Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
Syndication
 Subscribe in a reader

High New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed

| 167 Comments | 18 TrackBacks

If you are al Qaeda, and you are interested in interdicting or attacking CIA air services that transport captured high value targets, how would you go about finding out how the CIA is moving these prisoners around? Would you:

  • a) Attempt to penetrate the CIA and dig into the inner workings of these operations.
  • b) Invest heavily in paying off workers at local airports and in charter airlines across the Middle East and Asia to provide intelligence on suspicious flight activities.
  • c) Read the New York Times.

If you answered "c", you are correct. Today's New York Times provides intimate detail on the charter flights used by the CIA to ferry prisoners across the globe. The names of the charter companies are disclosed. The types of aircraft flown are revealed. The points of departure and destinations of these flights are stated. There is even a picture of one of the charter craft, with the identification number of the aircraft in full display.

All of this is extremely valuable to al Qaeda members who may have an interest in rescuing, or if deemed appropriate, conducting a suicide attack against suspected extraction flights. A successful attack resulting from this story can endanger the lives of CIA, security and civilian personnel involved in these missions, as well as deprive the intelligence and military communities of valuable information that can be gained from interrogations.

At the very least, the CIA must now change the companies being used as charters, all at a great effort and cost to US taxpayers. But since al Qaeda now knows where to look and what to look for, they may not even discriminate against different charter companies if they are reasonably sure a high value target has been captured and will be deported.

What exactly is the purpose of the New York Times in reporting on sensitive issues such as these? Do they even care about the consequences of making such information pubic? It appears the editors of the New York Times feel that breaking a titillating story about sensitive CIA operations is much more important than national security and the lives of those fighting in the war. All to our detriment.

18 TrackBacks

Tracked: May 31, 2005 6:07 AM
NYT Does The Terrorists Work For Them from The Blue State Conservatives
Excerpt: The New York Times is stepping up its responsibilities and is now working for the terrorists.  Bill Roggio at Winds of Change has the scoop. " Today's New York Times provides intimate detail on the charter flights used by...
Tracked: May 31, 2005 7:52 AM
Excerpt: A logical person must stretch reason to its limits to understand why The New York Times decided to publish with frightening specificity about the CIA's contracted air services used to shuttle captured terror suspects in the War on Terror. Winds...
Tracked: May 31, 2005 12:58 PM
Excerpt: I've decided that the Dawn Patrol should be of our MilBlogs and not of the MSM. I'd rather promote Free Speech from those who help make it possible than those who take it for granted. I know alot of you...
Tracked: May 31, 2005 5:08 PM
Deadly Irresponsible Reporting from PoliPundit.com
Excerpt: Bill Roggio has a very important story about some deadly irresponsible reporting that could benefit members of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups immensely. Don't miss this story.
Tracked: May 31, 2005 8:34 PM
Excerpt: Bill Roggio New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed" href="http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006924.php">asks a very good question:If you are al Qaeda, and you are interested in interdicting or attacking CIA air services that transport capture...
Tracked: May 31, 2005 8:45 PM
Excerpt: Once again, the CIA's clandestine efforts aren't so hard to find, given it leaves blinking neon arrows pointing towards them. Via Laura Rozen, the NYT has been poking around in the FAA's records on Aero Contractors Ltd., the CIA's
Tracked: May 31, 2005 9:27 PM
No Self-Control Whatsoever from Daily Pundit
Excerpt: New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed">Winds of Change.NET: High New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed I fear that for the...
Tracked: May 31, 2005 9:29 PM
Excerpt: Winds of Change reports on the latest methodology of leaking info to terrorists
Tracked: May 31, 2005 10:09 PM
Excerpt: An interesting/disturbing report from Winds of Change: Today's New York Times provides intimate detail on the charter flights used by the CIA to ferry prisoners across the globe. The names of the charter companies are disclosed. The types of aircraft ...
Tracked: June 1, 2005 8:37 AM
The New York Times Helps Out from Just Some Poor Schmuck
Excerpt: Eason Jordan's revelations about CNN sucking up to Saddam for 'access' showed that America's enemies no longer have to provide their own propaganda agencies. The American news media has shown itself to be more than happy to do it for...
Tracked: June 1, 2005 3:19 PM
Questioning Patriotism from The Politburo Diktat
Excerpt: Patterico is "shocked, ... SHOCKED ... to find out there is impugning going on here." He didn't like this post, in which I lit into the filibuster deal nay-sayers. Welcome to the internets, Patterico. The other day, the NY Times ran a piece on the CIA'...
Tracked: June 1, 2005 3:20 PM
Questioning Patriotism from The Politburo Diktat
Excerpt: Patterico is "shocked, ... SHOCKED ... to find out there is impugning going on here." He didn't like this post, in which I lit into the filibuster deal nay-sayers. Welcome to the internets, Patterico. The other day, the NY Times ran a piece on the CIA'...
Tracked: June 1, 2005 8:02 PM
Satire meets reality from Bjørn Stærk blog
Excerpt: And I thought I took the parody of torture apologism too far. Read and weep....
Tracked: June 1, 2005 11:16 PM
OK Rusty, I'm Convinced from The Jawa Report
Excerpt: By Demosophist This Winds of Change story by Bill Roggio has convinced me that we need to broach the subject of press censorship. Someone on the NYT staff ought to be prosecuted and do time for this. I wonder, however,...
Tracked: June 2, 2005 12:38 AM
Excerpt: If you are al Qaeda, and you are interested in interdicting or attacking CIA air services that transport captured high value targets, how would you go about finding out how the CIA is moving these prisoners around?
Tracked: June 2, 2005 2:35 AM
And the Exempt Traitor Media Marches On from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Excerpt: Not that we're in the least bit surprised by this development. Outraged, yes. Pissed off to the point where we're ready to prepare our next meal of barbecued Ewoks by ripping their heads off with our bare hands, then cook...
Tracked: June 2, 2005 6:27 AM
Excerpt: Tom Maguire calls out The New York Times. Why? Winds of Change and The Word Unheard tell us. From Winds of Change: If you are al Qaeda, and you are interested in interdicting or attacking CIA air services that transport captured high value ...
Tracked: June 16, 2006 7:02 AM
No Self-Control Whatsoever from Daily Pundit
Excerpt: New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed">Winds of Change.NET: High New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed I fear that for the New York Times, "responsible" journalism means "Only responsible to ourselves." It certainly doesn't appear that, j...

167 Comments

Could someone try to convince me that the NYT isn't actively working for Al Queda?

'Cause I'm having trouble convincing myself.

Really, though, are any of us truly surprised?

The media is openly cheering on Al-Qaeda. The sooner that conservatives quit dismissing this as 'ignorance' or 'naivete', the sooner they can attack this cancer.

Judge them by their actions, not their words. One or two incidents would be a coincidence, but a dozen?

Time to call a spade a spade.

I mean, this really is treason here.

Of course the NYT would publish this. In a symposium hosted by Fred Friendly, Mike Wallace famously claimed he was a journalist first and only second an American, bullied Peter Jennings to agree with him. Said he'd happily trade American lives for good video of an enemy attacking and would not warn US troops if he knew of an attack.

So, what's changed (this was back in the late seventies)? The NYT would be happy if Al Qaeda killed a lot of (especially) innocent people. Gives em another story.

CBS covered some of this back in March.

I was able to find several tail numbers with Google in a matter of minutes, many documents dating back to last year.

Use the search terms "torture plane", "torture flight", etc. This story wasn't necessarily driven by reporters and the MSM - bloggers appear to have done a bunch of the work.

The NY Times is objectively pro-terrorist.

"At the very least, the CIA must now change the companies being used as charters, all at a great effort and cost to US taxpayers."

Sounds like this operation is run by amateurs anyway. They could probably use the change.

Of course, my precious, they're on the other side. If they don't have enough american tragedies to report--why then! They simply create some new ones all by themselves. Cheered on by fools of course.

What exactly is the purpose of the New York Times in reporting on sensitive issues such as these?

I think I can answer that, though the answer IMO falls short of adequate justification. They're trying to break through the wall of denial that the Bush administration and its apologists have put up around the issue of using torture. They feel that putting a stop to this is important, not just on the basis of the torture itself but also because of what is being done to our previously-free press to sustain the deception. By asserting their independence and continuing to reveal what the administration does not want revealed, they hope to make people re-think their support for this and other activities that lead to pain and blood shed in our names.

As I said, I don't think this reasoning justifies putting our agents etc. at risk. Two wrongs don't make a right, and this action is wrong in and of itself. Just as our use of torture undermines our claims to be the "good guys" in the war on terror, the NYT's willingness to endanger others undermines their similar claim. It appears that we're all following one another into the darkness.

re: purpose.

If they want to expound on torture throughout the ages, they can do so without working for our defeat. Hard to imagine this behavior translated to WW2. In a time of war, you use better judgement.

In a decade or three, after this is behind us, dispassionate histories will be written and facts (on both sides) will come out, including reasons for otherwise civil people being pushed over the edge to this type of behavior (to say nothing of the non-zero fraction of percent of criminal and sadly mentally diseased folks that inhabit any large organization).

I'd send them a bill for whatever it costs to re-establish a secret operation (same as would happen in private industry when someone, with intent and malice of forethought, causes a great loss).

It makes no difference, spy or soldier, both are fighting for their freedom to print whatever they choose. Remember the words of Zell Miller...

/Ari

p.s. those that would paint a government "at fault" for the actions of its criminals and diseased need to get a grip. One of the forgotten effects of liberty is we now are individually responsible for own behavior. Can't have it both ways.

Platypus: By asserting their independence and continuing to reveal what the administration does not want revealed, they hope to make people re-think their support ...

Oh, I see. So they're like the Rosenbergs and Klaus Fuchs. When the Islamic Revolution comes, they'll make them Colonels in the new state security service, and they'll get to boss all those ex-CIA guys around.

And people wonder why readership of the NY Times is declining and trust in the Times' fellow Mainstream Media outlets is gone.

Read Russ Braley's examination of the Times' foreign affairs coverage 1956-82, Bad News: The Foreign Policy Of The NY Times, because it details where the Times began getting it wrong, from the Suez crisis through Vietnam (everything David Halberstam wrote about Vietnam is wrong) through Watergate (which began as far as liberal media's campaign to destroy Nixon because of hostility at his foreign policy successes) into the 1982 Israeli attack against the PLO in Lebanon.

Michael Daly: everything David Halberstam wrote about Vietnam is wrong

Everything David Halberstam says about himself is wrong, too, but it's not a lie because he really believes it.

The media is breaking thru a wall of denial alright

They are removing the last vestages of any basis for denial. or any reason to doubt, that they are not Walter Durranty reincarnate, anything they can do to come to the aid of evil, to defeat the Unites States.

Its not that they love the jihadies so much, in charge they would nuke them all over much less annoyance, along with the rest of the 80% Scheduled for extermination by Marice Strong, and then praise themselves how the population adjustment has made the earth "Sustainable".

Then instantly opon congradulating themselves, would retire to a den of held back 13 year old "confort workers" and swill port cognac and nose candy till dawn.

If any dared mention remorse about Agenda 21's final Solution, they could always recite Durranty.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. –New York Times, May 14,1933

In the meantime they will pretend to care about their invented outrages, while they chatter on about how the normals need to be exterminated because we wont let drag queens be scoutmasters.

I heard Evan Thomas of Newsweek on the Don Imus Show this morning. He said that if you were at one of their meetings, you'd believe in liberal bias, but that it didn't make it into their magazine, which Thomas thought was a straight shooter.

Imus wasn't up to date to ask Evan Thomas about Newsweek's Japan edition, which had the American flag in a trash can and headlined 'The Day America Died'. That day was re-election day for George Bush. Freedom is dead in America Newsweek went on to say.

Now, that is important news, why isn't the death of freedom in America reported to AMERICANS.

Evan Thomas said what really got to him was the attacks on his and Newsweek's patriotism. Imus asked for examples, Thomas vaguely mentioned talk radio and the internet.

Well, Mr Thomas, it's articles like this in the NY Times that can somehow give people the idea that the MSM, including Newsweek, is against the country and this hatred goes so far as to commit traitorous acts.

Who needs to know the details of these flights? No one.

I thought Mike Wallace was--like Peter Jennings--a Canadian. Or is that Morley Safer?

At any rate, I should hope that bigwigs at the CIA are not going "d'oh" as they pound hand into forehead. Surely they knew about this and have already shifted gears, right? Right?

At any rate, should one of these planes be shot down, I would imagine the passengers would have a good case against Sulzberger et al. Could take the gray lady down faster than Arthur Andersen (which has, by the way, been acquitted--tell it to the jobless legions of former employees).

So... too bad about that innocent guy who got deported and tortured for 5 months, huh?

One of the fundamental problems with low intensity conflicts is that a high proportion of the population views it as some sort of "horse race". In WWII, there were 15 million US Soldiers, if the NY Times published such an article, the author would probably have not survived a visit to the local pub, or found it possible to buy food at the local grocery store.

Platypus:

they hope to make people re-think their support for this and other activities that lead to pain and blood shed in our names.

Please, can you give some support for your assertion that the US is the cause of all this "pain and bloodshed"? I have leftist friends who would also argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was "caused" by the forced opening of trade with Japan in 1854.

Just as our use of torture undermines our claims to be the "good guys" in the war on terror...

"use of torture"? Another unsupported assertion. Lyndie England's rogue actions do not constitute the use of torture as an official policy of the US government.

Wow, Jeff. By your last comment I'm inclined to think you haven't been following the news, but seeing you have a blog I guess that's probably out.

Just an FYI, the going trend here is to acknowledge that we are in fact routinely torturing people to death (in the face of overwhelming evidence), but then blithely disregard it. Better then for criticizing MSM reports of lesser grade interrogation techniques.

Soldier's Dad: the "Horse Race' anology is unfortunate, but right on.

SAO,

You said: "So... too bad about that innocent guy who got deported and tortured for 5 months, huh?"

With this article, your one innocent guy is likely to get a missle up his rear end instead. But I just want to clarify something here...

1) you believe an innocent man was tortured for five months?

I suppose it is possible. And if one was innocent it could have been more, correct? It is conceivable that they could ALL have been innocent, eh? And just as we shouldn't execute a mass murderer caught in the act for fear of executing an innocent man, nobody should be interrogated for fear that he might not actually be our enemy?

2) since there was possibly one innocent man tortured for five months, it is only responsible journalism to help the enemy shoot down the transport for these prisoners, killing in the process the pilots and crew, CIA interrogaters and guards, the prisoners themselves, and destroying several million dollars worth of private corporate property. Certainly a noble decision by the editorial staff of the vaunted New York Times. Only they have the wisdom and forsight to make such decisions for the benefit of the entire nation, eh?

3) What in the hell does the possibility that there may have been one innocent man tortured for five months have to do with revealing sensitive CIA operations that could wind up getting people killed?

We can only hope that the NYT fabricated this story too, but I fear that they actually have some of the facts straight in this story, especially the facts that put people's lives in danger.

