Treason by the Times
If you've read the two previous posts on the topic of the NSA story then you'll know that the program was leaked a year ago and not reported until now, it seems to be placed suspiciously, and why it was exaggerated. Now I'll continue on this topic.
A year ago the program was leaked to the New York Times, the White House asked them not to publish it because it put our safety at risk.
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
-Quoted from Wikipedia
So for a year the NYT kept quiet and even though the White House asked them not to report the story because it put our safety at risk they did anyway a year later. Not only is that considered treason but it was carefully placed to cover up the successful Iraq elections, and disrupt the Patriot act renewal.
I've already talked to you about the careful placement during important events and how the story is exaggerated in the two previous posts, now I'll talk to about how the New York Times is commiting treason.
Lets take a close look at this.
The NSA tapped into the international phone calls of known terrorist supporters to obtain information. With this information we have been able to stop multiple terrorist attacks. This program kept up safe. Then the New York Times found out about the program thanks to an illegal leak by a person who should be investigated. The White House asked the New York Times not to publish the story and they didn't. For a year. They waited until the perfect time to do the most harm to the US. The renewal of the Patriot act and success in Iraq. Publishing the story would be one thing but at that time makes it worse. And to elevate it the story was exaggerated to help demonize the Bush administration. Add this all up and you have a really big case of treason.
It's illegal to leak information about secret government agencies but when doing so does as much damage as this you are putting the country in real danger and that is called treason. If you don't understand the danger I'll explain it for you. Now with this leak, the terrorists know about how the NSA is tapping into phone calls and they will be extra cautious about their communication. They will do things like have special words that have a different meaning. Apple pie could mean dirty bomb. Now the NSA will have a hard time obtaining information needed to stop terrorist attacks putting this country in real danger and you can thank the New York Times for that.
Unfortunatly this is all being ignored and the wrong people are being blamed. Instead of blaming the people who leaked this and put your life at risk, the person who wanted to keep your life safe is getting blamed. You watch, the people who actually broke the law will be ignored as the impeach Bush rallies increase.
I want you to just listen to me when I tell you that it's not Bush's fault, he's not breaking the law. It's the fault of the person who leaked this information to the NYT and to the NYT for publishing it. What they did was treason and nothing less and I want an investigation.
I want an investigation of how the New York Times got the story, who was behind the publishing of the story, who was behind when the story would be published, and who wrote the story.
And then I want to see punishment.
A year ago the program was leaked to the New York Times, the White House asked them not to publish it because it put our safety at risk.
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
-Quoted from Wikipedia
So for a year the NYT kept quiet and even though the White House asked them not to report the story because it put our safety at risk they did anyway a year later. Not only is that considered treason but it was carefully placed to cover up the successful Iraq elections, and disrupt the Patriot act renewal.
I've already talked to you about the careful placement during important events and how the story is exaggerated in the two previous posts, now I'll talk to about how the New York Times is commiting treason.
Lets take a close look at this.
The NSA tapped into the international phone calls of known terrorist supporters to obtain information. With this information we have been able to stop multiple terrorist attacks. This program kept up safe. Then the New York Times found out about the program thanks to an illegal leak by a person who should be investigated. The White House asked the New York Times not to publish the story and they didn't. For a year. They waited until the perfect time to do the most harm to the US. The renewal of the Patriot act and success in Iraq. Publishing the story would be one thing but at that time makes it worse. And to elevate it the story was exaggerated to help demonize the Bush administration. Add this all up and you have a really big case of treason.
It's illegal to leak information about secret government agencies but when doing so does as much damage as this you are putting the country in real danger and that is called treason. If you don't understand the danger I'll explain it for you. Now with this leak, the terrorists know about how the NSA is tapping into phone calls and they will be extra cautious about their communication. They will do things like have special words that have a different meaning. Apple pie could mean dirty bomb. Now the NSA will have a hard time obtaining information needed to stop terrorist attacks putting this country in real danger and you can thank the New York Times for that.
Unfortunatly this is all being ignored and the wrong people are being blamed. Instead of blaming the people who leaked this and put your life at risk, the person who wanted to keep your life safe is getting blamed. You watch, the people who actually broke the law will be ignored as the impeach Bush rallies increase.
I want you to just listen to me when I tell you that it's not Bush's fault, he's not breaking the law. It's the fault of the person who leaked this information to the NYT and to the NYT for publishing it. What they did was treason and nothing less and I want an investigation.
I want an investigation of how the New York Times got the story, who was behind the publishing of the story, who was behind when the story would be published, and who wrote the story.
And then I want to see punishment.
posted by Cody O'Connor @ 6:39 PM
24 Comments:
At 19/12/05 12:45 AM,
Gayle said…
You are absolutely right on! I too want to see an investigation on this and I want to see someone punished for this. If this isn't treason, I don't know what is! This goes beyond the bounderies of belief. That the NYT would do this without even thinking about the consequences is beyond belief.
