has a "right to know" who these anonymous sources are, to better judge the credibility of their statements. This might inhibit people from giving off-the-record information to the times, but hey, the public has a right to know.

o) Print the income, net worth, and credit card and bank account numbers and balances of all editors and reporters for the New York Times. Sure, people could misuse this information, but the public's right to this information is more important.

o) Publish the net worth and distributions from the Sulzberger trust fund. Again, this is private financial information, but the public has a right to know who is funding the Times and where the money is going. And besides, once this disclosure is made, we can find out how much the Sulzberger's are giving to "the poor" every year!

o) Publish the political affiliations and political donations of all reporters and editors of the times, as well as political organizations they belong to. A small invasion of privacy, but that still doesn't trump our "right to know". If this information is displayed in a pictorial format, we can play "Where's Waldo" to find the single Republican!