The Washington Post did a similar al Qaeda intel assist a few weeks a go. If they are not on the side of the terrorist on this issue how would their story be different?

My suspicion is that the information for the article was handed to the NYTimes by the CIA itself. The agency is has been trying to sabotage the President since he was elected. Porter Goss was appointed to take charge and clean the place out. There are probably a number of bureaucrats who have had their wings clipped and are angry and resentful. Of course the NYTimes thinks that anything is justified in order to trash the Administration.

Bryan, attempting to redefine the phrase "tortured logic?"

SAO,

No, I'm just trying to understand how your comment about an innocent man being tortured excuses what the NYT did.

Please notice that I have completely accepted your definitions that the man was completely "innocent" and that he was "tortured". I'm just wondering why that makes it okay to enable the killing of innocent pilots and guards and the destruction of chartered aircraft? Just explain the logic to me... tortured or otherwise.

What's really weird about this and other prominent stories is that the media/leftist complex seems to totally fail to grasp that not only are they endangering US security -- but also they are creating even more danger, in the long run, to the societies which have these terrorist subcultures, the societies from which these suspects often originate, the folks about whose rights the NYT is so solicitous. If our hands get tied now, only blunt and probably unprecedented destructive force will work later.

The NYT thinks it's a judge at a trial, not a player in a war. Or: the NYT thinks itself to be arguably a disinterested observer -- arguably as if in a courtroom argument -- and that it's the job of others to worry about security while the NYT properly and ethically takes its supposed role to the nth degree and let the chips fall where they may, none of it is ever the NYT's fault. Ethics without tears.

Or, at least, I'd like to think that the NYT doesn't understand what it's doing.

SAO -

Well, the Syrians did give the routine assurance that they would not torture Maher Arar - who has Syrian citizenship. Just like Egypt does when we hand one of their people over to them.

The Syrians say they didn't do it. So, who you going to believe?

If those Syrians are lying, I say we occupy Damascus right now. And cut off all aid to Egypt while we're at it.

I know you'll be on board with this plan, SAO, since you're against torture.

Bryan, the individual in question was one Maher Arar. Here's the abbreviated sequence:

  • RCMP provides information to US intelligence concerning Arar's activities in Nov. 2001, and ennumerates some of their questions (they admit they were "ill-equipped to deal" with the 9/11 aftermath). Arar is Syrian-born.
  • U.S. arrests Arar when he enters ther country in September 2002, in the belief based on intel provided etc. that he is a member of al-Qaeda.
  • He asks to be deported to Canada, as he's traveling on a Canadian passport. The Americans choose instead to deport him to the country of his birth, Syria. If I thought the guy was al-Qaeda and knew sending him to Canada meant he could operate with little hindrance near the world's largest undefended border, I might send him to Syria too if I could.
  • I have no idea if Arar was on any kind of special flight. Deportation from JFK airport isn't usually that elaborate.
  • Canada would later lodge a diplomatic complaint, as Arar was traveling on a Canadian passport. I do not know how broad deportation discretion is in the USA, so can't comment on that aspect.
  • Arar was held in Syria in the Palestine Hotel and Sednaya prisons, where he was reportedly tortured by Syrian authorities. Knowing Syria's regime, I believe that 100% - and it would have been real torture, not sleep deprivation or being wrapped in an Israeli flag.
  • The USA had an intelligence-sharing agreement at the time with Syria, as it does with most mid-eastern countries who are not openly hostile. (The CIA's reliance on foreign intelligence services for accurate information is a long-standing issue.) Syria recently "cut all ties" with the USA, which basically means they're now in the "openly hostile" category and almost certainly aren't sharing intelligence any more.
  • Following interventions from Canada's Prime Minister, Arar is released from Syria and returned to Canada Oct 2003.
  • I should note that this was a lot faster than the non-interventions on behalf of William Sampson, who was imprisoned by the Saudis for 3 years (and complained to Canadian authorities about torture) in order to maintain the fiction that terrorism in Saudia Arabia was NOT from al-Qaeda.
  • Note that Ottawa's intervention shouldn't be taken to mean Arar is not a terrorist. They also intervened in Pakistan on behalf of the known al-Qaedists of the Khadr family (who still live in Canada). Personally, I have no idea whetther Arar is or is not a terrorist.
the killing of innocent pilots and guards and the destruction of chartered aircraft

I don't disagree with your point (never did; see above) but I think it's important to recognize that the ills you mention are, as yet, hypothetical. The torture, by contrast, has already occurred and is well documented to have occurred.

Now maybe folks will start to understand why I've been calling the MSM, the TSM (Terrorist Supporting Media) for the last year or so. They have become the 5th column, instead of the 4th estate.

SAO,

Please indulge me. What is your "overwhelming evidence" that people are being "routinely" tortured to death by the U.S.?

Considering the coverage given to naked pyramids and women's underwear (also "torture", apparently), I'm truly surprised this "overwhelming evidence" does not appear on the front page of every U.S. newspaper and magazine every day.

-Boo

The purpose of the NYT article is to expose the Bush governments "rendition" or "snatching" machinations.

American's questioning the governments activities are not "pro-terrorist". That kind of unsubstantiated, baseless, and scurrilous accusation is the primary cause of the ever widening divide between left and right. The NYT article is reporting legitimate news.

This kind of attack and slime the messenger conduct is the primary tool used by theright to dismiss, discredit, or otherwise silence any reportage that shines light on the Bush governments failures, deceptions, abuses, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, and obscene profiteering.

We all know, and most of us accept that fighting terrorists is messy business, and that in the conduct of the socalled waronterror, certain unsavory and possibly illegal "activities" may be warranted. War is hell. That said, the government, and particularly the neocrusaders in the Bush government are accountable to the people for failures, abuses, and deceptions.

Most American's have no problem with our government torturing terrorists to obtain sensitive information. The divide between theleft and theright, is the way in which the Bush government refuses to accept responsibility or accountability for failures, abuses, and deceptions. If rendition is US policy, then admit it, and face the national and global political consequences. If torture, or coercive interrogations is US policy, than admit it, and stop blaming endemic and systemic problems that pervade the US military prison system in Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, and whoknowswhere on a privates.

In order for America to support our government, we on theleft demand accountability. With no accountability, there is no trust, and with no trust, any action taken by the government that is not 100% successful, (and Iraq, Afghanistan, and the socalled waronterror are hardly successess so far) are rightfully subject to criticism, questions, and deep suspicion concerning the governments motives and objectives.

I do not see anything the Bush government is doing as in anyway successful. We are hated in a world that formally admired America. We are stuck in the bloody costly mess in Iraq for decades. The Saudi's remain the funding and nurturing bioreactor of all the jihadists mass murder gangs. We are no more secure, and quite a bit less prosperous because of this governments activities, - and the people deserve accountability.

"Platpus - I don't disagree with your point (never did; see above) but I think it's important to recognize that the ills you mention are, as yet, hypothetical. The torture, by contrast, has already occurred and is well documented to have occurred."

Wow, Drink some more MSM Koolaid! If Lyndie England did it, then the whole US gov't is behind it.!!

That’s pathetic.

Tony Foresta: reportage that shines light on the Bush governments failures, deceptions, abuses, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, and obscene profiteering.

Yeah, especially that obscene profiteering, right? It's so obscene, it makes you want to run out and vandalize somebody's SUV. In order to shine light on globalization, and stuff.

Tony,

Let's assume for the sake of argument that everything you say about Bush is true. There are still some big problems with the NYT report. First, it isn't exactly news that came out today that the Bush administration "renders" prisoners to coutries that torture them. So "exposing" the administration's malfeasance (if you believe that's what it is) doesn't justify telling terrorists what to look for to kill prisoners who may have information about them and innocent pilots and guards in the process. Second, a story about the administrations rendering policy does not need that specific detail to be convincing. So essentially the NYT has unnecessarily exposed people to danger and potentially cost us valuable intelligence in order to "expose" something that's been common knowledge for quite a while. What's the justification for that?

Its rather obvious that the claim that this article is intended to "reveal" the Bush administration's actions with detainees is objectively false.

That story is not news and the details of the story were unnecessary to tell it in any case.

Such excuses are flimsy tissues of lies.

Welcome to the "information war". We are reacting to the NYT report without necessary context as to purpose of its release.

The question to ask is who is getting "played" here. Is it the NYT? Is it the American people? Is it the terrorists?

However, the more I see of this kind of information there has to be a price to pay for spreading it. It may not have to be paid legally, it may just be paid by a lack in faith and influence of the reporting in the NYT.

Hmmm, I wonder who originally leaked the info that put the NYT onto the scent of this story?

Tony Foresta #32,

If torture, or coercive interrogations is US policy, than admit it, and stop blaming endemic and systemic problems that pervade the US military prison system in Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, and whoknowswhere on a privates.

Could you substantiate that "torture" or "coercive interrogations" have been occurring in Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, and/or whoknowswhere? (I presume that you use the words in a sense other than panties being on their heads.)

We are hated in a world that formally admired America.

If you mean that the media and elites of the world hate us, it's very hard to demonstrate that they hate us now due to Bush; they have hated us for most of their history since we have shown them to be wrong and demonstrated the poverty of their ideas. If you mean that the rest of the world hates us in the sense of the people, there are still more people coming in to America on an annual basis, I would venture, than to any other country.

We are stuck in the bloody costly mess in Iraq for decades.

Unlikely to be decades but we shall see. Would the alternative have been better? To have Saddam continue to murder his citizens, fund jihadi terrorism, etc.?

The Saudi's remain the funding and nurturing bioreactor of all the jihadists mass murder gangs.

That has been true regardless of who is in the Oval Office. Both sides are completely useless w/r/t the Saudi entity.

We are no more secure, and quite a bit less prosperous because of this governments activities, - and the people deserve accountability.

The people do not need you to speak for them. If the people had decided to hold the President accountable for his alleged failures, they had the option to do so in November. (Though I would grant that neither option was particularly palatable and many could want to hold Bush accountable while finding Kerry repugnant.)

Also, it is a very funny stance to be discussing the low prosperity of the US after we have had a very short and shallow recession, having been pulled out of it by a series of dramatic tax reductions. The unemployment rate is back at historic lows. Growth is stronger than for any other first world country. What more could you want?

Tony added Winds to his long list of banned sites a while ago, but appears to have found a way around the filters. I'm about to fix that, so if he doesn't reply to you that's why.

"We are hated in a world that formally admired America."

That's only because we busted up their Oil-for-Food racket.

Being hated by a country for taking out its corrupt sugar-daddy isn't necessarily a bad reason to be disliked.

If that part of the world that hates us were a little less corrupt maybe they'd have a little less reason to hate us.

*** we on the left demand accountability. ***

Tony Foresta,
This has got to be the most absurd comment I have heard in along time. Michael Moore's 9/11 was so filled with "half-truths", that Hamas promoted it. Yet not one single lefty has called Michael to account for his errors. Newsweek reported a story that got people killed, yet again, no calls from the left for accountability. The NYT ran a story that DIRECTLY places US lives in jeopardy. The entire story could have been run w/o the routes and companies, still had the same essence, but then it would not have aided Al'Qeada, something the Left MSM seems determined to do. The idea that a journalist is a journalist first, and an American second, is one of the greatest travesties to infest the media in my lifetime. It is worse then any slant, since I can forgive a journalist his extreme slant to either side, if he was working to secure the future of the US, yet recently it has become quite clear, that a large part of the Leftie MSM, is determined to Bring Bush down, and if they have to bring America down in the process, so what.

I only wished that some of the facts the NYT reported could be considered classified information, and the NYT could be charged with aiding and abetting the enemy. Just wait, in the zeal of the MSM, and their total lack of ethics, sooner or later they will go to far, and get people killed. Wait a sec, Newsweek already did that, and the left rallied around them. Guess the MSM will not be content until they have ensured the victory of the terrorists. Fortunately, the American Military is the best in the world, and eventually the majority of American's will grow tired of a Media that is constantly increasing the risks to their sons and daughters, simply for profit, or to paint America as the root of all evil. Part of me hopes the MSM continues on their path. It will ensure another Republican win at the elections, and a growing backlash against the terrorist aiding efforts of the MSM.

SAO, you're in the wrong country.

Go to Europe where their policies will have you carrying a prayer mat and bowing to Mecca five times a day, within the next couple of decades. You can also have Shari'a law for your Mother, sisters, and wife. I don't want this for my sons, daughters and granddaughters.

I don't believe in, nor condone, torture. Torture is what the North Vietnamese did to our POW's (I knew one and had the torture described to me in excruciating detail). Thus far, our torturing anyone has not been proven. The video tapes of Nick Berg, and others killed by Al Queda are torture.

What happened at Abu Ghraib was humiliation, not torture. It was a group of young, unsupervised, soldiers doing what young, unsupervised, children do. Go read the Al Queda manual to enlighten yourself about what captured AQ are instructed to say about their detention.

You make me ill.

"I only wished that some of the facts the NYT reported could be considered classified information, and the NYT could be charged with aiding and abetting the enemy."

The US has no official secrets act so this can't happen. While revealing classified information to the press is probably a crime, the press itself can print it with impunity under the 1st amendment. I could be wrong here but I don't think I am.

When the story of the Congressional Bunker under the Greenbriar was broken, the bunker's existence was a Top Secret. The only thing the government could do was request that the story not be run. Their hands were tied by the first amendment.

dc rocks,

"This has got to be the most absurd comment I have heard in along time. Michael Moore's 9/11 was so filled with "half-truths", that Hamas promoted it. Yet not one single lefty has called Michael to account for his errors. Newsweek reported a story that got people killed, yet again, no calls from the left for accountability."

Umm...Michael Moore is still just a film maker right? I'm just wondering because if we have to wait for every moron with access to a camera to act without bias before we demand any kind of accountability from our elected officials, we're either going to be waiting a long time or we better get used to being lied to. Oh wait, maybe that process is already well underway.

I get the sense you and a good many other conservatives would like nothing better than to have a few liberals in jail on sedition charges.
And what's really funny, you can't even see the irony....

Nick

Joe Katzman,

First of all, thank you for the education regarding the issue at hand. I do recall that there was a bit of a stink at the time but I had honestly forgotten about it since.

Two key bits of information you helped remind me of were that Maher Arar was a dual-national, meaning both citizenships were valid (Canadian AND Syrian). Additionally, the tip that led to his arrest in the first place was given the United States by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The implication by SAO was that the United States tortured him. All we did was deport him to a country where he held one of his citizenships when the country where he held his other citizenship identified him as a risk.

Joe, thanks again for setting me straight on the details. That's why I've become addicted to blogging over the last three months. Somebody has always got the information or knows where to go to get it.

Platypus,

My point is that I don't care if the "torture" is a fact or a rumor, and I don't care if the "torture" was committed with US knowledge and consent, unbeknownst to the US, or BY the US, it still doesn't forgive what the Times did in putting lives "at risk" even if nothing comes of it.

I wonder how the defenders of this article would react if someone else published information pertaining to the identities of the people who produced this piece from the reporter(s) on up to their editors? Names, home addresses and telephone numbers, and information about where their spouses work and children go to school, as well as the models of cars they drive along with their license plate numbers. I suspect that these same people would begin to howl quite loudly.

