.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Monday, December 26, 2005

An Interesting Hypothetical...

Hugh Hewitt offers us up an extremely well-thought out (I'm sure) hypothetical question.

"I wonder what journalism's confused tubas of deep thoughts would say to the hypothetical: If Aldrich Ames had passed the information he gave to the Soviets to the New York Times instead, would Ames have still committed a crime deserving of his life sentence?"

OK. Let's examine this hypothetical. If Aldrich Ames hadn't passed on what he knew to the Soviets, and instead passed that knowledge onto the NY Times, he still would have been in trouble. Deep trouble. Below is Title 18, Section 798 of US Code.

(a) 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—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

The above, of course, is not all of Section 798. It is the relevent parts of it concerning the hypothetical that Hugh has proposed. Now, the Times, nor the Post, represent a foreign government. However, if Ames had given them the information (which he wouldn't have because they never would have paid him enough; remember, he did this for money, and both papers are too cheap as it is) he would still be violating the law. In a roundabout way, our enemies still would have known about it. The journalistic malfeasance that both of these papers--and others in the US of similar minds--possess regarding national security is sickening. They only care about two things: headlines, and hurting the siting president if there isn't a "D" next to his name. Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins, two of the unhinged moonbats o the Times editorial staff, have taken swipe after swipe at the president. Ivins, herself, dislikes the president to a fault; willing to go down to the gutter to refer to the president as a "retard," "a silly, stupid man," or "an amiable dunce." WTG, Molly; let's see your scores from Harvard and Yale.

Would he have committed a crime worthy of his life sentence if he had handed over what he knew to the MSM rather than the Soviets. Definitely. Would there have been such a big deal about what he did? Almost certainly. The MSM can call him a patriot, or people like him a patriot, as many times as they want, but you cannot get around breaking the law, which is what he did.

"The New York Times and to a lesser extent the Washington Post have decided that they are the ultimate judges of what will constitute a dangerous breach of national security. The trouble is that both papers, and especially the Times are populated by extreme anti-Bush Ahabs, willing to push all judgment aside for the purpose of trying deseprately to harm the president."

And this point that Hugh makes is exactly why we should put as much faith and trust into the MSM as we do the "Defeatocrats" when it comes to matters of national security. Look at the two most recent stories to pop up from the MSM. The first (TY NY Times for weakening this nation) regarded the secret NSA program involving surveillance of foreign agents in the US. The second was the radiation monitoring of sites in the US, many of them being Muslim. Now, the Times and the Post would have Americans believe that they are the purveyors of truth and justice, and that the government was wrong for not obtaining warrants.

Well, was everyone involved in the surveillance a US citizen? Were any of them, in fact, a US citizen. See, like Visa, citizenship has it's rewards. It's called protection under the Bill of Rights. A terrorist who snuck into the nation, or arrived here through a visa, and is still here, doesn't get the protections that an American citizen does. We need not obtain a warrant to search them or their homes, or their belongings. Citizenship is defined under the Fourteenth Amendment. Being born here, or being naturalized here are the only ways someone can become a citizen (this, and the oft argued "anchor-babies"). If the Times had their way, Pres. Bush would have been marched out of the White House in handcuffs on 12 Sept. on the suspicion that he perpetrated the attacks on 11 Sept., based on some conspiracy nut's argument. (The nut being a far more "reputable witness" to the crime that never occurred.)

To our readers out here that got a chuckle out of that, remember that those nuts still exist, and still believe that the president was behind the 11 Sept. attacks.Of cousre, these are the same moonbats who use words like "dictator," "Brownshirts," and "civil liberty violations" in every other breath. Go figure.

"The real world experience of the scribblers with intelligence gathering and operations is quite low, and their ability to judge the seriousness of the breaches they are gleefully writing up and slamming on to the front page about as high as their ability to diagnose disease on the basis of an undergraduate degree in biology."

Again, Hugh hits the nail on the head. I have no first-hand experience with intelligence work. I have an uncle (who bugged me for years up to and past my 18th birthday that I should have joined up, and hit the intelligence field) who is in intelligence. I have a good head for research, and I have contacts that I speak with on a regular basis. Anything I derive that I believe might be detrimental, I don't post up. The MSM however, doesn't share that idea of acting responsibly. No matter the story, no matter the subject, these monkeys in cheap suits will publish, announce, or post up whatever they feel is newsworthy. The problem is that they decide that. There is no one over them telling them that the TANG memo story run by CBS has been proven to be bogus. They've got ten more "experts" lined up to argue their authenticity, and one of them is bound to be Mary Mapes or Bill Burkett.

And I believe that is the arrogance that Bernie Goldberg was writing about. These people in the MSM believe they carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. They believe that people should wake and sleep at their approval. They believe that, they alone, should be the ones to choose who runs this nation, and what direction it goes. And if you think I'm making this up, take a look at the media today. Has the Times apologized for printing the NSA story? Have they apologized for timing the release of that story to coincide with the Patriot Act renewal vote? Well, let's forget the Patriot Act for a moment, and focus on the NSA program.

Have they apologized to the White House for breaking it? Have they apologized to the nation for breaking it? Have they come forward with any names, as yet, to coincide with the "anonymous sources?" (I really hate that in journalism.) Do they even realize they weakened this nation, who is at war with the same people the Times just gave quarter to? The answer to all of these questions is "no." To them, the story was all that mattered. And to Washington, this should be a lesson to them: The more people that know about something, the easier it is to have a leak.

And yes, the leakers should be found out, and prosecuted to the fullest extent. They did break the law by releasing corroborating, and participating in a news story that broke a national security secret. Frankly, I want to watch a couple of heads roll, and if it's possible, I'd like to see a head or two at the Times roll, as well. But that's Pinch's call, not a court's call right now.

The media doesn't get it. They could care less even if they did. They sit atop their thrones watching you, me, and the rest of the "little people" go by. And if we get upset at them, if we call them on our carpet, they quickly run and hide behind the "freedom of the press" clause in the First Amendment. Unlike the president's wartime powers, the press' freedom isn't nearly infinite. It's finite, and can be controlled. On an issue like this one, the Times might have bitten off a bit more than they can chew.

Publius II


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Follow the money or follow the dots and in this case, I think it's follows the dots and they lead to Senator Rockefeller. His pta memo to Cheney will bite him on his ...in my opinion. It's about time that every member of Congress or their staff understand that leaking will not be acceptable especially when it comes to national security. The AG must act. Rawriter

8:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product