DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> PELICANPOST.BLOGSPOT.COM: Roundup of columns related to The New York Times' traitorous publishing of top-secret anti-terrorism sources and methods...

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Roundup of columns related to The New York Times' traitorous publishing of top-secret anti-terrorism sources and methods...

Paul Greenberg, Editorial Page Editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has asked some thought-provoking questions today---in his must read piece, "The New York Times strikes again," here. They go like this:

"A question: Do you think that style-setter of American journalism — The New York Times — would have run its expose of still another terrorist-tracking program if it had found out about it when the program was first set in motion, in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

Would the Times have rushed the story into print and given it the front-page play it did last week if smoke was still rising from the charred ruins of the Twin Towers, and the ashes of the dead were still being excavated as around-the-clock crews sifted through that mountain of debris?

Would this story have seen print while the smell of fire and smoke still lingered over the Pentagon’s blackened walls?


Would the world have been told about this secret program — well, formerly secret program — while police and firemen and rescue crews were still trying to locate the scattered remains of United Flight 93 in a once obscure field in Pennsylvania...?

Suppose this was September 2001. Would The New York Times have revealed that various government agencies were cooperating with a European banking network to trace the movement of funds from al-Qaida’s moneymen to its operatives in the field...?

The only thing about this story that bothered me, besides its having been printed at all, was how many former G-men must have blabbed about this secret operation for word to reach The New York Times. That aspect of the story is not assuring at all. Don’t these people take oaths not to reveal classified information?

There’s no doubt the terrorists’ privacy has been violated, but isn’t that a consummation devoutly to be wished...?

Have the rights of the innocent been in any way abused?

Me, I would like to hear some answers to questions like these from the Times, rather than their smug, self-elevating justifications for their treasonous acts against America, Americans and our troops fighting a very real war against terrorists.

But I have a few questions for the Grey Lady:

If you had received a tip about the 9/11 bombings on 9/09/2001, would you have warned the Bush administration?

Would you have published a column "in the public's interest," on 9/10/2001, to inform them of the pending massacres?

Or..., did you receive a covert tip, remain silent, and wait for the fireworks?
__________
With regard to law(s) violated by the Times, here is a quote that refers to Section 798, Title 18, US Criminal Code---often referred to as the COMINT Law:

"...Schoenfeld points to a second statute, approved by Congress in 1950, that is more relevant to the question at hand -- Section 798 of the US Criminal Code dealing with the "Disclosure of Classified Information." This statute made it a federal crime for any unauthorized person to publish classified information "concerning the communication intelligence of the United States or any foreign government."

The statute was carefully crafted, as Schoenfeld points out, to focus on the vitally important area of communications intelligence (or "comint" as it is called in the trade), which was defined as "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 Congress understood that intelligence on the activities of foreign adversaries would dry up if they are tipped off as to what information we have and by what means we gathered it. Thus, the disclosure or publication of classified communications intelligence was singled out by Congress as a violation of the law..."
__________
Michelle Malkin, who has copious coverage of this topic on her blog, has a great column today here, "The terrorist-tipping Times." A bit of it below:

"The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track their financial activities.

Guess what? It isn't the first time blabbermouth journalists have jeopardized terror-financing investigations since Sept. 11, according to the government.


I remind you of the case of the Treason Times, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation. As the New York Post reported last September, the Justice Department charged that "a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office -- potentially endangering the lives of federal agents..."


"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.

Shenon's phone tip to the Muslim charity (which occurred one day before the FBI searched the foundation's offices), Fitzgerald said, "seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel..."

Shenon's then-colleague, Judith Miller, had placed a similar call to another Muslim terrorist-front financier, the Holy Land Foundation, a few weeks before Shenon's call to the GRF...
According to Fitzgerald in court papers, Miller allegedly also warned them that "government action was imminent." The FBI raided the Holy Land Foundation's offices the day after Miller's article was published in the Times.

The Times' reporters -- surprise, surprise -- refuse to cooperate with investigators trying to identify the leakers. The government is appealing a ruling protecting the loose-lipped reporters' phone records. Which side are they on? Actions speak louder than words..."


From all the CYA statements and justifications coming out of the Times' Executive Editor Bill Keller this week, it is clear they consider themselves the fourth branch of the U.S. government---the final arbiter of what the Executive Branch, namely the Bush administration, gets to do---and the judge, jury and executioner/punisher of anyone whose actions offend them or with whom they disagree, namely anyone in the Bush administration and all Republicans in Congress. Never mind the Constitution and the will of the people.

These unelected media tyrants flagrantly violate federal law and then claim immunity from prosecution for having published highly-classified national intelligence secrets---arrogantly wrapping themselves in a nebulous "in the public interest" shield.

Soooo....., exactly why has the Times been allowed to skate for so long? Isn't it time they were put out of the aiding-and-abetting-terrorists business...?

And their editors, publisher, and leak-farming "journalists" frog-marched out of their elite offices, hauled before a federal Grand Jury and perp-walked into stoney-lonesome?

Works for me.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home