How does that saying go? There's no such thing as a double standard, only a single hidden one.

Unbelievable. The New York Times publishes a graphic revealing the heretofore "secret fleet" the CIA uses to transport terrorists in the furtherance of its mission to protect the United States from harm. They've cracked the case for those who would wish the U.S. ill. Kudos to them.

They continue to put nails in their own coffin. If this is the product of a free press, there won't be much sympathy for journalists when the government decides to impose and enforce limitations on their free speech rights--provided the terrorists don't do them in first.

While revealing classified information to the press is probably a crime, the press itself can print it with impunity under the 1st amendment.

Jeff, I don't believe that is strictly true. The Pentagon Papers case involved prior restraint not the criminality of reporting official secrets. The newspaper could still be liable to criminal sanctions. But as a practical matter, I agree with your point. I can't imagine the prosecutor with the gnads to go after the NYT.

Tob

This might illuminate the issue. One paper said this about Plame/Wilson:

> As members of a profession that relies heavily on the willingness of government officials to defy their bosses and give the public vital information, we oppose "leak investigations" in principle. But that does not mean there can never be a circumstance in which leaks are wrong — the disclosure of troop movements in wartime is a clear example.

Who said that? Why the NY Times, itself. Here.

On my blog, freespeech.com (notice the subtle plug), i am working on an entry on that particular quote. You might, hint hint, link to my blog when it is up in a few minutes.

Btw, i love your method of controlling posting spam.

Like me, the NY Times doesn't want the US picking people up and flying them to surrogote countries to be tortured. If this article messes up the CIA's plans vis-a-vis this policy, then so much the better.

#42,

"Yet not one single lefty has called Michael to account."

I doubt that, though it depends what you mean by "calling to account" - I saw negative liberal reactions to 9/11 when it came out (didn't keep the links, I'm afraid). I think most lefties who disapprove of Moore simply ignore him, though - considering how much vitriol the right's poured at him, anyone who dislikes Moore is entirely justified in saying, "everything I might want to say about the man has been said before, so why bother? I shall go off and blog about something more productive, like budget deficits or rabbits."

Jack, your opposition to the policy doesn't make all actions to oppose it legal. Such as revealing operational details.

Nick,

No, not incarcerated. Executed for treason is more like it. And not a few, either. There are PLENTY of candidates on the left meriting that penalty. It might teach you fifth columnists a lesson, or at least get you to pack your bags and head for France.

Jack

And we want to win this war, so I suppose doing to the reporters what they just did to us is fair game right ?

Let the wingnuts take care of them.

Sauce for the goose right ?

If Arar was so scared of Syria, he should have renounced his Syrian citizenship - what, being Canadian wasn't good enough for him? Then f*ck him - there's plenty of willing, loyal potential immigrants ready and able to take his place. Guess what, if you CHOOSE to remain affiliated with a state like Syria, there just may be nasty consequences. The US was well within its rights under international law to send him to Syria - you could argue that the law is an ass or that the US was expoloiting the letter of the law - but what they did was fully legal. Don't like - change the law. Of course, if the Church hearings and their aftermath hadn't so gutted the CIA, maybe they wouldn't be so dependent on foreign intel services.

Nick:

Umm...Michael Moore is still just a film maker right? I'm just wondering because if we have to wait for every moron with access to a camera to act without bias before we demand any kind of accountability from our elected officials, we're either going to be waiting a long time or we better get used to being lied to. Oh wait, maybe that process is already well underway.

Sore point with me, but when did accountability become the exclusive property of the Executive Branch? Hell yes, hold the Bushies accountable; but if you refuse to hold anyone else responsible for their actions, you bring us one step closer to that authoritarian model you supposedly fear....

I get the sense you and a good many other conservatives would like nothing better than to have a few liberals in jail on sedition charges.
And what's really funny, you can't even see the irony....

Actually, as a Libertarian I certainly don't want to see these jerks in jail. I would like for them to be reviled, ridiculed, and made to feel ashamed. But all things considered, it looks like I'll have to settle for the first two of the three.

I too got a chuckle out of the contention that the divide between the American Right and the American Left is all about whether one demands accountability. Mmm-hmmm, that's what I've been saying all along... Liberals defer to no one in their zeal for the Truth; conservatives still own their blackout curtains and use them nightly to hide their actions from their neighbors.

Tony, do you honestly believe that? It has a nice sound-bite quality, like "War is not the answer" (with no referent whatsoever for the question - a pet peeve of mine), but do you really believe it? Because it seems to me that the Left still isn't demanding accountability from its own, is it? Such as Maxine Waters? Robert Byrd? John Kerry, for heaven's sake?

I think what you may mean is that the party not in power is by definition all about accountability, as a potential ticket back into the driver's seat. Or perhaps more accurately, the party not in power is all about finding things that can possibly be pinned on the party in power, and doing their dangedest to pin 'em. I don't except Republicans from this judgment, but at the moment it doesn't apply to them.

You might advance the idea that the party in power is able to do a lot more damage than the minority party; you might even try to assert that the wartime Bush administration is intrinsically less ethical than a Kerry or Gore administration would have been. (You might try.) But to say that the Left-as-a-whole is more moral than the Right-as-a-whole, which is the essence of your statement, is sheer unabashed chutzpah, given the antics of Democrat politicians (and apparently also Democrat-voting citizens in the media) all through the years.

Jack -

The CIA does not deport people. Deportation is a matter of law, it is not a CIA covert operation, and it is not up to a bunch of unelected Bushphobes at the NYT to decide for everyone else.

Do you really think that using kidnap would be better or would you argue that it they are not kids so it can't be a kidnapping

#37 from Tim #38 from Russ

This is the real question. I proposed that the leak was from inside the CIA to get back at President Bush and Porter Goss.

Bill Roggio, Joe Katzman,

The whole subject of American detention of terrorists has become the O.J. Simpson trial for the Transnational Progressive Left.

It confirms their belief system whatever the real facts.

This most recent round of Koran flushing disinformation from the Media wing of the Democratic Party is the equivalent of Johnny Cochran holding up a glove and saying "...if the glove don't fit, you don't convict."

Since Abu Ghraib is being cleaned up, they had to find something to keep this meme going. Furthermore, they are going to invent stuff to keep this going if they can't blow any more CIA secrets.

I'm waiting for the Media to start saying the American military is murdering reporters at Gitmo, and then correct it a few days later saying they were "rhetorical murders only" with copies of Newsweek being put down trash cans as the military showing contempt for the media.

Their story will be true because it really is true that the military is putting newspapers and magazines in trash cans.

Robert,

It could be a play on Goss from within the CIA. Pretty stiff penalties on that, if caught, though. It could have been passed from the CIA to State - we're not lacking in a Fifth Column there either.

Most of the agitprop on "torture" has been provided by lawyers from the CCR (Kunstler founded Red group), the ACLU or defense lawyers for the Abu Ghraib group of moral defectives.

We have a long tradition of seditious press within the US and it's not currently illegal. Our current Copperhead press isn't even quite as nasty or as dangerous as that which we had during the Civil War. The best thing that individual Americans can do is to make sure that there are no products produced by the al-Wapo Group, the NYT and the Trib group anywhere in your house. Encouraging whatever affinity groups you belong to to get the seditious trash out is probably a good idea too. It might make for some interesting discussions anyway.

Remember that for every dollar of subscription revenue lost an additional four dollars of ad revenue will be lost. We just need to make sure that the Copperhead press pays the full price for their sedition.

At least traitors have it easy these days--me 'n' Ethel are down here in Hell sleeping 4 to a bunk with Tokyo Rose and Benedict Arnold. We could tell you who in the CIA tipped off who and who's really controlling the media propoganda war, except that your current enemy is the same old one, the feds are still overrun with friends of ours, and we're still traitors...

The Media's objective ideology is to stop the War on Terror, because they fundamentally deny that Terrorism is a problem. Only stupid yahoos believe it, instead they are like George Galloway calling for an alliance between "progressives" and those Jihadis killing people to "oppose" American i.e. Western civilization.

This is a fundamental mistake because it throws away (much like Amnesty International) legitimacy in criticisms. When the Washington Post, NYT, and Walter Cronkite opposed Nixon during Watergate, it meant something. The opposition of the American Communist Party or Leonid Brezhnev would have meant nothing.

So we have no essential check for the most important function: making sure that American blood and treasure is spent wisely not foolishly. We have a Media that no one will trust in it's coverage of events, and enemies emboldened to greater measures of terror. Imagine the consequences of another mass casualty attack on the US killing tens of thousands or more.

Platypus you worry about torture befouling the American standards. I worry about what will happen if/when 9/11 is repeated on a larger scale. The traditional American response is simply to up the ante on the killing. The Battle of the Bulge produced Dresden. Okinawa produced the Tokyo Firestorms, Curtis LeMay's plans for 10,000 plane bomber raids to kill half of Japan, and the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Another and bigger 9/11 will simply IMHO cause certain nations and peoples to cease to exist and the Press/Media would have no moral legitimacy to yell stop. Recall we have an awesome submarine, land-based missile, and strategic air command nuclear arsenal capable of killing billions.

I certainly don't want to see tens of thousands of American civilians dead in a major US city and certain nations dying in a nuclear inferno. Don't laugh this sounds like a bad 1939 "phony war" replay.

Torture? Yes we outsource this to other countries, because we are not allowed legit methods of questioning available to every big city DA (essentially, bargaining with prisoners for facilities and privileges). We've tortured and killed a few people, but military folks got charged, and it's still less bad than say California Prisons (google Pelican Bay to see some real outrages like a guy getting boiled alive, essentially).

Better if we simply shot a lot of prisoners after tribunals, show we're serious and use that to bargain to get info. Tough and nasty? Yes. Don't take up arms against the US then. We are far past any question of bloodshed, the only question is how do we stop the killing the quickest with the least amount of lives lost (our own and others). I'd rather we just shot (after tribunals) prisoners who do not follow the laws of War than ultimately go down the road of nuclear weapons.

#65 said: "Another and bigger 9/11 will simply IMHO cause certain nations and peoples to cease to exist and the Press/Media would have no moral legitimacy to yell stop."

It goes beyond that. The Press/Media would be morally to blame. And that's part of the reason that they would yell stop all the sooner.

The Isikoffs and Newsweeks and the NYTwits at the NYT are busily trying to inflame islamists during a time of transition to increased freedom -- always the most dangerous time, and a transition whose encouragement is the main reason that we are taking care not to offend islamists. (Sooner or later the islamists will have to learn that we will not put up with dhimmitude.)

Like I said, I like to think that the NYT (and Newsweek) don't know what they're doing. But when it comes to Red Diaper babies like Evan Thomas, I have to wonder whether some of them are a bit nuts and tend to drift into an apocalyptic fantasy, self-organized out of the structure of their priorities, wherein the USA suffers economically crippling terrorist strikes, loses a city or two, and responds mass-destructively, then the world's left, crying crocodile tears over the destruction of much of Islamic society, walks in and picks up the pieces of the world.

(Of course it could be China, Russia, Britain, India, or other countries, who even now cannot wage the high-precision war which the USA can, who could end up responding with WMD to terrorist strikes. Anyway, the leftists with whom I've spoken seem not to have thought through much of any of this, and I was assured by an ashamed Dem half-insider that major Dem pols simply don't understand the foreign policies which they criticize.)

Hey, I wondered what happened to tony Foresta after Bill Quick defenestrated him at dailypundit.com. Note that the NY Times is clearly acting as an agent of Al Qaeda. These scumbags want to cause the death of CIA agents, just as they are working for the death of our troops in Iraq. I think it would be a gas to publish the home addresses of all the reporters and editors involved in this treason. Some people might want to stop by for a visit, no?

I read the article and all of the postings on this blog about it. I do not like our secret operations being disclosed in the press either. There are times that wish that the press, (which BTW is mostly owned by conservative right-wing businessmen that are only concerned about how much money they make and NOT left-wing liberals as so many people scream about so much), would think about the bigger picture before printing information that could be harmful to America.

But let me offer a view that is completely different from the press bashing going on in the postings:

The REAL fault for this article is with the people that talked to the press about the CIA operations. It is not the fault of the press.

Let me quote a few key lines from the article:

"...interviews with former C.I.A. officers and pilots."

"Sometimes a plane would go in the hangar with one tail number and come out in the middle of the night with another," said the former pilot. He asked not to be identified because when he was hired, after responding to a newspaper advertisement seeking pilots for the C.I.A., he signed a secrecy agreement."

"He described flying with $50,000 in cash strapped to his legs to buy fuel and working under pseudonyms that changed from job to job."

Whom do we put on trial? The press or possibly the current or former employees that VIOLATED the secrecy laws by divulging information to the press?

Anyone? Anyone?

How can we keep ANY secrets if the very people that sign secrecy agreements and take oaths BREAK their word and the agreements?

Anyone? Anyone?

There is another issue I have with this operation. If we are going to have the CIA conduct extremely secret operations, WHY do we have to even publicly list a company?

"Aero's staff grew to 79 from 48 from 2001 to 2004, according to Dun and Bradstreet."

Why cannot we conduct flight operations without logs of the flights not being kept where they can be divulged by people willing to give up secrets to the press?

"Flight logs show a C.I.A. plane left Dulles within 48 hours of the capture of several Al Qaeda leaders."

Why does the current head of this operation say something like this?

"Asked about his role with Aero, Mr. Richardson said only: "Most of the work we do is for the government. It's on the basis that we can't say anything about it."

If he cannot say anything about it why the hell is he even saying anything about it?

We also should be concerned that some private and commercial operation is making money by selling sensitive information to whomever has money to buy it!

"Those listings for Mr. Quincannon, in commercial databases, include an anomaly: His Social Security number was issued in Washington between 1993 and 1995, but his birth year is listed as 1949."

While all of you bash the press, don't forget to stop and look at the other obvious and real problems that this article brings out. People that are sworn to secrecy are talking about secret information to the public. The head of the operation is publicly talking to the press about what he says he shouldn't talk about. Commercial databases are releasing private information about individuals to whomever will buy it.

The CIA still cannot manage to conduct secret operations without bungling the secrecy. That wasn't good in the 1960's and it sure as hell isn't good in 2005.

So how about we start banging on the people that are the REAL problem here. The press would have NOTHING to print if everyone inside of the operation had done their job right.

#68 from Robert Sherrell

Good work. Sounds like an inside job to me.

Few if any conservatives (I think: none) scream about the press being "owned" by left-wingers. So right there, somebody is not paying attention. Yet, the NY Times is owned by left-wingers. NY Times articles are printed in local papers all over the country. Alphabet network news programs look to the NY Times for stories and issues. Viacom owns CBS and it is not at all clear that Viacom is owned or run by right-wingers -- unless you think that Robert Alterman is a centrist. Disney owns ABC and Disney has long been run by a lib Dem. But conservatives scream about the national press's actually and daily observable bias, which conservatives attribute to the national press's consisting largely in libs and leftists, never mind the owners.

