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.

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 wan