Peter King wants NY Times prosecuted
Posted by Moonage on 26 Jun 2006 | Tagged as: National Politics, National Security, The Media
Here’s the story:
(Peter King) To me, the real question here is the conduct of The New York Times. By disclosing this in time of war, they have compromised America’s anti-terrorist policies. This is a very effective policy. They have compromised it. This is the second time The New York Times has done this.
And to me, nobody elected The New York Times to do anything. And The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people.
And I’m calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher. We’re in time of war, Chris, and what they’ve done here is absolutely disgraceful. I believe they violated the Espionage Act, the Comint Act.
Now, although I don’t buy the “who elected them” argument. I will argue that the stories they’ve been publishing of late do serve the enemy more than the US. And, that’s not a small issue. The wiretap flap was purely an issue created by NYT. It did not really inform anyone, and it was reported incorrectly and caused a lot of headaches for the country at large because of that. So, one had to question their motives. They were more than willing to present PART of the story, but not the entire thing. Now. we’ve got the monitoring of international money trails. Folks, there is nothing new about this at all. This isn’t something that just popped up overnight in secrecy. So, why is it suddenly newsworthy? The SEC has been monitoring funds since 1933 or so. Don’t think for one second that they don’t. Especially if that money was coming from a country we’re at war with. You think the Federal Trade Commission hasn’t been keeping an eye on financial trails to organized crime? The FBI’s been doing it for YEARS to track drug dealers. So, all of a sudden, the New York Times comes to the conclusion that we’re doing the exact same thing against terrorists that we’ve done against organized crime and drug dealers for seventy years and THAT is a major story worth exposing and compromising our ability to execute?
Bottom line, I don’t think these exposes the New York Times have been running are being run in the best interests of the country. Therefore, the New York Times has some other reason for running them. Be it contempt for President Bush or selling advertising, it doesn’t matter. The argument is already being made that Peter King has no right to question the media because of the First Amendment. However, if INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE at the NYT are doing this for some other reason than relaying news to the masses, then those individuals IMO have abandoned the protections the First Amendment provides them as “the press”. The Supreme Court, in the case of the wiretap stories, found this to be as true as shouting “FIRE” in a theater. Individuals were prosecuted and questioned as to their motives although the NYT itself was not.
This story is not quite as enticing as the wiretaps. And, I don’t think it’s going to get the attention the wiretap flap did. However, once again, the New York Times will get a LOT of attention. And, IMO, that attention is merited. They’ve got another agenda on their mind than the well-being of the country. Just as the media as the unfettered right to question our government, we have the unfettered right to question media. When the New York Times finally gets that point, then maybe we’ll get investigative reports that have us in mind moreso than their own personal agendas. Then, the real meaning of “the press” will return to the New York Times.
And, for what it’s worth, I agree with Peter King and fully support his request that they be investigated for violating the Espionage Act until they can justify what other reason they had to run this story. IMO, compromising the national security of the United States to belittle and undermine a President they don’t like is nothing more than shallow self-serving treason. The very last thing it is freedom of “the press”.
Updates:
- Some people, including Homeland Stupidity, are questioning whether or not this revelation by the Times might have disrupted the program. To me, that is so NOT THE POINT. The point here is what the intent of “the press” was. He also worries about “mission creep”. A viable concern. However, that’s a legal issue that can and will be discussed later. As much of a concern as he expresses over the internr of Homeland Security, I have even more over the ethics and intent of the New York Times. It’s up to the press to keep the government in check. Who is expected to keep the press in check?
- Expose the Left has video of Peter King’s statement along with the New York Times reply ( in a comment ). There are also a ton of comments. Some are quite good.
- My friend Dirty
Dingus also has an excellent take. He is referencing an incredibly long dissection of the events from Hugh Hewitt. Hugh questions their motives as I do. However, - Michelle Malkin basically dissects the people involved and the responses.
- Austin Bay IMO most likely got it right in their very simple deduction: “The Times, apparently, told the story because it could and because it thinks it can get away with it.”
- Stop the ACLU wants them prosecuted as well.
Basically, the New York Times’ response to the issue has been worse than the article written.
10 Comments »
on 26 Jun 2006 at 11:16 am 1.Michael Hampton said …
The damage to the national security was done when the UN published this three years ago. You think al Qaeda isn’t watching the UN watching them?