The press is responsible for that which it prints, even if it didn't ferret the info out but merely received it from CIA leakers. Why on earth would the press be exempted from responsibility? How convenient it would be for the press to think that it's the job only of others -- and not of every citizen of the USA -- to worry about security while the press properly and ethically takes its supposed role to the nth degree and let the chips fall where they may, none of it is ever the press's fault. Ethics without tears. But as somebody here pointed out, even the NYT has admitted that the US press should not disclose US troop movements during wartime. If the NYT has changed its view, shame on it. It certainly is no help to the press to for its self-imagined defenders to present such a shabby defense.

And, yes, it would be nice to put leakers on trial. It's hard to nail them down. It's been going on a long time. It's motivated by turf wars, personal agendas, and by politics and ideology. But none of that exculpates or vindicates the press, and it should not spare the press from public disgust and increasing crticial scrutiny into its methods, incentives, and motives.

It would be nice, but when did we start to expect the press to keep a secret? Can anyone tell me when this happened? I sure don't remember this rule going into force. The press is the press. You aren't going to change that as the press is business and income FIRST, ethics second. I never demanded a press that can keep a secret.

I DO demand that our government operatives and their operation managers DO keep a secret though.

You all keep going after the press when the obvious problem is that we still cannot keep a secret truly secret. We cannot count on our FBI or CIA to craft operations such that they are kept truly secret even after all these decades of failures.

Remember, there is nothing for the NYT to report if no one tells them information that should be kept secret.

OK? Or do we continue this "agenda" of press bashing and ignore the true issues that must be corrected if our future security is to be secured and safe?

The NYT specifically, and the media in general, have been working against America for a long, long time, and now they don't even try to hide it anymore. They are nothing less than traitors.

We expected the press to keep secrets during WWII. "Loose lips sink ships."

And again, the NY Times itself has agreed that there are secrets that the press should just know better than to publish.

Sigh. The press is "..working against America.."

This sort of clashes with the 1st Amendment.

What of the strongest pillars of our country is our freedom of expression and the press. Without it, we wouldn't even have the press, much less blogs, etc. The press keeps us honest. Without the press printing what is good about us as well as what has gone wrong, how are we to gauge how we are doing as a whole?

How about this wild thought: By printing this information the NYT has done us a service!

We learned that the very institutions that are vested with keeping secrets have failed yet again. It shows that we need to rachet up the pressure to improve our covert operations to an even higher level immediately.

Remember, if the NYT can learn all of this information, SO CAN OUR ENEMIES!!!!! And, of course, we will not have a press release from our enemies that they have uncovered our secrets, will we....

We are not being attacked by the press, we are being attacked by our enemies. Isn't it time that we learn how to keep our operations secret?

This has really gotten absurd. The Washington reporter who publishes the most secrets is ... wait for it ... the Washington Times' Bill Gertz.

These are the same newspapers that will do a feature article on bulimia and set it up like:

Sharon Parker* knows what it's like to face bulimia.

*Not her real name

Why wasn't the same protection of privacy done on this story, where secrecy was far more important?

How do you know that the NYT would optionally, (without "Sharon Parker" insisting her name be withheld), not use the persons name? It is entirely an optional choice by the reporting entity. Many articles absolutely do use the real names when they feel like it.

Obviously the NYT is much more into selling than keeping secrets. Again, I do NOT rely on the press keeping a secret.

I do rely on the entities and people involved in our government to absolutely keep a secret.

I say again, the NYT would not have anything to report if the people that were supposed to keep a secret kept their mouths shut.

The modern press is sure not what it was back during WWII or Korea. The press started changing during the Vietnam war and from that point on it was obvious that the press will report whatever news that they feel keeps them a competitive edge and makes MONEY.

So the press has the 1st Amendment to cover their reporting, no matter how irresponsible. Sure, they get lawsuits sometimes, but for the most part they don't care. The story and the fame and the money is everything to both the Left and the Right operated news organizations. No difference.

But I sure wish I could count on the people that are supposed to keep secrets to keep those secrets the vast majority of the time.

"Sigh. The press is "..working against America.."

This sort of clashes with the 1st Amendment."

You, know, I don't know if anyone has ever told you this, but the 1st Amendment doesn't provide absolute rights. You don't have the right to publish libel. You don't have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. You don't have the right to threaten to 'cut someone's throad', and you do not have a right to dissemenate classified information.

"What of the strongest pillars of our country is our freedom of expression and the press. Without it, we wouldn't even have the press, much less blogs, etc. The press keeps us honest. Without the press printing what is good about us as well as what has gone wrong, how are we to gauge how we are doing as a whole?"

Sure. Sure. Freedom of the press is wonderful. But this story can be told if it must without revealing useful intelligence.

"How about this wild thought: By printing this information the NYT has done us a service!

We learned that the very institutions that are vested with keeping secrets have failed yet again."

The irony of those two statements doesn't hit you in the face like a frying pan? You are absolutely right to say that we have vested institutions in our government with keeping secrets from us. Many people are too stupid to realize that. So how is it that you don't understand that because I have vested my government with the keeping of secrets, I don't want ANYONE ANYONE to tell me those secrets. I have plenty of ways to judge success without knowing operational details.

"It shows that we need to rachet up the pressure to improve our covert operations to an even higher level immediately."

Sure, I agree, but...

"Remember, if the NYT can learn all of this information, SO CAN OUR ENEMIES!!!!!"

This is not at all clear. It's not at all clear that Al Queda would be able to establish operatives who could engender the same level of trust among the marks as an American born US journalist. It's not at all clear that Al Queda has the operatives on the ground in the U.S. with the contacts and the knowledge of the inner workings of U.S. bureaucracy to chase this information down on its own. It's not at all clear that Al Queda has the money to be doing this research on its own. It's not at all clear that Al Queda needs to do that sort of difficult suspicion engendering field work, because it has New York Times reports willing to do that work for them and do so while being able to operate with almost complete impunity. An Al Queda operative conducting these sort of information gathering interviews, photography, and such might tip off people, and lead to the comprimising of Al Queda operatives in the U.S.. By relying on the U.S. journalists to do the work for them, they save time, money, and minimize thier exposure - which allows them to spend more time and money planning and conducting operations.

Fortunately, Al Queda is spending most of its efforts fighting us in Iraq, or this sort of BS would be getting Americans killed over here.

"We are not being attacked by the press, we are being attacked by our enemies. Isn't it time that we learn how to keep our operations secret?"

Yes it is. It's also time for the U.S. press to decide which side it is on, because it is not at all clear to me from this perspective that I am not being attacked and my life being put endanger by the U.S. press. There are just some things that you don't reveal publicly.

"You, know, I don't know if anyone has ever told you this, but the 1st Amendment doesn't provide absolute rights."

Now, now, of course it doesn't give you absolute rights....that is why some people go to jail for their verbal actions. Sometimes even the press has to issue apologies and pay fines and/or court settlements.

But these are rare indeed....

"So how is it that you don't understand that because I have vested my government with the keeping of secrets, I don't want ANYONE ANYONE to tell me those secrets."

There wasn't any irony in my statement to hit me in the face like a frying pan...:) If the press has the information, published or not, the government entity has already failed. It could be continuing to fail and we would not know this until some sort of enemy action hit us using the already leaked secret information. Remember, keeping a secret is absolutely all that matters. No leaks? No press reports, no bad guys learning the secrets. I don't know how people expect the press to be able to discern what they should or shouldn't report on a daily basis. How do you judge the success of an operation? That no one has managed to set off a dirty bomb in your backyard yet? No bomb, all is well? Wouldn't it be ironic that the first notice you have of a failure to keep a secret in our intelligence operations is that you die? Excellent measurement but not without it's drawbacks.

Sure, don't report detailed information where we store all of our plutonium that is perfect for building dirty bombs. But come on, if that information wasn't LEAKED by people that that sworn to keep it secret, then would there be any problems?

"It's not at all clear that Al Queda would be able to establish operatives who could engender the same level of trust among the marks as an American born US journalist."

Hmmm. They seem to have done that already. Lately we have seen even professional people, (like a Doctor for example), that had been in this country for years get recruited and go over to the dark side. We have had an example of a typical good old white anglo-saxon man here in America offer to help undercover operatives build bombs to attack us. It goes on and on. So I think it is painfully clear as a bell. You trust your neighbor? Maybe he is going through a horrendous divorce and wants to get revenge on the Federal courts that dealt him a bum deal. Hmmm. Clear that this really happened, right? Sad and despicable, absolutely.

One last point. I do not want the press on ANYONE's side. I dream of a press that is not influenced by business pressures, ratings pressures, money pressures, career pressures, etc., to the point that we can at least trust and believe what they report. A truly independent press that prints nothing but the truth so help them (insert deity of your choice here). If the press chooses sides, they are not longer the independent press, are they.

I absolutely want our critical secrets to be kept secret. This is the bottom line folks. Keep it secret or face a speedy trial for treason and the appropriate judicial punishment.

Ethics start at home. I don't need the press to teach me that. Apparently too many of the people that are supposed to keep secrets do not understand ethics when talking to other people. "It's a reporter! Hey, have you heard this latest secret? Promise not to print it in the paper?"

Now there is true irony like a frying pan to the face...

Of course, my precious, they're on the other side. If they don't have enough american tragedies to report--why then! They simply create some new ones all by themselves. Cheered on by fools of course.

The idea that the media should report only those news stories that placate conservative political views is absurd. Personally, I want to know what's really going on . . . and I think the American people do, too.

At some point, the conservative escapism that characterizes so many blogs will lose its initial appeal.

Robert: Apparently too many of the people that are supposed to keep secrets do not understand ethics when talking to other people.

None of that detracts from the fact we have an Anti-American Press who want Americans to Die so that the Democraps can fair better at the polls.

Our enemies, both the media and the terrorists both look for atvantage, from mistakes, leaks, the helo that comes in range of an RPG .....

Durring WWII, anyone who stood on the docks could see the ships depart, its was still important the press didnt publish it

celebrim: This is not at all clear. It's not at all clear that Al Queda would be able to establish operatives who could ....

Slam dunk, thats the whole point, the press is actively doing their legwork for them, and dont give a damn who gets hurt, or rather, want to inflict hurt, they want failure so bad they cant control themselves, and they violate the compact.

So why dont the NYT lose all press pass privs ? that would be a good step, I would put out an exec order for all govt employees to never respond to the NYT in any offical manner, cut them off totally

To publish is their right, but they have no right to access, "right to know" is a leftist invention, it does not exist.

Banned from the white house press room, and make it an offense to respond to them in any official capacity.

Keep doing it till only Foxnews and The papers that remember what country protects them if we must. its time to stop responding to attacks with passivness.

We can take action, and we should.

Wow, what a statemen t of "FACT."

"...the fact we have an Anti-American Press who want Americans to Die so that the Democraps can fair better at the polls."

Ok, everyone listening out there answer yes or no to each of these statements:

1. The entire American Press truly wants Americans to die so that the Democrats can improve their ratings in the polls? (except for Fox News of course Mr. Murdoch.)

2. The American Press is not wishing for Americans to die so the Democrats can improve their ratings and the statement at the top is just another rant from the misinformed and reactionary right-wing demogogues.

Please Raymond. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? When you take out all of the extreme solutions to the question, it is usually the most simple answer that is correct.

So, no, you aren't correct. The press is just the press reporting a story. Sorry but I am sure that if you were right it would have been reported on at least the Fox News channel as Mr. Murdoch totally loves a piece of Yellow Journalism.

"Durring WWII, anyone who stood on the docks could see the ships depart, its was still important the press didnt publish it."

That would be great, but I do believe that our President told us to continue our lives as before all of this started. He quite clearly told us to conduct our daily lives as we did before 9/11. That it was important not to change. Don't worry, he said, He would take care of everything. We aren't really at war, are we? I don't remember a Congressional vote on going to war as we did in WWII. "Mission Accomplished!" was clearly stated to us by President Bush.

So what is the big deal about the NYT reporting about the CIA air transport system? could it be that we really are at war and President Bush was incorrect?

"Slam dunk, thats the whole point, the press is actively doing their legwork for them, and dont give a damn who gets hurt, or rather, want to inflict hurt, they want failure so bad they cant control themselves, and they violate the compact."

Please read my previous post. It so clearly points out the discrepancies in your "Slam Dunk." Also, again, all the people listening please raise your hand if you think the American Press truly "..want to inflict hurt and want failure so bad they cant control themselves.."

Raymond, I don't see many hands....

"So why dont the NYT lose all press pass privs ? that would be a good step, I would put out an exec order for all govt employees to never respond to the NYT in any offical manner, cut them off totally"

Should we cut off even the press people whom are paid by the White House to report stories written by the White House without telling us their sources so as to make it look like they are independent press and just reporting stories? (Never mind, let's answer that in another posting.)

OK, let's cut the NYT off. But you still haven't said anything about the REAL problem. You know, the one where people with secrets are actually leaking those secrets they swore not to? Your complete pass on these acts of treason seems to indicate you are only concerned about muzzling the press which is what most Facists and Communistic societies do best. Could I have misjudged you?

"Keep doing it till only Foxnews and The papers that remember what country protects them if we must. its time to stop responding to attacks with passivness.

We can take action, and we should."

Well, so much for our 1st Amendment. But we will still have Foxnews and "approved" papers to read. That does seem a lot like a government controlled press but maybe I am being too reactionary....

We could go on for hours about this but still, the bottom line is that keep secrets absolutely secret. Period. End of story. If Americans cannot keep a secret and endanger our troops then what do we do? Any answers that make sense out there?

Wow, what a statement of "FACT."

Dont confuse opinion and fact, the facts that support my opinion are the demostrated actions of the hostile LIEing press

And even on subjects other than the war the press gets cought in the manufacture of lies, like the Ken Star interview recently, where CBS, deliberatly, chopped up the video to rurn what the man said around backwards, cought redhanded, again.

Should I spend the time to go thru the examples, bald face lies

Pravda during the rule of Kruschev was more honest

Please Raymond. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Yes, which makes your denial, all the more funny to me.

So, no, you aren't correct.

You went from Occam to here without content, empty, nothing. Try again.

ships .. wwii

That would be great, but I do believe that our President told us to continue our lives as before all of this started.

Thats your answer ? what is this termial obtuse disease you have, its clear you haven got a single worthy thought in your head to refute what I said already.

Don't worry, he said, He would take care of everything.

I guess you missed the leftist chuckle over preparedness advisories, Fun at Ridge over the duct tape.

Ok so your some fake reality moonbat that thinks you can just spew anything, im beginning to understand. you have a damaged Hypothamus ?

I don't remember a Congressional vote on going to war as we did in WWII.

You missed that too ? Perhaps you might see a shrink, you got problems.

"Mission Accomplished!"

Yes it was accomplished, they was coming home, you know, you do seem to have a problem there.

was clearly stated to us by President Bush.

No, it was printed on a roll of cloth by the crew, Bushes speach however, talked of more efforts and losses ahead.

Again. you are really looking headscrewed here, and its looking worse with every line.

So what is the big deal about the NYT reporting about the CIA air transport system?