You have written a very clear and consice post, and it's obvious that you spent a bit of time on it. I've been to other blogs where full grown adults have not been as specific.
Kudos. Well done! I will be celebrating when you aren't so bogged down with school that you can't be in politics full time. You are definitely going to be a wonderful addition to the political stream of this country. I, for one, am looking forward to it! And just because I'm a stubborn woman I'm going to make myself live long enough to enjoy it.
You are going to be a force to be reckoned with!
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND MAY YOU AND YOURS ENJOY A HAPPY AND BLESSED NEW YEAR! :)
Oh, and if you want a good laugh, go check out both of my blogs!
At 19/12/05 6:36 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
You have written a very clear and consice post, and it's obvious that you spent a bit of time on it. I've been to other blogs where full grown adults have not been as specific.
I have taken some interest in this topic and by now (post #3) I think I've completely covered it. I just hope I am convincing enough because even some Republicans are split on this issue. Anyways, I'm glad like my writing on this topic. I think I may be posting every day again if I've got enough to talk about. I've done good so far
Kudos. Well done! I will be celebrating when you aren't so bogged down with school that you can't be in politics full time. You are definitely going to be a wonderful addition to the political stream of this country. I, for one, am looking forward to it! And just because I'm a stubborn woman I'm going to make myself live long enough to enjoy it.
I'm glad you like my "stuff" I'm just hoping I still have readers they just aren't commenting. I think I'll put up a counter tonight....
At 19/12/05 6:38 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
I don't know where I heard this but holidays is short for holy days. Just don't tell the secularists that one because then we have to go to seasons greetings, lol.
Happy Holy days!
At 19/12/05 9:05 AM,
shoprat said…
For most of those who hate Bush, America's safety and security is secondary at best. They would rather control a people in misery then join us in freedom.
At 19/12/05 9:27 AM,
Dan Trabue said…
Would I be wrong in thinking that the way the laws are written, it is treason to be the leak-er, but it is not illegal for the newspapers to print it? Freedom of speech and all?
I'd check out your allegations before you accuse someone of treason. It may well be that someone at the Bush whitehouse committed treason, I'm just not sure that the NYT did (actually, I'm pretty sure they didn't, since they're a MSM with many lawyers who are more concerned about not getting sued or in trouble than in printing important news).
For instance, inciting hatred towards a group may be a crime that I would accuse you of...IF I were sure it is a crime. I'm not, so I wouldn't. You get my point?
You can't just accuse people of crimes and expect the justice system to accede to your claims unless those claims are based in reality.
At 19/12/05 12:03 PM,
Gayle said…
Dan will be shocked when all is said and done. He is, however, as entitled to his opinion as we are.
Cody, I suggest you don't put up a counter. I had one and got rid of it because each and every time you go into your blog to read your comments, the darned thing counts that as a visit. So you really don't get an accurate count of anything. You can more or less tell how many people have visited by checking your profile.
You are an excellent blogger and the more you post the more visitors you will see, especially if you take the time to go to their blogs and comment. They will then realize you are back.
Just in case you didn't know it, Shoprat reccommended your blog at his site.
At 19/12/05 1:13 PM,
Dan Trabue said…
"I want you to just listen to me when I tell you that it's not Bush's fault, he's not breaking the law."
Apparently, Republican Arlen Specter is not listing to you. Funny! Why wouldn't he? I mean, you SAID Bush is okay and that the NYT ought to be charged with treason. Isn't that enough?
======
"Whether it was legal is a matter that ought to be examined," Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN television.
"There are limits to what the president can do under the constitution," Specter said.
=====
Thankfully (hopefully), Specter and others will rely on what the laws actually say rather than just take your word.
I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, Mr. Cody. Just trying to point out that you should base your arguments on real laws rather what you suspect the laws ought to be.
At 19/12/05 3:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
What would NYT care about country? They only want the story.
At 19/12/05 3:27 PM,
Unknown said…
Wow... how quick you Repugs pull out your axes and sharpen them up when you think it will benefit you politically. Where were the calls for investigation when the whole Plame/Wilson leak happened?
At 19/12/05 4:15 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Benifit ME politically? I'm not getting anything out of this. Maybe I'm the only one outraged that the country is at a greater risk now because of the NYT.
Dan T. I don't think this is considered a freedom of speech case. Leaking classified information from the government is a little different than freedom of speech. I don't think they're protected
hold on.... *does research*
I know the NYT isn't protected right now
read it.
Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public speech for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution.
With respect to governmental information, a government distinguishes which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest.
