Let's Play 'Connect The Dots,' Shall We?
Lunch came early today, and I was perusing the blogs when I came across this entry by Michelle Malkin. In this post she produces the list of names that we posted late last night, but she also touches on the court decision revolving around whether or not people can be prosecuted for revealing national security secrets. This, as far as we know, is a no-brainer. It's the press that can't seem to grasp that concept.
Regardless, bloggers don't just collect the dots; we CONNECT them, too. And she has two examples of of bloggers doing exactly that. The first comes from Allah Pundit who has this to add when it comes to the cell connected to Bojinka II's financing:
Were some of the suspects pinched by following a money trail? Was the SWIFT program involved? And if so, does this prove that we were right about terrorists not having known of the program’s existence, or does it vindicate the Times’s decision to publish the story given the fact that the jihadis here weren’t tipped off by it?
So is the Times vidicated because 24 jihadis didn't know about the SWIFT program? Not bloody likely. It's not our fault that they didn't read about the program, and the times has no vindication in it because they still revealed a national security secret. See, the people who defend the Times keep forgetting that what the paper did, in essence and interpretation of the law, was illegal. Regardless of whether or not these 24 animals knew about SWIFT, it was still revealed. And while these guys may have missed the paper that day, others within our enemies ranks surely didn't and they have adapted their monetary transaction tactics. Ace of Spades jumps into the mix with this:
BTW, money was wired to the men from Karachi, Pakistan.
Anyone want to bet that transfer was discovered through SWIFT?
Now that this plot has been exposed, and now that SWIFT will no longer yield much useful information thanks to the NYT-- now the federal investigation into the NYT and its treasonous leakers may begin.
The investigation can begin, and should begin. With the decision handed down by Judge T. S. Ellis, III, there is enough precedent for Justice to begin a full investigation into the New York Times. Aided by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordering the New York times to turn over their phone records, this sets the board in the government's favor. Either the New York Times will cooperate, and assist the government in plugging these leaks, or they will face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. If I were Bill Keller and Company, I wouldn't push Justice on this matter. Just give them what they want, or become the next Judith Miller. (I hear Reuters is looking for good propag, er, journalists in Lebanon.)
Michelle also points to Jonathon Adler's expert dissection of Judge Ellis's decision. Jonathon concludes, apprpriately:
"Under Judge Ellis' interpretation, it also seems the federal government could prosecute reporters at the Washington Post and New York Times for their reports on secret prisons, NSA surveillance, and other classified counter-terrror activities."
And rightly so. Patterico agrees and reminds us not to forget about the culpability of the LA times in this issue:
Don’t forget the Los Angeles Times!
In particular, newspapers might be prosecuted for disclosing the Swift counterterror operation, where the First Amendment argument is weak (because the public interest in disclosure was low, due to the program’s legality and strong safeguards) and the government’s interest in maintaining secrecy was high (due to the program’s effectiveness).
In short, the SWIFT program may have been used to track the finances of this cell. And if that is the case, then the government has a substantial case against the three papers--the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times--for their complicity in revealing secrets deemed classified by the federal government. Judge Ellis made it succintly clear that national security supercedes the First Amendment's "freedom of speech," and by default the "freedom of the press."
I'm sure those on the Left will be howling about this one, and how the courts are firmly under the control of a "dictator" named George W. Bush. But that is a red herring designed to turn opinion against a sitting, wartime president. They will stand up and proclaim, incorrectly, that NOTHING supercedes the Bill of Rights, or the US Constitution. What they fail to grasp though is that with our freedoms comes responsibility. There is a certain level of loyalty to one's nation, and soberness when it comes to information one receives. If said information is classified--and all three papers have stated, for the record that they knew the information was classified--then there is a point at which some constraint should be utilized.
That constraint should come in the form of whether or not they should be running with the story, and relizing the implications and ramifications of its revelation. If they choose to set all that aside, if they choose to dismiss any possibility that the information could be used to harm the nation, then they accept the consequences that come from that decision. They are not above the law. They were not cleared by the federal government to receive, handle, or distribute this information at all. When this information dropped into their laps, their responsibility in handling it came in the form of not printing it; knowing it's classified should have been enough to end the story right then and there.
But they printed them. They printed every classified program they have "uncovered" (with the help of a few loose lips in the government), and despite their claims to the contrary, they did do harm to the nation. Upon the revelation of the SWIFT program, an investigation was launched, and several countries have withdrawn support from the program. That is thanks to the "diligent" reporting of MSM outlets in the US (otherise known as cage-liners that birds won't even use). And while good ol' bill Keller still maintains that the times was right to publish the story, it changes nothing regardig the illegality of that story making it to press.
Marcie said this morning that the reporters involved in these stories should be "sweating bullets" right now. I know I'd be doing that considering the fact that I'd be looking at a maximum of ten years behind bars. Others, I'm sure, would prefer to see these people tarred and feathered. Ah, if only that were an option ...