That obtuse problem again, and evidence of weak hypothamus again.

Please read my previous post.

I did. .. first in fact, before the post you answered, and it was glaringly clear you could not answer his argument, the same way you are not answering mine.

All the people listening please raise your hand

How feckless, your animated, like a dystrofic autistic butt rocker, but where is the argument ?

Should we cut off even the press people whom are paid by the White House

No, they are not attacking the United States, providing intel to those that want to kill us.
See ? answering is easy, try it some time.

OK, let's cut the NYT off. But you still haven't said anything about the REAL problem.

The anti american press doing legwork for the enemy is a real problem.

You know, the one where people with secrets are actually leaking those secrets they swore not to?

The CIA and State is full of clintoista commies too, and leaks will happen, we will punish those we find, but they will happen, but the press, the enemy aiding in a search for failure and any way they can help failure come about, are not being helpfull. they are being overtly hostile and its time we did what we can do about it.

Your complete pass on these acts of treason

Lie, I said no such thing, nor did anyone else.

muzzling the press which is what most Facists and Communistic societies do best.

The have no press, they have state flunkies that pretend they are a press, and loss of access is not the same thing as cencorship,

Look out below, lead balloon ....

Could I have misjudged you?

Your perception problem seems galactic in scope, im the least of your demonstrated difficulties.

Well, so much for our 1st Amendment.

Logic flaw ? the right to speak is not right of access, we dont even need to allow the TV stations to keep their FCC license if we so choose, they can take their free speach to the street corner and do it there.

Why you do this ? Just so I could bitchslap your ass around ? you some kinda machocistic pain freak ?

Please excuse me Raymond. I thought that I might have been responding to a person that could have a rational discussion of issues without resorting to crude and baseless statements without any merit or intelligence.

But Raymond, might I suggest a career move for you? I am sure there are local community colleges that can help you to achieve your G.E.D. and then obtain a certificate in many of the vocational courses offered at their facilities.

By the way, why do you want to "bitchslap" my ass? You aren't possibly one of those kinky people that frequent the internet are you? If so, please do not respond any longer to my postings. You are just not my type.

Now, with this unpleasant task out the way, is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the true issue of why Americans cannot keep secrets even if it might result in disasters to America?

Please excuse me Raymond. I thought that I might have been responding to a person that could have a rational discussion of issues

Is that what that was?

without resorting to crude and baseless statements

No you dont seem to be able to do that, as I demonstrated above.

By the way, why do you want to "bitchslap" my ass?

Perhaps it was that big 10 Killwatt neon sign you put on your head.

Perhaps your brain cant handle two issues at the same time, that we will punish the leakers we find is a given.

its also becomming untennable that we should limit our response to only that, the Press are proving themselves the agent of those that want to kill our people, and not responding in kind to the extent the law allows is no longer an option.

Well Raymond, I might also suggest you attend a few courses in English at the community college. Pay special attention to spelling. I am sure that your fans will appreciate the improvement in your writing you will exhibit after a couple of years of studying your native language.

But sorry, irrational statements such as yours are not the type that can be answered by rational people such as myself. You will have to go elsewhere for your statements to be taken seriously.

Anyone else out there wish to chime in? Rational and clearly understandable statements only, please.

Well Raymond, I might also suggest you attend a few courses in English

When you lose the argument, attack the spelling and grammar, quite effective these days, that big neon sign on your head is now flashing the word "LOSER".

But sorry, irrational statements such as yours

Saying so dont make it so, logic requires content, so does the quality called rational.

are not the type that can be answered by rational people such as myself.

snip the word rational out of that line and it converges with the obvious.

You still have yet to answer celebrim's point, and untill you can your entire thesis is moot.

If you could operate in the rational, you would see that, untill you have an answer your argument remains defeated. there is no bypass, no secret passage, you have provided no alternate support for your case.

Your horse is dead, so unless you find another one your trip ended at comment #80

Your shot down, he got ya, checkmate and match, goal, touchdown, it was fatal.

Ok, I will indulge you Raymond.

1. Let's drive the press down into trenches and silence all that do not print and say only exactly what the government allows.

2. Before anything is printed or stated verbally it must be approved and censored.

3. All checks and balances on governmental actions are hereby revoked. The Executive branch, backed by the carefully chosen Justices will govern from this point forward. The Legislative branch is dissolved.

4. Only one party is needed with the new guidelines as outlined above. The new Republic will only include Republicans. Elections are unnecessary as only people that are approved by the Executive branch will be appointed to office.

Now are you happy Raymond? This is the new world you appear to desire so much. Is there a warm glow washing over you with the thought of such a utopia that will welcome people such as you into it with open arms?

Before every single war in the 20th century, the first victim was the press. Once the press had been attacked verbally and then physically, the Facists and Communists consolidated their power using their propaganda machines. Whether you are aware of it or not, you advocate this type of action by irrational attacks on the press. Since you do not understand this nor have evidently studied the history of despots, you are doomed to walk the same path as they did.

I am thankful that people, such as you, that attempt to promulgate such hideously backwards ideas are truly a very tiny group here in America.

We can only exist in a political climate that is moderate. Extremist views from both the Left and Right will destablize our society as it has other societies in the history of the world.

People like you are not comfortable when caught in the glare of the light of rational thought and sensibility. Thus you resort to what you think are clever statements and utilize crass statements for shock affect.

Extremist shock tactics don't work in an intelligent and truly moderate society which is exactly what America is based upon.

Yesterday, Memorial Day, I took flowers to the military cemetary at the Punchbowl to place in the chapel. I thanked all that had gone before us for keeping us free and able to openly practice the rights given to us all in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The men and women that fought and died did not perform their selfless acts just so you could fight to eliminate intellgent dissent and muzzle the press while attempting to reduce our society to the model that fits your view of how life should be in America.

They fought for what America stands for and you denigrate their unselfish acts of devotion by making the facist statements you spout.

I am an American that had 21 wonderful years as the dependent of an Air Force command officer that battled the entire 5 years of WWII starting with volunteering for the British then moving over to fight as an Army Air Force pilot in every single theater of the war. He then went on to fly in Korea and later in Vietnam. 33 years of dedication. But even he is disgusted with the extremist views that too many people such as yourself vomit.

But he also recognizes that freedom to state your opinion is something that should not be taken away from you and the freedom of the press is paramount. So he would say that you can state whatever you want as you are entitled to it per the laws of our country. But you do NOT get to espouse extreme views as if they should replace the carefully crafted and judicially interpreted laws of our nation. You can have an opinion but he would also say that you have the right to be considered a mental midget for your opinions.

You want a fight? I can lay you out and eviscerate you before you can even croak another syllable of gibberish. People such as you have the genes of bullies and mentally challenged oafs flowing in your blood. You only thrive in the dark amongst other slope-headed mental dwarfs that continue to babble rhetorical nonsense while patting each other on the back for doing such a wonderful job of shredding common sense and sensibilities.

What did you do on Memorial day Raymond? Did you remember to fly the flag of our United States? I would bet that you didn't. I had mine out Raymond.

You, on the other hand, probably spent the day barbecuing pieces of meat into unrecognizable lumps of charcoal while swilling some sort of alcohol that was on sale.

I want to keep America as America the Beautiful. I refuse to hand it over to grunting spittle covered jerks such as you.

The millions of Americans that have sacrificed so much to give us a future of freedom would be disgusted at statements such as yours. You shame all of us with your drivel. You shame yourself also but you will certainly rationalize that away as well.

The less you say the better for us all Raymond.

For everyone else, I still want to know why it seems we are so hell bent for leather to burn down the press yet don't seem to have a problem with the clear and present danger of intelligence operations that fail time after time. Americans that have sworn to keep critical secrets to themselves gush them forth when the press arrives. Why? When will we stop?

That is the issue, nothing less. This other thread that the press is making repeated and planned attempts to get Americans killed is clap-trap. Even if the press completely disappeared overnight, we would have the same idiots spilling secrets to their wives, kids, neighbors and anyone else that would listen. THEY are the problem. Not the press.

"Only one party is needed with the new guidelines as outlined above."

We Republicans are not the ones who can't seem to win an important election. After all, it is the voters that put the Democrats in this position, not the Republicans.

I know you won't examine that premise, because you are too deep in denial to even consider it. As embarassed as the rest of us are for you though, it is glaringly obvious.

That's right, it is Fox news and its two million viewers who run the country. Way more people still don't even know that Rather's story before the last election on the TANG was false than watch Fox News. What color is the sky in your world?

Give me a break: if the CIA can't keep it secret from the Times, how do you think they are going to keep it secret from al Qaeda?

say only exactly what the government allows.

Again you are obtuse, loss of access is not cencorship, you seem to have a problem with your reuse of defeated arguments.

Now are you happy Raymond?

To the extent that watching a train wreck grabs the attention, im not at the point of sensing my emotion yet, your list of the 4 items was absurd to the level of self abuse.

I could pick them apart further than the first sentence of this post, that renders them all moot, to the extent they wasnt born that way, but you not supposed to make fun of tards.

Before every single war in the 20th century, the first victim was the press.

Your history seems a bit screwed, from walter durranty to walter cronkite, the victim was the press (and america) alright, but it was done by the press themselves, and the price they paid was little more than reputation.

Im suggesting they pay more than that, within the scope of our laws.

Facists and Communists.

The press often rooted for those regimes, (Durranty/Cronkite) and got away with it, odd self destructive creatures, logic cant explain, except that they are basically commies.

irrational attacks on the press.

Unfounded, I feel the urge to bitchslap some more.

nor have evidently studied the history

You just make up stuff, it forms in your head and rolls out like a gumball machine with no quality control.

We can only exist in a political climate that is moderate.

False, "moderate" is not a quality assesment.

Extremist views

False, "extreme" is not a quality assesment.

Extremely good is not bad, extremely accurate is not off, extremely correct is not wrong.

moderatly effective is not an indicator of the best quality.

Extreme and moderate are not assements of virtue, and its a typical leftist propaganda tool to use them that way since Barry Goldwater, but the argument is hollow and meritless.

looking for substance ... looking .. ahhh Humor

You want a fight? I can lay you out and eviscerate you

You remind me of a monty python skit, your argument is little more than a head on a torso of stumps ... and your still ...

Looking for substance ... looking,, more humor

The less you say the better for us all Raymond.

Dr Sanity would call what you just said Projection.

Looking..

I still want to know why it seems we are so hell bent for leather to burn down the press

Hows this for a reason.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."

Ann Coulter

And I guess at this point, seeing you beat that dead animal so long that even the molars are lost to the fossil record, expecting it to get up and walk, the rest around here are gonna be on my ass for abuse of the mentally disabled.

Yes, Fox news rules. It's viewers will run our country and thank God we no longer need to be worried about our future with such wonderful people in charge.

The electoral voters put Bush in the office only after incredible manipulations of the election process from the top to the very bottom by men of power. Were these men of power part of the two million viewers? I guess they know best, don't they.

Oh, now about that story of Bush going to Georgia instead of Vietnam as Kerry did. He really did go to Georgia didn't he? He really did disappear for about 6 months and failed to appear for his flight physical, at least on paperwork provided directly by the National Guard. He really did political work while he should have been flying in the Guard correct? While Bush was going through his tough duty in the Guard, Kerry was in Vietnam commanding a Swift Boat and actually participating in the action to at least some degree, right? Bush is the military hero and Kerry was not?

Please, some one stop me when I get the facts wrong....BTW, my sky is clear and visibility unlimited. It is very easy to see Fascists coming.

Fox News and two million viewers running the nation....hmmmm. Doesn't quite sound like America the Free and Democratic does it?

P.S. Raymond, you are quite the mentally unarmed, aren't you.

Yes, Fox news rules. It's viewers will run our country and thank God we no longer need to be worried about our future with such wonderful people in charge.

So good So far, they have some warts tho, the open borders for example ...

The electoral voters put Bush in the office only after incredible manipulations of the election process

My moonbat warning light is flashing ...

Oh, now about that story of Bush going to Georgia

Dan Blather again ? do you have anything that isnt defeated and refuted ? its good to recycle, but there was no raw material to begin with in those products.

Kerry was in Vietnam ...

I thought it was Cambodia .. (couldnt resist, nyuk nyuk) Hows that form 180 coming along?

Please, some one stop me when I get the facts wrong.

The red button seems smashed to hell by those recoiling in horror by your self Destruction, I bet its been painfull for them to watch....

my sky is clear and visibility unlimited.

Heat merages, could that be it ?

Perhaps you would like one of my old Sore Loserman signs, (who knows, could be theraputic)

Your good man, all we need is you a chair and a truckload of rotten tomatos, we could make a fortune.

Does anyone suppose it possible that if Raymond and Robert Sherrell were to hug that they would cancel out each other in a cosmic explosion akin to matter and antimatter annihilation?

Hold on a second while a push Mr. 'a' closer. Ok. Now, go ahead.

Apologies for returning to this thread late. I see there are quite a few people who believe Abu Ghraib was simply a matter of fraternity hazing and sexual humiliation. Of course, we the public saw only a partial set of the Abu Ghraib photos, and even that partial set clearly showed a prisoner who had been beaten to death.

I also hope they do remember what Sen. Lyndsey Graham said after he had seen all the evidence:

The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

The Abu Ghraib investigation, as well as that of similiar abuses in Afghanistan are being whitewashed and held up by red tape. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has openly admitted that out of 108 prisoner deaths, 25 have been murder.

Does this somehow justify the NYT putting CIA charter activities at risk? I don't think so. But, these charter activities are involved in the torture of prisoners, and I thought it might be worth a mention here at WoC.

#54 from Mac says it all. Ya'all keep patting each other on the back for your faux patriotism.
No point in engaging every idiot with a keyboard.

bye...

nick,

Attention should be paid to the earnest apologia of the sophist. Good sophistry is an art as much as propaganda is an art. In this instance we are asked to accept the proposition that the John offering money to the two dollar whore bears a heavier burden of guilt than the whore who performs sex for her two dollar fee. At law we find that the there are two separate offenses involved. One is solicitaion and the other prostitution. Both parties are guilty but they are guilty of different things. Good sophists who favor legalization of prostitution tend to use the argument that it is the John who bears the higher burden of guilt because if no one solicited sex prostitution could not occur. There is some merit to that argument but it ignores the incitement of the whore's offer.

In the instance at hand I would say that a heavier burden does fall on those providing the information. They, at minimum, violated security agreements if not laws. Since we do not currently have a sedition statute in force the NYT bears less burden in the same way that a woman who has sex with many partners bears less burden as a simple slut rather than the woman who offers sex in exchange for money as a whore.

Dear old Nick,

I see you have gone so far as to be pumped up with your own importance and become the judge and jury for all you read. You might stand a chance to rise above the sweaty ignoric and bigotic masses that Raymond chooses to call his bed mates but you must be brave enough to indulge the listening public with more than a sophmoric and egotistical stance such as your posting #99.

I see you now in a two way conversation that is peppered with your repeated statment "Oh Yeah?" for want of a better thought out statement.