Most telling to me was the Times executive editor Bill Keller’s recounting of their conversations with Bush administration officials regarding the story. If his telling is anywhere near accurate, then the publication of this story is likely to do little if any damage to national security, and might actually help.
As for who keeps the press in check, we do.
on 26 Jun 2006 at 11:48 am 2.Moonage
said …
My point is not whether or not the Times actually did any damage or not. It was whether or not THEY perceived it as doing damage. It’s their intent that needs to be investigated. If their intent was a misguided effort at keeping the public informed, then they’ve done their job. If it was anything else, Peter King is correct to have them investigated. Even if they truly did not jeapordize national security, their intent was not in the best interest of national security. The Chicago guys that just got busted for planning to blow up the Sears Tower never actually jeapordized national security. But, their intent was to do so. Same thing.
As for us keeping the press in check, that’s exactly what I’m trying to do in my own very small way.
on 26 Jun 2006 at 12:03 pm 3.StormWarning
said …
The SWIFT program was well known by people, at least those people in the filed of counterterrorism for a number of years. Having said that, I question the reporting practices of the NY Times (and I also question Cong. King’s focus on this issue…he’s got a re-election coming up).
Reports of US Monitoring of SWIFT Transactions Are Not New: The Practice Has Been Known By Terrorism Financing Experts For Some Time
U.S. Government Terrorist Financing Initiative Involving SWIFT (updated)
on 26 Jun 2006 at 2:41 pm 4.Michael Hampton said …
I cited and linked to both those articles at Homeland Stupidity, since it appears the links got filtered out…
As for the Times, I’ve certainly seen plenty of bias from them, but nothing at all to indicate they didn’t act in the public interest — or at least think they were doing so.
I could probably go on for hours deconstructing Malkin, Hewitt, et al, but I haven’t got the time for it right now. Maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet…
on 26 Jun 2006 at 2:45 pm 5.Moonage
said …
The links issue has been corrected, please stick them here again if you wish Michael.
on 26 Jun 2006 at 2:49 pm 6.Moonage
said …
I don’t believe everything I read on the internet. However, I’m less inclined to believe everything I read in major media these days. I try to expose both sides to any issue, that’s why you’re here. However, my issue has been with the New York Times reporting, not necessarily this one particular issue. The issue, in a bigger sense, is how does the public check what the media is doing? Blogs are fine and good, but we still don’t have the exposure print and broadcast media do. And, as has been well noted, people are more inclined to pick and choose what blogs they want to be exposed to, whereas broadcast and print media are blaring their headlines on every sidewalk and television set in the country along with the internet. So, the “people” factor is certainly limited. In this case, I think it’s fairly obvious from the New York Times rebuttal they didn’t even take national security into consideration. So, who do they answer to if their only real consideration is political or selling ads?
on 26 Jun 2006 at 3:10 pm 7.Dirty Dingus said …
Gingus? Its Dirty Dingus you Loon
It may or may not have been well known in terrorist circles that the US Govt is tracking financial transactions but I can’t see how shouting out loud serves anyone other than the terrorists.
I’d like to see the NY Times go bust and the sooner the better because I agree they didn’t care about anything other than propping up falling revenue/circulation
on 26 Jun 2006 at 3:50 pm 8.Moonage
said …
Well slap me stupid ( or preferably just let me buy you a beer. ) I had too many things going on at the same time. I use word association to remember a lot of people ( especially that incredibly long French name you blog under ). For you, it was always Genghis Khan. ( You know him as the guy who scored lots and lots of babes, he must have been “dirty” a lot. ) Unfortunately, this time I apparently forgot to transpose the D.
I’m not really of the camp that they actually revealed anything to the terrorists. Zarqawi was apparently pretty internet savvy. However, I am of the camp that they could care less if they had helped him in the name of selling more ads. And, under the law, intent is all that matters. Proving it’s hard. In their case, they’re apparently pleading insanity.
on 29 Jun 2006 at 9:18 am 9.MM said …
Too much intrusion into the privacy of citizens deserves to be reported. Quit hiding behind a war (that is now an occupancy) that shouldn’t have taken place to begin with.
on 29 Jun 2006 at 10:00 am 10.Moonage
said …
What does this have to do with “an occupancy”?