Publius II
Lunch came early today, and I was perusing the blogs when I came across this entry by Michelle Malkin. In this post she produces the list of names that we posted late last night, but she also touches on the court decision revolving around whether or not people can be prosecuted for revealing national security secrets. This, as far as we know, is a no-brainer. It's the press that can't seem to grasp that concept.
Regardless, bloggers don't just collect the dots; we CONNECT them, too. And she has two examples of of bloggers doing exactly that. The first comes from Allah Pundit who has this to add when it comes to the cell connected to Bojinka II's financing:
Were some of the suspects pinched by following a money trail? Was the SWIFT program involved? And if so, does this prove that we were right about terrorists not having known of the program’s existence, or does it vindicate the Times’s decision to publish the story given the fact that the jihadis here weren’t tipped off by it?
So is the Times vidicated because 24 jihadis didn't know about the SWIFT program? Not bloody likely. It's not our fault that they didn't read about the program, and the times has no vindication in it because they still revealed a national security secret. See, the people who defend the Times keep forgetting that what the paper did, in essence and interpretation of the law, was illegal. Regardless of whether or not these 24 animals knew about SWIFT, it was still revealed. And while these guys may have missed the paper that day, others within our enemies ranks surely didn't and they have adapted their monetary transaction tactics. Ace of Spades jumps into the mix with this:
BTW, money was wired to the men from Karachi, Pakistan.
Anyone want to bet that transfer was discovered through SWIFT?
Now that this plot has been exposed, and now that SWIFT will no longer yield much useful information thanks to the NYT-- now the federal investigation into the NYT and its treasonous leakers may begin.
The investigation can begin, and should begin. With the decision handed down by Judge T. S. Ellis, III, there is enough precedent for Justice to begin a full investigation into the New York Times. Aided by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordering the New York times to turn over their phone records, this sets the board in the government's favor. Either the New York Times will cooperate, and assist the government in plugging these leaks, or they will face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. If I were Bill Keller and Company, I wouldn't push Justice on this matter. Just give them what they want, or become the next Judith Miller. (I hear Reuters is looking for good propag, er, journalists in Lebanon.)
Michelle also points to Jonathon Adler's expert dissection of Judge Ellis's decision. Jonathon concludes, apprpriately:
"Under Judge Ellis' interpretation, it also seems the federal government could prosecute reporters at the Washington Post and New York Times for their reports on secret prisons, NSA surveillance, and other classified counter-terrror activities."
And rightly so. Patterico agrees and reminds us not to forget about the culpability of the LA times in this issue:
Don’t forget the Los Angeles Times!
In particular, newspapers might be prosecuted for disclosing the Swift counterterror operation, where the First Amendment argument is weak (because the public interest in disclosure was low, due to the program’s legality and strong safeguards) and the government’s interest in maintaining secrecy was high (due to the program’s effectiveness).
In short, the SWIFT program may have been used to track the finances of this cell. And if that is the case, then the government has a substantial case against the three papers--the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times--for their complicity in revealing secrets deemed classified by the federal government. Judge Ellis made it succintly clear that national security supercedes the First Amendment's "freedom of speech," and by default the "freedom of the press."
I'm sure those on the Left will be howling about this one, and how the courts are firmly under the control of a "dictator" named George W. Bush. But that is a red herring designed to turn opinion against a sitting, wartime president. They will stand up and proclaim, incorrectly, that NOTHING supercedes the Bill of Rights, or the US Constitution. What they fail to grasp though is that with our freedoms comes responsibility. There is a certain level of loyalty to one's nation, and soberness when it comes to information one receives. If said information is classified--and all three papers have stated, for the record that they knew the information was classified--then there is a point at which some constraint should be utilized.
That constraint should come in the form of whether or not they should be running with the story, and relizing the implications and ramifications of its revelation. If they choose to set all that aside, if they choose to dismiss any possibility that the information could be used to harm the nation, then they accept the consequences that come from that decision. They are not above the law. They were not cleared by the federal government to receive, handle, or distribute this information at all. When this information dropped into their laps, their responsibility in handling it came in the form of not printing it; knowing it's classified should have been enough to end the story right then and there.
But they printed them. They printed every classified program they have "uncovered" (with the help of a few loose lips in the government), and despite their claims to the contrary, they did do harm to the nation. Upon the revelation of the SWIFT program, an investigation was launched, and several countries have withdrawn support from the program. That is thanks to the "diligent" reporting of MSM outlets in the US (otherise known as cage-liners that birds won't even use). And while good ol' bill Keller still maintains that the times was right to publish the story, it changes nothing regardig the illegality of that story making it to press.
Marcie said this morning that the reporters involved in these stories should be "sweating bullets" right now. I know I'd be doing that considering the fact that I'd be looking at a maximum of ten years behind bars. Others, I'm sure, would prefer to see these people tarred and feathered. Ah, if only that were an option ...
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home