Engage an idiot with a keyboard? I see you were issued a keyboard without passing any IQ tests yourself.

"faux patriotism". Evidently you have passed into a dimension of mind where you can toss out phrases such as this and feel so good about yourself. True Patriotism will be something you thinnk you understand but it will slip away between your fingers like water because you really don't care about it. You only use it as a tool of insult.

Bye....

(Nick, this is the part where you go "Oh Yeah?")

Mr. Ballard I wish to complement you on your posting. Eloquent and to the point. All parties in this issue bear some degree of blame. We cannot bring only one party to task in an affair such as this release of secret information. The paper must bear its share of the blame as a vehicle of dissemination without regard for possible ramifications.

But the unstable bedrock under it all is the lack of confidence that our nations secrets can be kept in trust by our own citizens. That has always been the crux of my disagreement with the mob attack on the NYT.

Thank you for your well phrased opinion of the situation. It was refreshing to read. The metaphor of a customer and his prostitute was truly appropo.

SAO , proof of no such thing.

And how would the fact that they come spun up on crank figure in ?

If the intent is to kill, to the last of their cranked up strength, what is his chances for survival if he does not submit ?

Out of so many 100s or thousands, how many will die?

We should put you out there green and start dragging in hogtied wired up jihadies, tell you its your job to unbuckle them

we will give ya a few helpers .... better not have any die on you, be sparing with the baton eh ? ... good luck.

Robert, good example. whores been around for how long ? even when to be caught was death by stoning. there was still whores. there are still drugs on the streets etc...

As for Sophistry, all those words of dystrophic autistic butt rocking without any support for your long defeated argument is exactly what they call that.

So, You, a chair, the Tomatoes, think about it.

Raymond! I was missing you. (Not really but trying to make you feel better).

Anyway, I see that you put down that dog-eared copy of Hustler magazine and have graced us with yet more astounding written manifestations of your Creutzfeldt-Jakob affected cerebral hemispheres.

I feel honored that you placed replying to the posts on this Blog above fixing the wood steps you use on your trailer park home.

But I won't keep you from your appointed rounds. Lord knows you must carefully divide your modem dialup time between your many pursuits of Blogs that will gleefully accept your many incredible forays into the English language. I notice that Blogs must improve you as you learned a new word today from another posting, "Sophistry." Good for you.

As I said before, with strict attendance to your G.E.D. classes, with an emphasis on spelling and proper usage of sentence construction, before you know it a rewarding career in the food industry will be a coveted prize of yours.

Do remember to send us a date and time for your certificate ceremony. I just know we will all want to attend it and wish you luck as a future assistant manager in the exploding field of fast food service.

Bye for now.

Robert

One more post without a single effort to revive your dead argument.

Heres a clue, when you lose an argument, making mass quanities of irrevelant noise does not help.

Your inability to have an answer for #80 was your signal to stop. all the other junk you threw at the wall changed nothing.

Most here dont suffer fools much, course, in my view, they are missing out on the entertainment value.

Thanks Robert, fun watching the crash and the burn, heres to the day you learn to focus.

I saw this article late last night and wonder not why the NYT printed it, but why is it even worthy of anyone's attention. Are we supposed to believe the CIA flies detainees out on Southwest Airlines? Of course they use charter aircraft, but why would they devote space for such a useless article? The answer is that the Times is in trouble circulation wise therefore they are trying to pander to every crowd imaginable.

Chad.

Could be, they are going to paid subscription to their web site etc, their circulation is down I hear...

Ive heard nothing about money problems tho. then again, perhaps they dont want people laughing at them.

Too bad there wont really be anything done about their ernest for sedition, so the marketplace will decide.

Why Raymond, why would I have to have your post-coitus analysis? I am sure that your implied big-shot status on this open Blog is certainly not a shared opinion by the other regular contributors. I had never posted to this Blog and was only drawn to it by a posting on Instapundit.

My points was well made and supported to the people that really do take time to read and understand.

Your incredible lack of knowledge about how life really works in America, along with your incredible ego (without substance to back it up), plus your feeble attempts at insults capped by an incredible lack of knowledge of the english language was just too much for me to resist.

You were fun for awhile but I, like the John that has had his fun with the prostitute, (you Raymond, if you haven't figured it out by now), must shower the last vestiges of your unpleasant demeanour from me and move on.

Best of wishes to everyone else though. Most of the postings were reflections of the intelligence of their writers and also reflected concerns for our covert operations and to not put our troops into danger over a news story, which I do agree with.

p.s. I promise not to put any of the photos online of you. Those are destined for my private scrapbook. I really like the ones with the pained and shocked look on your face. :)

Housekeeping? Marshall needed to sweep the excess bloviation.

My points was well made

Made so well it was dead at comment #80, and you still cant answer it, I notice, so its still dead.

Your incredible lack of knowledge

Based on .. you are a slow learner, ever expanding amounts of baseless irrevelent noise does not supply an alternate support for your defeated thesis.

I promise not to put any of the photos online of you.

And this .... what ?

Theres a word to decribe your big flame out finish(?) here, its called intelectual bankruptcy.

Robin:Housekeeping?

Your too kind, if you screen his text like at an archeology dig, an actual statement sifts out every once in a while.. but his signal to noise ratio makes me look like a terse extreme concentrate by compare.

Are most moonbats all over the place like that ? never mind lifting the seat up, he aint even inside the door.

Raymond, you've been served.
You lost this discussion way before post #80.
Fascism is alive and well in this country. Your narrow view and reliance on left wing propaganda is proof of that. Remember Hitler was elected and he had religion and the popular vote on his side. At what point would you have stood up in Nazi germany to decry the state? Never, that's when, you would be a good little trooper and joined the hitler youth or cheefully escorted the intellectual elite to the gas chamber. Nazis went after the intellectual elite because they were a threat to them. Just like the left is going after the so called liberal media and so called liberal institutions of higher learning. Hitler was a master manipulator, he gave them enemies to hate, gave them fear so they would want to be safe and pinned it all on Jews, Gays Gypsies and other "undesirables". If you knew history you would know this is true. Now, to not be able to see the signs that this country is headed down just as dark a road just makes you another brownshirt, by the way, when's the book burning?

moonbat: Raymond, you've been served.

Served a bunch of hand waving, devoid of content

moonbat: You lost this discussion way before post #80

That wasnt my comment, you perhaps should be a bit more particular, since your bloatvating will be no more effective that the feckless attempt you rushing in to rescue.

moonbat: Fascism is alive and well in this country.

Gee, sporty Foil Hat you have there ...

moonbat: reliance on left wing propaganda

Your not gonna get the joke, but that ones gonna wet some keyboards around here with spew.

moonbat: Remember Hitler was elected and he had religion and the popular vote on his side.

He certainly had the popular vote, he won two low percentile pluralities, and a third that was a referenda vote that gave him ultamate authority was like 90%

As for religion, for every Jew that he murdered, was another 1.6 or so Christians, he hardly got the support of the church, Well, untill all the exterminated clergy was replaced with nazi stooges

Democide in Nazi Germany, 21 million people killed

"Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced.

Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks....

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth.

I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom.

I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." --Albert Einstein

Your version of history it seems, has a few defects

moonbat: At what point would you have stood up in Nazi germany to decry the state?

Better do it early, cause those that waited too late in National Socialist Germany ended up dead.

Thats what the Terry Shivo protests was all about, Peter Singers NAZI Euthenasia

moonbat: joined the hitler youth

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History)

moonbat: and pinned it all on Jews, Gays Gypsies

"We are socialists because we see in socialism the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state."

"We are a workers' party because we are on the side of labor and against finance."

"As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation's goods." Joseph Goebbels, 1932

moonbat: If you knew history you would know this is true

You came to educate muah ? .. How presumptuous.

Well that was a nice bit of blow and spew, but as to his argument, you leave it as dead as it was before you got your 911 call to rescue your chum from his self inflicted predicament.

Throwing unrelated bits at the wall, reciting your memories of mom teaching you to tie your shoes, or a short history of 1940's Bravaria is not addresing his argument, which, is still dead.

So now I guess I need two Chairs ...

Hmmmm. Mr. Sherrell, do you hear the black helicopters coming yet ?. Or does your tinfoil hat shield the sound for you ?.

Does anyone care that this is illegal, unethical, unconstituational or just plain wrong? I am not proud of being an American, if this is how we claim to protect our freedom. The value of such freedom is cheap. The real problem is not secrecy or lack of it. The real problem is our failure to live up to the ideals of liberty and justice. It is not the destruction of the WTC that has caused us to make such poor decisions and cast aside such important and fundamental freedoms. Prisoners are secure. I don't want that kind of security.

As I follow this thread, it seems to me that the two most rational arguments involved do not necessarily compete with each other.
The press, for good or bad, reports information- all types of information, any info they can get their hands on. This is their job. Whether they perform their job for money, prestige, or because they truly believe in the honor and nobility of a free press, is irrelevant. I happen to believe that complete and total freedom of this press, even if it is run as a pure business endeavor, is necessary for many of the reasons already stated above. However, the question of “what should they print,” concerning secret information, is affected largely by the information in question and under what circumstances.
For example, a live video feed of troops landing on a beach during wartime is not a good idea. Secret information has now been transmitted to the world, including our enemies, that has put our troops, their mission, and our national interests in danger, and the press should keep their cameras out, period. Easy enough.
In another example, perhaps secret documents have been leaked to the Hometown Times that record our government’s on-going involvement in acts of mass murder and other nasty things. In this case, the press’s transmission of these secrets has uncovered events and plans that by design must be stopped by the will of the American people but would never have been stopped by the government. Again, easy enough.
I am aware of the foolishly simple predicaments I’ve put forth; the two extremes. Where does the NYT piece fall in? I don’t know. Possibly somewhere between? But I am worried by the sentiment that either it is all the fault of the press or it is solely the fault of those leaking information. All I suggest is that we take a long hard look at the shades of gray before we declare this a black and white issue. If the same examples are turned to implicate those charged with keeping our secrets, the overall situation remains just as blurry. The commander who leaks the landing site- guilty. The agent who leaks the document indicting our country in acts of murder- hero (to some, anyway).
While I fully agree with Mr. Sherrell, there is an equal amount of truth in the arguments of those that stand on opposite ground (with one glaring exception, whose name I dare not speak). While it may seem, and will probably be ridiculed, as utopian, this argument comes down to personal responsibility- both for the actions of our government, and the actions of the press.
Without facing the complete and total failure of our freedoms, our rights, and our country, we cannot turn this into an umbrella cause, wherein the either the press or the government is given complete reign to act as they would.
The press must have the ability, to whatever end, to transmit the information they receive. The government must have the ability, to whatever end, to keep secret their necessarily covert operations and plans. Where they meet in the middle is, admittedly, a fog. And that is where our personal responsibility comes to bear the most. Was it the complete responsibility of those charged with secret information to keep it secret? Yes. Does that mean that the reporter can wash his hands? I don’t think so. However, that reporter does not bear the entire burden, nor the editors, and I cringe to think that we blame our entire press institute.

Yes.

And the press have a duty as citizens of the united states not to put others in danger, and thats what they did, their hostility has overode good judgment for political reasons that go back to Durranty.

They act exactly like the enemy agent, and to that extent should be treated as such.

We all have freedom, that freedom ends at the tip of the others nose.

And the press has no excuse, they are not protecting life, they are not uncovering injustic, they are not serving the public, they are putting lives at risk.

They just yelled "fire" in the theater, where it is the lie that is the offence, but the risk of injury they cause by doing so.

And this risk is even more offensive, because its aid to our enemies activly ploting our deaths.

The leakers will be punished if discovered, but they day when that is the only price paid, and the only ones that pay it, should end.

FINALLY...
i was a little suprised that I had to read 115 posts before finding one I could wholeheartedly support. (Thanks #115) It's a great thing when people feel so strongly about their country and their beliefs that they can express themselves passionately about a subject. But is it just me, or aren't we all getting a little too caught up in our blind rage at this or that? Is everything black or white? Is everyone left or right? I am most assuredly (as I would argue most people are) not strictly left-leaning or right-leaning. And in my opinion, most issues like this are far more intricate and complex than we would treat them by trying to point the blame finger at one person, group or entity. My point is, aren't we missing the point, and negating our ability to really fix the problem by making everything 2-dimensional and black or white?

FINALLY...
i was a little suprised that I had to read 115 posts before finding one I could wholeheartedly support. (Thanks #115) It's a great thing when people feel so strongly about their country and their beliefs that they can express themselves passionately about a subject. But is it just me, or aren't we all getting a little too caught up in our blind rage at this or that? Is everything black or white? Is everyone left or right? I am most assuredly (as I would argue most people are) not strictly left-leaning or right-leaning. And in my opinion, most issues like this are far more intricate and complex than we would treat them by trying to point the blame finger at one person, group or entity. My point is, aren't we missing the point, and negating our ability to really fix the problem by making everything 2-dimensional and black or white?

Why deny the binary when it is clearly binary.

This silly long ago unsuportable denial of leftist bias and leftist agends when actions their own polls and the disparity of treatment depending on the idiology of the subject is as glaring as the sun at mid day.

And the denials have become an absurd cartoon.

We see what they did, we see what they always do.

Only fools give them a pass now.

Mac, I don't think any of us would have a problem with holding the leakers responsible for the leak. But the subject of the post was the NYT's responsibility for publishing the leak, and many of us believe they too, should be held responsible. And we all have our frameworks. Even moderate centrism is a framework. The best we can do is give each other a fair hearing, demand of ourselves and the other guy(s) that we use facts and evidence to support the opinions we generate within our frameworks, and try to keep our frameworks flexible enough to take the other guy's facts into account when we can't disprove them. I think for the most part (though certainly not always) we manage to do that pretty well here.

"There oughta be a law" is a bad start to any problem. Our Republic depends on people accepting and exercising personal responsibility. Unfortunately, pushing limits seems to be all the rage.

Personal responsibility is the key to all of this. But, it is also extraordinarily easy to ignore when an entire institution of the press corps is made responsible for one article- which by the way is not the first by a long shot.
A simple google search of this current subject (CIA, tail numbers, etc) will reveal, just within the first page, articles on the same CIA "terror flights" streaming back to 2004. This is not a new subject.
In a broader sense, this is a subject as old as the free press. They get in the government's business- about everything. And we are better for it. I don't believe that is the definition of an enemy agent.
For clarification, I believe that the press is and can be slanted, politically. However, at no point did I intend to suggest, nor do I believe, that the press is its own political entity, hellbent on bringing down a party, a nation, the world, or whatever it is this enemy agent is trying to do.

Oh yay..... someone mentioned Hitler, so it's time to invoke Godwin's Law and get all the kids off the playground.

Seriously, having read through the comments here, I am amazed at how quickly an adult discussion of a subject by assumed adults (perhaps that's assuming too much judging by the lack of grammatical correctness) descends into the blog equivalent of the kind of talk you would expect from a "Quake" tournament.

I mean really.... does each and every one you have a patent on being an omnipotent know-it-all who couldn't ever possibly be wrong on an issue?

Hmmmmm?