At 19/12/05 7:09 PM,
MJ said…
I saw something like this on The Factor. Some news network or paper (I can't remember which one) wanted to air a video from Bin Laden, even though the White House said that it could be dangerous to do so, because Bin Laden might get a coded message out to a terror cell, causing an attack. I didn't hear how it turned out.
When did liberal turn into America-hater?
At 20/12/05 2:31 AM,
Gayle said…
"When did liberal turn into America hater?" Good question, Mary Ann, good question indeed. But the liberals won't say they "hate America." They will say they "love America." They don't, but they will say it just the same.
Useless to argue with them. I don't anymore. I started out that way but gave it up a long time ago. I still let liberals comment on my blogs as long as they are polite. If not, they are banned. But if they are polite, they may feel free to comment. I simply don't argue with them. It's pointless to me. You can't get anywhere. My readers may comment if they choose to do so. For myself I choose to ignore them. All of them. It's not worth my time or energy. I shall leave the arguing up to my younger blogging partners. Sooner or later though, they will get tired of the libs too. It's a given.
But I love you guys (my blogging partners.) Keep up the good work Cody. But I do suggest you will be happier to save your energy for your brilliant writing. And you are brilliant, don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise! :)
At 20/12/05 6:24 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Thanks for the compliments Gayle, I plan on writing one more article on this topic where I pull up the ACTUALL NYT article and the ACTUALL US laws to finish clarifying this.
At 20/12/05 12:43 PM,
Gayle said…
And when you do, Cody, I will advertise your blog. Promise.
At 20/12/05 12:58 PM,
Dan Trabue said…
Well, Gayle's disbelief notwithstanding, I DO love the Americas, ALL of them. I love the US, I love Mexico, I love countries all around the world, to the degree that one can love a country.
Why would you choose to believe I DON'T love the US?
Because I would hold our leaders accountable? But you would hold our leaders accountable, too, wouldn't you, if they've done wrong?
Because I disagree with you as to whether our leaders have done wrong? Well, Okay. We disagree. I don't think you don't love the US. Why would you think I do?
What sound, logical and ethical reason could anyone have for thinking that I don't love Gayle, or Cody or all my brothers and sisters here in the US, to the extent that one can love folk whom one barely knows?
Doubt me if you will, but it seems reasonable to be able to say why.
At 20/12/05 1:01 PM,
Dan Trabue said…
Cody, as to your interpretation of the law, we shall see. Do you honestly expect that some court will be holding the NYT on trial for treason?
No. They won't. Will it be because the courts are part of a vast left wing conspiracy in cahoots with the MSM to undermine the US?
No. It won't. If W supporters COULD have the NYT charged with a crime, they would (they did Clinton). The NYT won't be charged with a crime because no crime was committed on their part.
At 20/12/05 2:49 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
The NYT won't be charged with a crime because no crime was committed on their part.
I thought I just proved you wrong on that. Did you read the quote I gave you? Freedom of the press does have restrictions.
As for the Liberals being America-haters I think she was talking about the New York Times but I could be wrong.
At 20/12/05 6:06 PM,
Gayle said…
Cody, I believe she was talking about liberals in general, but maybe she will come back and tell us.
I have two or three bits of info for you:
- Phantom Driver is Count Blogula.
- Someone (either you or someone else besides me because my post is still up there)needs to post on Blog America. Mine's been there for a very long time.
- Go check out today's cartoon. :)
At 20/12/05 7:47 PM,
MJ said…
I was talking mostly about the NYT, but there are a lot of liberals like them (Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Barbra Streisand, etc.) If they love America, as we say down here, they sure do have a funny way of showin' it.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, CODY!!
At 21/12/05 9:42 AM,
Gayle said…
Blagggh, you can bet they already know it. At least many of them do. But you are absolutely right; why take a chance? The NYT really screwed up!
Cody, check out My Republican Blog. The last post's been up for three days and you haven't seen it yet. I don't want you to miss it!
At 22/12/05 3:49 AM,
Gayle said…
Well, you missed it. But you can look for it. The title is: "HAPPY WHATEVER!"
At 22/12/05 10:30 AM,
Nunzia said…
right on.
merry christmas!
At 22/12/05 11:58 AM,
Gayle said…
You may want to also check out "Blog America" Cody. (Where the heck are you anyway?)
There's an English guy there who doesn't understand our election process and thinks the 2004 election of President Bush was "questionable and at the least very debateable." Obviously he doesn't understand the election process. I've explained it to him. With 30 out of 50 states winning the electoral vote, it's no
way "at least very debateable."
At 23/12/05 9:51 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Sorry, I've been taking a few days off. I'll be back after Christmas, promise. All of the other pundits of the media are taking a Christmas break so I figured I would too (but don't worry I'll be back sooner than them)
I hope everyone has a good Christmas eve eve!
Post a Comment
<< Home