I'm not sure if this is news to anyone, but I'm going to write about it all the same. In the last year, the New York Times as exposed the fact that the NSA is tapping international phone calls originating from the United States going to terrorist hotbeds like Pakistan and Afghanistan (all of which is legal), gathers and analyzes phone numbers (also legal), monitors international banking transactions (which even the Times has acknowleged is legal), and now, on top of all of their other transgressions, has revealed a top-secret memo written by General Casey that there will be significant troop draw-downs in Iraq by the end of 2007. Way to go, New York Times! With publications like this, al Qaeda can make up for their lack of a spy network!
I can't think of any way to stop this crap, which clearly jeopardizes national security in a huge way, other than to begin prosecuting the New York Times ownership and staff, starting with Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller, under the Espionage Act. Of course this will cause an uproar amongst the libs, but their blathering and complaining is small beer in comparison to the lives that could be potentially lost as a result of these latest outrages.
I fail to see the point of these stories being published. I fail to see who benefits or where the public good is being serviced. The New York Times is a rogue organization. About the best I can hope for at this point is that the shareholders of this company (NYT: NYSE) throw Sulzberger and his snotty 60's retreads out. Either that, or that the stock continues to go in the toilet. As a matter of fact, I think I'll put their symbol on my quote screen and look forward to taking delight in every point lost.
1 comment:
Sorry, Getty....the Times ran the story first on their website, then ran it in print a day later. The WSJ ran their story AFTER the Times did, with the intent of getting right what the Times got wrong. The WSJ position is that if the Times hadn't ran the piece, they certainly wouldn't have followed. You can read the Wall St. Journal's response here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008585. As for your contention that Islamo-terrorists (or drug dealers, or IRA gun-runners, or anyone else) already knew that their transactions were being monitored, I've addressed that issue in my latest post. True, they of course knew and continue to know that their bank transactions are being monitored; what they didn't know was how or where. They do now.
Post a Comment