Didn't think so. Let's face it, an issue like this has a little more depth to it than which side is wrong or right and deserves a little more effort at discussion than to simply parrot some "talking points" issued by either political party.

With this issue, there's plenty of blame to go around. Did the NYT perhaps go too far in giving away too much information? Perhaps. Maybe they could have left out some pertinent information. Should we expect a little more "secrecy" from our secret operators? I should say so, it's their job to keep secrets.

Regardless, we have "freedom of the press" in this country - otherwise we'd just be getting the latest propaganda from our "Dear Leader". I'd rather have a fractious uppity press that keeps the government on it's toes than a bunch of "yes men". That uppity press makes our government better by forcing it to play honestly, or to keep things that should be a secret, a damn secret.

And before you right-wing foamers start up with the red-faced screaming a la Howard Dean, I voted for GB - twice. And you left-wing partisan birkenstock wearers can put down the protest banners outside my house... I live in California.

That's my 2 pennies.

Now....... how about you kids put the keyboard down and go outside and get the stink blown off ya. Too many of you spend way too much time in places like this.

Sheesh.

If this wasnt a trail of continual abuses i could agree with you.

As for the "Dear Leader" bit, yes, there is a rather constricted range of options to do anything about it.

Such as kicking their ass out of the White House Press corp, if we eanted to get nasty, TV networks, have no rights to their airwaves, free speach on the air is no right or I would not need this ham radio license to persue my hobby.

Thats not the same as saying we should do that, its doubfull anything will be done anyway, except chase the leaks.

So here we are .. pissed of at our american press that consideres themselves so un-american that wearing a flag pin on the lapel they find offensive, or in need of explanation.

Years ago, Tokyo Rose went to jail when we caught her even tho she bcast from Japan.

Now Tokyo Rose broadcasts from New York, we might have to tolerate it, but we damn sure dont have to like it.

Raymond, I like how I used your name but you call me moonbat. You can obfuscate and dissemble all you want, but attacking the people who keep us free from tyranny is a joke that I hope you will live to experience.

Raymond the GOP assmonkey says: Your version of history it seems, has a few defects

Oh that's right History has grey areas and it isn't all black or white. It’s YOUR history of the last 6 years that's perfect.

Raymond the Nazi apologist says: As for religion, for every Jew that he murdered, was another 1.6 or so Christians, he hardly got the support of the church well, until all the exterminated clergy was replaced with Nazi stooges. (Replace moderate religious leaders with right wing nut jobs)

Oh that's right Hitler killed 6 million Jews and 9.6 million Christians.
Raymond doublethink, newspeak says:
Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced.

Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks....

So you agree with me. The first things to go are the universities, the free press. Those who fail to see the patterns of history are doomed to repeat it. That's you and your ilk in a nutshell.

Would you hand power, complete and unassailable to only one party? Would you condemn the free press to a PR machine for THE PARTY. The religious will be controlled by their religion. And by the time anyone realizes it we will be in the position where a few tell us, the many how to live, when to live, and when to die. I guess that's ok with you then. AT what point do you see this is not a black or white world? Oh if it's THEM doing it you attack with your entire feeble mind can muster, but when it's you and yours, there's a reason, and explanation, an excuse. We need less rights to make us safe, 911, 911, 911 oh dear help me President Bush how can I be free and truly safe as long as there is a person alive who disagrees with my paradigm? MY god man Schiavo was one of HUNDREDS of people in such positions. Where are all of the Christians for them? I hope someone keeps you alive and drooling for 30 years after they realize that the condition you are in is clinically brain-dead
BTW quoting the propaganda the Reich provided to control the people and obfuscate the truth from them, is a little weird and wrong. The idea was that the German people didn't know what was going on really because they were lied to, and propagandized. Now you whip out the same lame shit Hitler did on his own people and you expect me to think it's the truth? LMAO. You take the cake Raymond. Nice job. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.

Way to go Martin! That's the most subtle Bush=Hitler analogy that I've seen in a long, long time. Amenesty International certainly could use you skill.

Lurker, that's not a real protester, it's a quote from a historical figure by that name. Since the actual poster's intent is opaque, disregard it amd consider what to do with the information.

One could as easily apply the quote to those who FAIL to fight in the current conflict - Europe's dhimmitude, for instance.

I recognized the quote (that's how I knew it was baout Nazis), but not the source's name.

Given the topic of this thread, it's clear to me that he meant that the the islamists being rendered to foreign governments are analogous to the communists in the quote, e.g. they're the first group to be "come for".

I reckon we'll never know for sure unless he comes back to clarify his intent.

That quote by the name I'm using above, has been frequently used and misquoted by many people with differing ideas. The point remains, if you don't stand up for someone else’s rights, who'll stand up for yours? It's very simple and it applies to this in the sense that when the people in power start dismantling newspapers, whistleblowers, and the media in general, when are they going to come for the bloggers, the right for anyone to say what they feel, and to certainly say the truth. Often feelings and the truth are at opposites, that's when we need rational thought. We need free discourse and the government should be less secret, not more. I agree that if a secret is worth being a secret then it should remain as such, and anyone who breaks that oath of secrecy, should be accountable. What if the secret is a secret that shouldn't be a secret? In other words it coming to the light of day would make the world a better place, and not just for the few but the race as a whole. This current Government has more secret then any other. The number of classified documents is growing. Would a secret that hurt this administration, but would help us (the people) stay a secret? What if there was a paper that linked person A with person B and a manufactured energy crisis? Would you want to know? What if it was a secret about illicit sex and scandalous rendezvous? How about a secret plan to wage war and the PR and spin campaign to provide the reason for war? Would anyone care? What if the CIA came to your house and kidnapped you, took you to a foreign country to be “interrogated”. Well when they do, you remember that quote.

Thanks for clarifying that intent. OK, NOW we can fisk him.

Starting with the fact that members of al-Qaeda are unlawful combatants in wartime, not citizens or even POWs with corresponding rights.

As for the argument that spilling such secrets "make the world a better place," it does show the existence of a clear fifth column that believes such actions justified.

In answer to the Pastor's question - maybe Ann Coulter is right after all. Maybe it's time we made things like "sedition" and "treason" offenses that are once again prosecuted and punished accordingly.

The USA has declared war on a stateless entity before - look up "Barbary Pirates." Had it done so against al-Qaeda and its affiliates post-9/11, as I believed and believe that it should have, a bunch of people at the New York Times would be looking at long jail terms alongside Lynne Stewart.

Who also thought she was "making the world a better place" as she passed on her client's instructions to his terrorist followers in the mideast.

This current Government has more secret then any other

I suggest you research the cold war - and how it was won.

I'm sorry I meant fisting, that's my thing....

[Marshal "Smokin' Joe" Katzman: There are some things we won't tolerate at all, and will delete + site-ban on a first offense. Impersonation of another poster is one, and deservedly so. It also says all one needs to know about the ethics of the person involved. Thanks for stepping in, Bill, and for adding the clear "[fake]" caveat.]

[Marshal "Smokin' Joe" Katzman: This comment has the same IP as the last. You know, once you've finished impersonating another commenter, we really don't give a damn what you have to say after that. Don't care if you've written the next Gettysburg Address, you're outta this town on a rail. Bill, bring the tar and feathers....]

me/false Joe Katzman/Giamilton/giamilton/Martin Niemöller/Pastor Niemöller,

You have been banned from this site for posting under Joe's name and playing various games in this comment thread. Unless Joe or the other Marshalls disagree, that is.

You defeated your own argument.

Prosecuting the media for sedition ia not the same thing as persecuting them just because their point of view is different

The fact that your entire support depends on forwarding that kind of fallacy shows you have lost the argument.

And it also shows you to be a rather typical moonbat, something all too clear before your last 3 posts.

Raymond, I just don't know why you insist on insulting people that are just having open discourse.

Name calling as a way of intimidation or to "win" a discussion should not be allowed on Blogs in general. You do it from the autonomy of your keyboard without worry about someone punching your clock for insulting them, rather than your intelligently objecting to what they posted.

This trait, on too many Blogs, holds many Blogs back from being taken seriously or the Blog's members that do just want to have intelligent discourse without being insulted finally leave the Blog, reducing the Blog to miserable content eventually.

If you don't agree, say why you don't agree but leave off the insults.

To the Marshall and other people posting. What do you think? Ban insults as a way of "winning" or intimidation?

BTW, I think you are possibly the "Skipper" from the Barking-moonbat website. That person seems to enjoy the heck out of Moonbats also and seems to voice opinions in a VERY similar way to you.

Just a wild guess. Don't get mad, ok?

I have to run. I hear helicopters and my new aluminum beanie is not done yet. Gotta rush.

Try making a more inteligent argument

You have done everything except address your defeat

There is no bypass, you cant step over it, its dead.

You tried everything, bloativation, hand waving, butt rocking, back roads going nowhere.

But the argument is still dead.

All that dont reflect on you well, but you did it to yourself.

So the point at #80 stands, the press should consider the national interest, and consider if their legwork is aid to those that want to kill us.

They could have run that story, without the details that the enemy would use to target our people.

Its as simple as that.

All the junk chaff and noise you threw in the air afterwards changed nothing.

well except expose your difficulty with logic, and erect a big sign on you head inviting ridicule.

All the way to here, and your thesis is still in the ashheap of defeat.

Raymond! I answered it clearly at 81 & 84. Take some time to read and understand.

Now if you don't AGREE with my sentiments then say that. But don't say that I didn't intelligently answer as I truly did use verifiable current evidence in both posts that gave my opinion about earlier discourse.

When we get to constructively argue, Raymond, we ALL win. Intelligent discourse is completely All-American so I embrace it.

Besides, why didn't you comment on my last posting? Your opinion is important in this sidebar about to insult or not to insult...:)

Alos, thank you for now calling me a Moonbat. I promise to toe the non-insult line also.

p.s. Please do note that I have stated the press needs to be more responsible in their reporting. But my favorite, still, is that secrets should remain secret and the press reporting them is only cause for corrective action, not sedition trials.

Hey Vicking, my new beanie worked great! The helicopters never stopped at my house...Whew!

Whoops. Sorry Viking

Raymond, thank you for not calling me Moonbat...

....typos are killing me...

Thats the problem, you did everything except answer.

And you still have not.

None of those examples address the responsibility of the New York Times.

Chaff and smoke are all they are.

Your problem is that you attempted to defend the indefensable.

We live in a free society, to keep it involves duties as well as License

And as I added afterwards, when the Times published departure details so that German subs could sink our merchant fleet, it did not matter that anyone who wanted to stand on the dock could see them depart.

This is the same thing.

They did legwork for the ememy, that are ill equiped to provide for themselves.

They used their people to gain access and trust that the ememy would find difficult, if not impossible to obtain.

They did so, in clear defiance of common sense of judgement about the National interest and the lives of innocents, and the lives of those elisted to protect us.

They are motivated by that same old anti-american opposition to the welfare of their own country, the sanctuary that provides them security and confort rare on planet earth.

What they did was indefensable, all your hyperventing about how they should be immune for responsibility for their own aid to those who want to kill us, is perverse, and does nothing to defend them and plenty to indict yourself.

A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill

Those that actively work to aid our enemies are worse than a miserable creature, they are the enemy.

The Times knew what they was doing, they look ever more with their parade of abuses,, like the enemy within. evil walking among us.

They deserve sanction, their defenders deserve contempt.

First, I have addressed the NYT in total and several statements. They were only pulling together information that had been published before as early as 2001, plus a few new gems, and then went to press. I stand by by reasoning that while not in the best of keeping secrets for the CIA, they were never supposed to. The CIA is supposed to. Heck, what about the CIA keeping the real secrets classified and feeding the press fake stuff. Now that would be a successful covert operation we could be proud of.

But, anyway, during WWII we dragged our feet getting into it as the American public did not want another war as WWI was so devastating and still fresh in their memories. So our undefended merchant ships sailed on schedules that were printed by every major newspaper rag in the Northeast. Singling out the Times for punishment because they, during Peacetime , were not told anything different. If the Times had not published sailing schedules, they would have been the only paper not doing so.

(Small historical note: the Times DID print the warning from the Germans during WWI about submarines ready to sink ships headed for England. The Lusitania ignored the printed warning of course. Blub Blub Blub)

BUT, here is something to smoke in your pipe. The Merchant Marine ships were decimated horribly before we got into the war because of? Try our own government and military.

"For inexplicable reasons, the U.S. did not arm the ships, nor provide escorts or air cover, nor organize convoys along the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts or in the Caribbean. Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King was responsible for this inaction. The U.S. Government did not order a blackout of seacoast cities until June 1942, leaving ships silhouetted against the shoreline. Allied ships were "sitting ducks" for the well-armed U-Boats lurking in U.S. coastal waters. U.S. beaches soon became littered with bodies and burned-out ships."

Now, which is worse? Which is the more trecherous to our ships?

The sailing schedules or our own hideous failure to protect the ships getting sunk in our own waters by U-Boats?

Our government watched while hundreds died and bodies washed up on Miami beach. They did nothing.

On the face of it, our WWII Navy aided the enemy. They didn't defend our own territorial waters, they didn't order lights extinguished at night, they just watched the ships sink and the sailors die.

So, now what Raymond.

Who should we punish? Does the WWII Navy deserve sanction, their defenders contempt? Did the WWII Navy do the legwork for the Germans? Was Admiral King the "..evil walking among us?" Using your criteria, the Navy is indicted, tried and found guilty.

Now I want to believe that there was some hidden reason that Admiral King did not act to minimize losses to the U-Boats, but we may never know.

p.s. My Father taught classes for awhile at the Air War College. I keep up on history that is factual. I, for one, do not want to repeat the mistakes of history. Nor do I attempt to rewrite history without additional verifiable information that has been carefully researched.

More hand waving.

You cant defend the newspaper by pointing to others. not then or now.

You about to lapse into your BusHiter rant again?

Your focus does not seem to have improved.

Nothing else ?

So your thesis remains dead as #80

As for the other stuff, no doubt bunkum, it does not address your argument, or the other 1000 lines or so of bloat.

You need to learn not to do that, all it does is erect a big sign on your head flashing LOSER.

Never did say anything about Bush versus Hitler. You are now becoming confused Raymond.

Looks like you cannot answer the obvious question so I would say that this discussion is over.

Most rants such as yours will dissolve once exposed to the light of intelligent discussion.

No bunkum here. Historical facts and careful observations. Remember, you will be doomed to repeat history if you do not take warnings from the past. I am sure that the Merchant Marines that were drowning in the Atlantic didn't think the torpedos were bunkun.

Lets face it Raymond, I shot down every single incorrect rant you had, while agreeing that the press should be responsible but not muzzled.

Game - Set - Match. I accept the win graciously.

Robert, you exaggerate the credibility of your representations of history greatly. So far, you've matched Raymond for rhetorical excess, but "won" little else.

Robert, your issue in #137 deserves a response.

Raymond, you do in fact have an issue with insulting people who are just engaging in open discourse. It affects your credibility, and when a genuine target comes along you're the boy who cried "wolf!" We've discussed this before.

