New York congressman Peter King explained “We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous.” (Washington Post)
Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt has been pushing NY Times editor Bill Keller to come on the show and explain himself. Keller has reused. (Hugh Hewitt) Instead, Keller issued a letter to his critics. (NY Times)
From Michael Barone: Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times? (Real Clear Politics)
Santorum and Hoekstra compare the media’s desire to release information that could damage the war on terror to their silence on WMD. (WSJ)
16 comments:
That assumes what the administration was doing was in violation of the constitution.
So should there be no roadblocks, no consequences for any news organization that publishes classified information (and thus rendering ineffective )about government activities designed to thwart murderous enemies in time of war?
Rob,
I know that you are passionate about your beliefs, but I'm gonna be real straight with you and say don't play me for stupid. You know very well that tracking finances is a far cry from murder and physical assault...don't you? I mean seriously, can't you see the difference?
You bring up malfeasance when I didn't. Ok, no problem. PROVE IT IN THIS CASE. If you can't then you join the ranks of screaming GWB haters. If you can, then you still have to admit that you would sacrifice human lives, American lives, for the sake of having things be exactly the way you want them to be.
Before you respond I want you to know that my older brother still has sand in his boots from the time he spent in Iraq, months of which was spent incommunicado, with us not knowing if he was alive or dead. He, like many of his brothers in arms, realizes that freedom isn't free, and like the trumped up accusations over the wiretapping, this one is being inflamed as well, and could cost lives.
"The papers helped terrorists elude capture. It is that simple and that damning."
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005443.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005442.htm
How about this one Rob?
"According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007."
Nothing smacking of "malfeasance", just classified information about when the country under seige will have FEWER DEFENDERS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
What about that?
"General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity."
Not only should the press pay a price, but the leaks as well. My brother may be home, but other people still ahve families over there, not to mention the natives of the land.
Their lives are on the line, and irresponsible reporting may have just put them in more danger.
Given my knowledge of the predictive sciences and how the data is being used, no, I wouldn't care if it continued under Hilary Clinton or whoever, as long as they used it in the way the Bush administration is using it.
I can not comment on things I know nothing about.
What?!? An international money tracking database that the CIA has? WE ARE AT WAR!!! Its like saying that FDR should have been "impeached, convicted, and sent to jail" because they broke the German enigma machine codes and listened in to messages to German agents!
I can not comment on things I know nothing about.
Good and wise answer PBall. In addition to its primary uses, Viagra is being tested against pulmonary hypertension.
The man is thrice divorced and was found with an improper prescription for Viagra.
Rob: What law did Chrsit place on divorce?
Note that I did not ask if he condoned it.
I see a lot of finger pointing from you ... at Bush and at Limbaugh.
I submit you know very little concerning either of the men and their situations.
China
There is a big difference there, Rob. What China was doing is ending human life, which is evil. What the Bush adminstration is doing is legally using intelligence to fight terrorism, which is not evil.
Bush is violating our Constitution which he swore to uphold. That is unacceptable, except to people who are willing to let him do anything.
Again, Bush has NOT violated the constitution... at least in everything that has been made known to date in light of historical evidence. If he has, I he must have done something I am not aware of.
And yes, HAD he violated the constitution, it WOULD be unacceptable, and I would also want him to be impeached. However, to my knowledge, he hasn't.
Limbaugh
Have to agree with you there, Rob. Limbaugh is a hypocritical egotistical blowhard.
I remember him railing against people who had a minor holiday off, calling us lazy, etc. I remember him scoffing at people who were "demanding" more vacation time. Yet about half the time I turn on his show, there is a guest host there.
I much prefer Glenn Beck and Jim Quinn to Limbaugh. Rush has, in my opinion, seriously jumped the shark.
We are all over the map here. From viagra to impeachment. Yet the standard does not change. Prove someone has violated the law and then punish them according to that law.
We must not take our dislike of any indiviual and use that to justify calls for unwarranted action.
rob,
in your haste to stereotype Powerball, you've bypassed my questions for you of earlier.
If you'd truly like an honest debate, why not answer them and begin one with me?
I don't like most radio hosts conservative or liberal, and I know that politicians of all parties serve themselves and not God, so if you truly want independant thought and aren't just insulting him, I'm still waiting.
The Geneva Conventions didn't apply, as they were illegal combatants.
Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
We are in a time of war/public danger. These are not common criminals, but illegal combatants.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. ;)
Here ya go Rob, pasted from above in it's entirety:
"Rob,
I know that you are passionate about your beliefs, but I'm gonna be real straight with you and say don't play me for stupid. You know very well that tracking finances is a far cry from murder and physical assault...don't you? I mean seriously, can't you see the difference?
You bring up malfeasance when I didn't. Ok, no problem. PROVE IT IN THIS CASE. If you can't then you join the ranks of screaming GWB haters. If you can, then you still have to admit that you would sacrifice human lives, American lives, for the sake of having things be exactly the way you want them to be.
Before you respond I want you to know that my older brother still has sand in his boots from the time he spent in Iraq, months of which was spent incommunicado, with us not knowing if he was alive or dead. He, like many of his brothers in arms, realizes that freedom isn't free, and like the trumped up accusations over the wiretapping, this one is being inflamed as well, and could cost lives.
"The papers helped terrorists elude capture. It is that simple and that damning."
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005443.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005442.htm
How about this one Rob?
"According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007."
Nothing smacking of "malfeasance", just classified information about when the country under seige will have FEWER DEFENDERS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
What about that?
"General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity."
Not only should the press pay a price, but the leaks as well. My brother may be home, but other people still ahve families over there, not to mention the natives of the land.
Their lives are on the line, and irresponsible reporting may have just put them in more danger.
11:35 PM"
~Debate the facts Rob and I would enjoy the discussion, truly! It's when suppositions and invectives are thrown around out of emotion that things go down hill.
Rob:
I truly did not have the facts on Limbaugh. I know he supposedly had a perscription that was not in his name. If he is found guiLty he should be punsihed through the legal system.
As for sexual immorality, I not sure ehat you are looking for me to say. I know he is divorced. I also don't believe in sex outside of marriage. The problem is many people do get divorced and have sex outside of marriage.
I will not use the forum to preach to Mr. Limbaugh knowing there is little chance he will ever read it.
Let put moral values out there for all to see and not turn them into direct indivual attacks. That's about as fair as I can possible be.
the military tribunals at Gitmo that violated both the Geneva Convention
If GC applies to terrorists then we ought to:
get them to sign it.
What way we can say:
1 - we have an agreement with terrorists
2 - spare coalition military of beheadings
You see, the above is RIDICULOUS, just as so and believing an ACCORD works in ONE DIRECTION!
Post a Comment