The downward slide of the New York Times continues
It seems that according to the New York Times, leaks concerning national security are illegal and must be prosecuted if they are
i) meant to discredit Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson; or
ii) given to a conservative columnist like Bob Novak.
To the Times, leaks are apparently acceptable and completely above board if they
i) raise questions about the national security tactics employed by the Administration, like electronic eavesdropping; or
ii) could lead to impeachment of President Bush in the fantasyland of the Left.
Despite the fact that the Times considers its sources not leakers but whistleblowers (double standard?), as Michelle Malkin says, a leak is a leak is a leak:
Hello, 2006. The New York Times kicked off the new year by refusing to answer its own ombudsman's questions about the timing of the newspaper's anonymous illegal leak-dependent National Security Agency monitoring story. Long live transparency and accountability.
Meanwhile, Times reporter James Risen launched his anonymous illegal leak-dependent book, "State of War," with a self-congratulatory appearance on NBC's "Today" show. Risen's leakers, he told Couric, were the opposite of the Valerie Plame case leakers because his people came forward "for the best reasons." How do we know that's true? Because Risen says it is. So there.
Risen then patted himself and his bosses on the back for their "great public service" in publishing the story (never too soon to go Pulitzer Prize-begging) and heaped more praise on his anonymous sources as "truly American patriots." Risen also told Couric that many of his law-breaking sources "came to us because they thought you have to follow the rules and you have to follow the law." Uh-huh.
Asked about the timing of the original story (held a year, then published in the midst of Senate debate over the Patriot Act and a few weeks before the release of his book), Risen said "it wasn't my decision" and refused to "discuss the internal deliberations."
In other words: Keeping secrets to protect counterterrorism operations is an impeachable offense, but keeping secrets to protect the Gray Lady's fanny is an elite media prerogative.
This is just the latest in a string of screw-ups by the Times. Note that they sat on the story for a year until the day after the Iraq election and then published it, perhaps to undermine the upcoming publication of a book containing the same revelations by one of their own reporters.
posted by Road Hammer @ 9:21 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I seem to recall that the special investigator found Libby guilty of one thing: not being completely co-operative with the investigation. They cleared him of leak charges.
Despite that, thank God we have the NYT to tell us what should be considered criminal behaviour by society.
If a person in America has a phone conversation to someone overseas where they mention the words "bomb" and "attack", and it raises red flags to authorities, it is clearly evidence that we are on the way to Stalinism and the very spirit of democracy is being undermined, is that correct?
How is Malkin unqualified to have an opinion on this, or anything else, for that matter? I'd say the fact that she has made a pretty decent career for herself as a pundit, (despite the far Left calling her a sell-out because she's an urbane, female, vis min) means at least something.
The republic of Canada does exactly what the US does, specifically, what Bush is now in trouble for which is listening into conversations between domestic and foreign parties. Check out the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment.
Also look at the proposed Modernization of Information Technologies Act, which would allow for spy agencies to perform electronic eavesdropping on entirely domestic conversations.
Malkin doesn't traffic in fiction like Moore does. He freely admits it that he bends the truth in his "documentaries" to make a point.
Yes it does and the head of CSE admitted so in testimony to a House committee this spring. Moreover, interception of completely domestic communications is entirely legal in Canada.
See here on the CSE, from a Parliamentary committee on May 4, 2005. Sorenson is a Tory MP, Coulter the head of the CSE:
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Before 9/11--I'm trying to get a grasp on how 9/11 really changed your mandate or the ability you had to collect--you couldn't eavesdrop on any conversation that originated in Canada or was received in Canada, could you?
Mr. Keith Coulter: Correct.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: After 9/11, you're allowed to do that, right?
Mr. Keith Coulter: That is correct.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Before 9/11, were there other countries where the security organizations had the ability to do that?
Mr. Keith Coulter: Absolutely.
What we presented to Parliament after 9/11 was that all of our closest international partners had solved this problem. The United States, the U.K., Australia, and even New Zealand had already acquired the ability to do this.
We couldn't get into the security game. We couldn't get into the terrorist game without this authority for those two reasons that I mentioned in my opening statement. One, we couldn't do that on one end, in Canada; and, two, with the technological revolution, the communications we were trying to protect and the communications we were trying to acquire coexisted in those electronic highways and haystacks.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: So you were screwed--the French already picked that up.
Yes, you were. And in reality it took the terrorist attack to get Canada really into the game. Other countries had recognized the need, but we were slow coming in on this.
Mr. Keith Coulter: It was a wake-up call. It brought us rapidly forward to the authority structure we needed to get in the game. So it was a historic moment for CSE as well as broadly for North America in terms of the security agenda.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I know you came in then, but CSE had certainly tried to get the ability or encourage people to get that ability, but it took 9/11 before you got it.
Mr. Keith Coulter: Parliamentarians asked me when we were presenting the legislation why I hadn't been arguing for this all along. I started just before 9/11, so this wasn't me personally, but there was a public environment in which I think there wasn't support for taking this lead.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: But there was support in New Zealand, in Australia, in Great Britain, and the United States.
Mr. Keith Coulter: But it became obvious to us at that moment that this was a necessary step for CSE or we were not going to be able to help with this problem and agenda.
********
BTW, thanks for the bulletin that Canada is not a republic ... it was a joke designed to show that the moral high ground cannot be claimed by Canada on this issue since we do exactly what the far left thinks is an impeachable offense.
Seems the NYT editorial, which I already linked to, shows they are not so much against leaks period as they are against the motivations behind certain leaks ... that is, if it suits the NYT agenda.
And finally, Moore has repeatedly admitted that he's in the business of making points, not factually accurate filmmaking.
Wiretapping and listening to a convo between two domestic parties by CSIS or law enforcement is completely legal in Canada if authorized by a judicial warrant. See here.
With regards to the CSE, private communications is bureaucratese for any communication involving a Canadian or a person in Canada. The CSE can go to the Min of Defense, say "We need to spy on Al Franken of the USA who has been talking to one Bobcaygeon" and if the Min of Defense says "Go" then they can tap your phone at will to listen to you and Al talk about whatever it is you guys would talk about.
See here, pages 5-7. Just because you are not "directing" your operations at Canadians or anyone in Canada doesn't mean that you can't lawfully pick up conversations that involve Canadians.
As I understand it, the only difference our system and the US's is that there the Pres authorizes it and here it's the lowly Minister of Defense.
Post a Comment
<< Home