Robert, even after I grant you all that, banning or deleting people for insults is impractical - and as you show yourself (well, sometimes anyway), insults can be delivered with wit. I'm a Canadian and so grew up on the British style - to me, that's part of political debate (though I should warn all y'all that post author Bill Roggio has a tougher standard).

Of course, our Marshals can always step in if things are getting a bit out of hand, and ask all present to cool it a bit.

I'm kind of enjoying this, but look at the narrowing of thread participation and reactions from level-headed folks like Robin. If persuasion is the goal, it would be wise to ratchet the insults down a notch or three.

Hi there Mr. Katzman,

Yes, it has become too narrow to be continued in this vein. I am afraid that can occur when two fairly immovable forces come to bear on each other...:)

So I do agree with your view from above and hasten to move on to another subject when it does and will come along. Soft on the wit also...:)

I also agree that Robin seems level-headed, but Robin also needs to review history a wee bit. My references are correct. Even if they are sad or disturbing viewed from our current time. But I am sure that the Navy did learn valuable lessons from history that they will never repeat again and that is the way it is supposed to work.

Let's all hope our troops get to come home sooner than later and as safe as possible. They deserve nothing less than our complete respect.

Everyone do have a great weekend, and I do mean everyone. Mahalo and Aloha!

Yes im goading, poking the fog with a pin.

Well, unless he will never see that going all over the map, personal histories, and flavors of "internet credentials" are not germane.

His tactic seems typical to the left, if the argument is lost, pretend it isnt, simply omit from recent memeory the words that shot you down, and toss up a few container ships full of fluff and puffery.

Perhaps you will steer the discussion elsewhere, and they will forget.

His argument berates the obvious. The most ernest flubbing of the obvious ive ever seen. The tactic seems the obtuse form of denial and how thick you can make the smoke screen.

Which of course, does not address the concerns expressed since the item opened, and does not address the why celebrim pointed out at #80

So his theses, such that it is, that the press shold bear no reponsibility for their actions, is still dead.

Perhaps in the next 10,000 words or less he can give us a reason why our press who consider it offensive to wear the flag on their lapel, because of a claim of nutrality between the head choppers, and your kids (yes thats what that is) should still be afforded the same when they turn overtly hostile.

So as celebrim points out, they did legwork for an enemy that would have difficult for themselves.

They used their connections and resources to gain access and trust that the enemy would find difficult, if not impossible to obtain.

They did so, in clear defiance of common sense of judgement about the National Interest and lives.

Their History of Hostility and lack of consideration shown look transparently motivated by ernest to oppose, blind to the welfare of the inhabitants of their own sanctuary.

What they did was indefensable, all the hyperventalalation and vapors and wandering off to other galaxies and your parade of shiny sparkely things are only attempted distractions.

They, like the rest of us have duties as well as liberty.

You have constitutional right of free migration, but your license to drive can be revoked if you endanger others, you have a right to own a gun, but you can lose it if you commit crimes.

They shouted fire in the theater, an offense even if nobody is hurt in the rush to the exits.

They have let their zeal for mud to throw at their country, overide everything.

After the war, Tokyo Rose, (Iva Toguri) was convicted of treason and imprisoned, released early for good behavior. In the 1970s a public campaign brought to light the testimony of the POWs who worked with her and supported her story. The testimony of the witnesses against her was questioned. Eventually she was pardoned by President Gerald Ford.

Can the New York Times claim forced cohersion or threat ?

I hope we can find the leakers and punish them, but they are not the only bad actors that deserve to be punished.

A press that consideres itself "neutral" ? so they have renounced their citizenship ?

New citizens are required to take a loyalty oath, if the press that announced they have no loyalty, have renounced their citizenship, they should be treated as such.

And they have said that much, and they are sure acting accordingly.

The left operate in a mode of eternal suspended judgment, but I do not suffer from their malady.

We should take the press at their word, if they are "neutral" and no longer American, ...

Course, this all comes from their communist internationale borderless stateless utopian dream.

But our country is real and their dream is not, if they dont consider themselves citizens, and have no loyalty to their country ....

Thats why they show no hesitation to attack america, to aid those that want to kill us, they dont even consider themselves part of us.

As they have ernestly been informing us.

No, Robert, I do not need to review my history as I'm quite familiar with the events you are misrepresenting with your exaggerated rhetoric. All to support a silly analogy whose relevance is baffling.

This is primarily aimed at our banned imposter...

Detaining foreign belligerent operating outside the rules of war is not a threat to our freedoms nor is it the first step down that slippery slope to nazism. It's just not. Get back to me when the jackboots ring your bell and I'll be right over. I'll bring my rifle.

All Americans can agree that a strong, reliable, and credible press is indispensable toward the maintenance of our democracy. The current press establishment is doing more than the government, or anyone else for that matter, to undermine its strength, reliability, and credibility. Physician, heal thyself.

To those who think the NY Times should have withheld publication...

As was originally pointed out by lewy14 and then much later by Mr. Sherrell, the information about the charter airline was already available on the Internet. This will be the case more and more. Advocating a publication ban will likewise become more and more irrelevant. Get used to it folks. If someone is ready to spill government secrets, there's nothing to be done about it.

Calling it treason will not stop it either, unless we really do want a Patriot act as onerous as the ACLU thinks the current one is.

Lurker, Yup thats the backdrop behind all of this, if it was some isolated thing out of character, there wouldnt be quite as much anger.

This isnt about the one story anymore than their attack on our country is one act.

As for if you could collate the same information, the Times should not have done even that job for them.

The usefull targeting information should have been left out.

The embeds understand that rule, its common sense that those inside our borders observing military operations observe the same.

The press didnt report our departing bomber fleet when the war opened, not our carrier launches, or the far earlier departing flights of the B1 and B2s that attacked from their bases on our own soil.

This is little different. its targeting data, and dont belong in the Times.

They know better, but they dont give a damn.

Robin, is it that you don't want to believe factual events that are germaine to the argument? I DO think you need to visit your history books again. It is utterly factual and your denying my examples happened is only insulting to the Merchant Marines that gave their lives while our Navy stood by and watched. Rather insulting to their memory just to deny it for the sake of a weak premise defense.

Robert, your claims are not "factual", you've given us your silly and simplistic opinions about WWII events that were far more complex than you seem to understand in a vain attempt to support a rather silly analogy.

Now you want to claim that if I don't agree with your silly rhetoric that I'm insulting WWII merchant marine? If this passes for sophisticated debate in your circles, I shouldn't be surprised that you are descending well below Raymond's level and making him look reasonable.

Ok, Robin.

You don't have to agree with an argument.

Raymond had brought up the ancient bash on the NYT that they published the sailing schedule and this caused loss of the Merchant Marine ships so thus, the NYT is bad.

I countered with the facts that refuted the statement.

So do you agree or disagree that the U.S. Navy did nothing while Merchant Marine ships were sunk by German U-Boats in our territorial waters prior to our formally entering WWII. Yes or no.

NO: Denial of actual historical facts.
Yes: Acceptance of actual historical facts.

History can be good or bad but it isn't silly.

You were described as level-headed. So what do you say to No or Yes?

Robert, your statement is a simplistic misrepresentation of the history, no more "factual" than Raymond's and trying to create a discussion of the factors that resulted in the U-boat campaign's initial successes along the East Coast is nothing but a juvenile attempt to hijack this thread.

They was prevented form publishing the ssiling schedules

And the NYT has been Bad Since Walter Durranty, and since there has been a continuum.

And you have refuted nothing.

Your straw man does not remove the resposibility of citizens. nor does it a grant of license to be hostile to the extent that lives are at risk.

Your throwing more chaff and misdirection in the air, and I refuse to fall for it.

So as celebrim pointed out, they did legwork for an enemy that would have difficult for themselves.

They used their connections and resources to gain access and trust that the enemy would find difficult, if not impossible to obtain.

And in clear defiance of common sense of judgement about the National Interest and lives.

They have a history both recent and stretching back of hostility that is transparent and blindness to the welfare of their fellows.

What they did was indefensable, all the wandering and your shower of shiny sparkely things are only attempted distractions.

One can almost excuse incompetence, but thats not what this is. this is agneda, in your face and ugly.

Too bad nothing will really be done about it, if it was me in charge, they would lose their white house press pass, and other such privleges granted to them by our good graces.

I would no longer pretend they have any thought for the well beaing of America or the well being of Americans.

The flag on your lapel is offensive to them ? they consider the loyalty to country of a citizen something they are beyond ?

They claim to be "Neutral" with repect to the country that protects them and offeres them so much ?

Fine, then they deserve the same consideration as the Swiss or the French, ill take them at their word that they are so "Neutral", and take notice that their overt hostility puts them on the enemy side of "Neutral".

Some have already disclaimed their citizenship loyalty on camera, perhaps we can start with those.

Well, I can see that I must have touched a nerve here. Robin is in total denial. Raymond is, well, Raymond.

But I want to talk about something else that is seriously bad Blog behavior.

This is for the Marshall and also Mr. Roggio. Before my last post, while typing in the control number, my Browser started scrolling up and down as if someone had reached through my Port 80 connection to this Blog and was trying to remote control my computer.

I have multi-layers of protection including a firewall and it froze out whomever was doing it. I have NEVER had any Blog ever do that to me. It was intentional and it was a HACK.

So I guess I hit a nerve on this site. Don't know whom was hacking me but my PC is now off the net and I am on my Redhat Linux server with a firewall. My PC is being scanned for any possible leftovers from the hacking attempt. This IP will be different from the PC so I felt like it was reasonably safe to drop in and let the Marshalls know a hacking attempt occurred.

Mr. Roggio, if you want to email me separately to talk about this, please feel free. I am a software and systems engineer that knows a hack attempt when I see it.

Whomever tried the hack? Shame on you. There are words to describe you but I promised not to use those words on this Blog. Just shame on you.

Aloha, Robert

Robert, you are deluding yourself. Both in your attempt to hijack the thread and as well in a bizarre accusation. There is no manner in which anyone associated with this blog could or would attack your computer. You need to cease making unfounded accusations.

Before my last post, while typing in the control number, my Browser started scrolling up and down as if someone had reached through my Port 80 connection to this Blog and was trying to remote control my computer. I have multi-layers of protection including a firewall and it froze out whomever was doing it. I have NEVER had any Blog ever do that to me. It was intentional and it was a HACK.

So I guess I hit a nerve on this site.

Robert,

Yeah, sounds like your system is affected by the all too common eye-dee-ten-tee problem.

The good news is that you can immediately purge it from your system by pushing the NUMLOCK key before using the keypad again! On most systems, you'll get a visual confirmation that the purge process worked -- a small light will turn on by the NumLock key on your keyboard.

Once this eye-dee-ten-tee problem has been corrected, you'll be able to enter a string of numbers (such as the WOC Turing code) using the numeric keypad while remaining safe from the swarms of malicious screen-scrolling hackers.

As an added bonus, this solution will work on both your Windows and Linux systems! Good luck with your problem =)

Cheers,

Shad

So now he is under attack by grey alien hackers.

Hey dude. you could always try linux, winblows does do some weird things, and while I look on your latest paranoia with ... heh... well... anyway, email imported gifts bypass firewalls, because they reach outward foiling the network filters.

As for the prescription, if not linux. then perhaps some scanning for the machine and some Dr Sanity for the flying toaster pilot.

Btw. the scrolling bit pretty much discredited any claim that you know much about software networking or winblows quirks.

Which, considering the incoming payloads I see out there, probably means your box is owned as most winblows boxes are. but they / you you would never know it unless they are sloppy.

But golly, thanks for the really fine humor that its attack driods from winds of change.

I just dont think I can top that one, ever.

ROFL, Shad. Good one. That's hilarious.

Ohh Shad ,, stop that, you almost killed me.

Very pleased to have amused you guys. Especially Raymond. It actually felt strangely good to see him happy instead of posting the usual stuff.

Uh, Shad, I was not using my numpad. The numbers above qwerty on the keyboard rarely move the cursor, but maybe you haven't noticed that.

Robin, not a prayer I would want to hijack this thread. Air-threads are just not worth it. Or are your continual accusations of hijacking just a diversion from no ability to post a reasonably counter-opinion to my posts? Hmmmm.

Next time you watch your browser moving up, down and randomly while your hands are not touching the keyboard or mouse, then assume all is well and ignore it guys. It's just an aberration. It's just the numlock....yep. No problem.

But when you find out that someone has cleaned out your bank account and ordered two dozen credit cards in your name, don't email me....I tried to warn you....:)

Nick, I was even wearing my new aluminum foil beanie and it didn't protect me!!

Ok, go for it guys...Lord knows you enjoy it....

I think I strained a rib.

Robert,

You need to use the non-stick foil. Says so right here in my manual.

Seriously, don't assume this is related to Winds. Think for a bit, and ask yourself how another commenter here would even know which IP to target. Etc.

There are lots of script kiddies and spammers out there, on the other hand... and if you surf these days, gotta keep it locked down and do the spyware/malware scans regularly (most of which would not leave an overt trace as you desribed, and which would be far more damaging than what you reported).

If your virus software isn't 100% up to date and you don't yet have a good spyware/trojan scanner on your machine, and/or you don't have a router with firewall set up as your access point... consider this a warning from the computer gods and equip yourself for safe surfing. Then run the scans.

Via No Pasaran

Were it in 2005, they would have given away the plans for D-day. Why Would the Times Publish This Story?

Simple - the mainstream media are stupid about the world, their feelings are hurt, and they are ready to kill.

He links to TCS

A recent article by Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Margot Williams in the New York Times revealed the use of aircraft charter companies by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, together with specific aircraft markings, bases, routes, and other information helpful to identification of such flights.

Money Quote for Me ....

However, if they do have a moral identity as human beings, they should know that, if a certain civilian plane comes down over an unnamed Middle Eastern country, and all the US personnel aboard are killed, there is one compatriot who will regard them as murderers. May they think of this as they look in the mirror.

But they are Socialists, particulary INhuman creatures that have displayed the most horrific displays of inhumanity, they would drop your children in saddams people shredder to get at Bush.

And figurativly, thats what they did. the mass graves we find in Iraq, where the kids are uncovered still clutching toys,,,, are not fit to grace the pages of the Times, but any angle to help the in-humans that want us dead get as much page real estate as they can invect mud to fill.

In the aftermath of Tet, the commie-loving Leftist media that loved and slavered over ways to cover up and hide crimes against humanity by the VietMihn, and the horrific abuses that exterminated all political support for the communists in the south.

The leftist media trumpeted the collapse and destruction of the NVA army, that brought them to the bargain table, as a defeat for the USA, because they wanted the Communists to win, and hated the USA, so they Lied.

So real crimes against humanity was never mentioned, and with John Kerrys help, America was depicted by the leftist media as the real criminals.

Nothing new under the sun ,,, new conflict .. same evil socialists in the media,,, same twisted evil on their pages,,, hate of the good and praise of evil,,, the same inverted morality.

Its difficult not to hate such twisted creatures.

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.




Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • sabinesgreenp.myopenid.com: Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (david.blue@...)
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Categories
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en