June 26, 2006
Revoke the New York Times press credentials
The NRO has an op-ed calling for the revocation of the New York Times press credentials as punishment for exposing the legal intelligence gathering being done by the government in international financial institutions.
I think they're right. The Times, which cried unbelievably foul when a minor CIA functionary's identity was exposed, has no qualms about exposing critical anti-terrorism intelligence programs, even ones which are completely and unambiguously legal. They're out to get the administration by any means necessary. And it's time they were punished.
Kick the bums out.
There were three people outside the administration who asked the NY Times to not expose the terrorist financial transaction monitoring program. Two of them from the 9-11 Commission where the co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. The third person who tried to tell the NY Times they should not expose this important program was Democrat Representative John “Jack” Murtha! That’s right - Mad Murtha himself. Of course, this makes sense in an odd way. Murtha would rather not fight terrorism militarily, and this financial tracking program was a good option to military action.
On a side note, when something like this happens, and specifically, President Bush states that the publishing of this information puts American lives at risk, what do you think about that statement? Is it substantively true or simply marginally true? What's the point of making that statement, and what does that statement indicate about our President?
Posted by: JosiahQ at June 27, 2006 8:30 AMI think Bush is right, and not only marginally. The NYT is, in essence, publishing secret battle plans in a time of war. I don't think it's much of a stretch to accuse the editors of the Times of high treason: they have materially aided and abetted the enemy in a time of war.
The US military doesn't publish the capabilities of its hardware. We don't exactly know how deep a Los Angeles class sub can go, nor how fast, etc. Publishing that information during the Cold War would have been of immeasurable value to the USSR. That would have been a clear case of treason: exposing military secrets. I'd really like to know why exposing our financial monitoring isn't exactly the same thing.
It's true, no specific, concrete individual Americans are probably threatened by this exposure. But anything that impedes our ability to track and monitor terrorists is a material threat to American lives in general.
Posted by: ryan at June 27, 2006 9:32 AMIt reminds me of the old Bugs Bunny cartoon when he goes onto a military base and there's a sign that tells the name of the base, but then under that it says
Number of men: Censored
Number of planes: Censored
What the men think of the head sergeant: CENSORED!!!
Ok, probably unrelated, but oh well.
Posted by: Nathan at June 27, 2006 10:38 AM