When Will NYT Reveal One of al Qaeda's Secret Programs?
by Ann Coulter
Posted Jun 28, 2006

When is the New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al Qaeda secret program?

In the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government anti-terrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times, last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the United States.

In response, the Bush Administration is sounding very cross -- and doing nothing. Bush wouldn't want to get the press mad at him! Yeah, let's keep the media on our good side like they are now. Otherwise, they might do something crazy -- like leak a classified government program monitoring terrorist financing.

National Review has boldly called for the revocation of the Times' White House press pass! If the Times starts publishing troop movements, National Review will go whole hog and demand that the paper's water cooler privileges be revoked. Then there's always the "nuclear option": disinviting Maureen Dowd from the next White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Meanwhile, the one congressman who has called for any sort of criminal investigation is being treated like a nut. Don't get me wrong: Congressman Peter King is nuttier than squirrel droppings -- but he's right on this.

Unless, that is, the country has simply abolished the concept of treason. We've got a lot of liberals who hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy, so what are you going to do? Indict the entire editorial board of the New York Times? (Actually, that wouldn't be a bad place to start, now that I ask.)

Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots. She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.

Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger has just been named al Qaeda's "Employee of the Month" for the 12th straight month.

Before the Vietnam War, this country took treason seriously.

But now we're told newspapers have a right to commit treason because of "freedom of the press." Liberals invoke "freedom of the press" like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the 1st Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in the New York Times building.

Freedom of the press means the government generally cannot place a prior restraint on speech before publication.

But freedom of the press does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason -- or for any other crime. The 1st Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from the New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page 1 story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans.

What if, instead of passing information from the government's secret nuclear program at Los Alamos directly to Soviet agents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had printed those same secrets in a newsletter? Would they have skated away scot-free instead of being tried for espionage and sent to the death chamber?

Ezra Pound, Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally") and Iva Toguri D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose") were all charged with treason for radio broadcasts intended to demoralize the troops during World War II. Their broadcasts were sort of like Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio -- except Tokyo Rose was actually witty, and Axis Sally is said to have used a fact-checker.

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason for a single remark she made on air: "Orphans of the Pacific, you really are orphans now. How will you get home now that your ships are sunk?" For that statement alone, D'Aquino spent six years in prison and was fined $10,000 (more than $80,000 in today's dollars).

Axis Sally was convicted of treason for broadcasts from Germany and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Pound avoided a treason trial for his radio broadcasts by getting himself committed to an insane asylum instead (which I take it is Randi Rhodes' "Plan B" in the event that she ever acquires enough listeners to be charged with treason).

There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it.

The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000."

Thanks to the New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence -- al Qaeda." You just have to read the New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.

The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency -- our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals -- it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.

http://tinyurl.com/zfnpw

The same question could be asked of a multi-billion dollar backed administration that has been spying on everyone, including U.S. citizens, for how long now? It is evident by this lack of uncovering any Al-Quada in the U.S. that the program is not working anyway.
Could this be because Bush knows, if it comes down to brass tacks, the 'classified government program monitoring terrorists', is already public knowledge and is posted(since 2002) on the U.N. web site. This makes all the conseratives, pushing this thing, guilty of what they claim is the liberials problem, making something out of nothing and lying through their teeth about the issue! Just more division of the masses.
This is a pretty bold and hypocritical statement. The Times did not break the law. Could this all be just a distraction from who actually did? Not to mention the fact that liberials do not want to help the enemy, how retarded.
She can't be serious. The cold war brought just as much fear as this one, to the hearts of Americans, Over a long period of time and that threat(USSR) was very real. We had enough to worry about with the Soviets having this info.
LOL That is unture and, not to, mention childish. Again, these two programs were not sanctioned by our supreme court(which they very easily could have been) and the Times was reporting on our President's polices which are illegal.
The American people have a right to know if our goverment structure is being abused! As for the program Swift, it was already public knowledge.
The Times held the illegal wiretap story for a whole year before printing it, and it revealed nothing the enemy didn't already know(that it's calls could be monitored). If Al Qaeda has a 'Head of Counterintelligence' he must be pretty stupid to not consider phone calls being monitored. The reason such a big deal is being made about this is this administration is using distraction from the main issue. No charges will be brought because they can't make them stick.

Honestly, I'm amused by the flaming liberals who have deluded themselves into thinking that "government spying" is something that just started with the Bush Administration.

Pathetic, but kind of funny.

Talk about a rant. How can you reply to that? Hey Tyreay, did you ever try anti-depressants and anti-anxiety pills? I have some left over from my heart attack.

I never said that. I notice how you didn't say Illegal government spying on U.S. citizens. I will say that in 1978 OUR GOVERMENT introduced laws, against the current spying being done, with out approval from the Supreme Court. The law is the law guys. Another good attempt to change the suject though.

You can't argue the against the truth.

That's for sure.

When will somebody provide evidence that information NYT published directly led to undermining a counterterrorist effort that resulted in a terrorist attack on the United States?


Until then, alias, Ann Coulter, and the rest need to

Shut
The
Fuck
Up

I guess we will see if they bring charges.

Put the reporters in jail until they talk.