Friday, December 16, 2005

New York Times, Take 2. Roll 'em...

It appears that the guys at Power Line agree with our earlier post on the Treasonistas at the New York Times and the NSA (even though they probably never saw our earlier post here at HazZzmat). You know, the patriots in the Federal government and the MSM who just outted another secret surveillance tactic in our War on Terror:
How does the Times know this? Because intelligence officials who are hostile to the Bush administration, and disagree with its policies, leaked the information:

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
Right. Their real concerns involve a Republican in the White House. Power Line comes to the appropriate conclusion:
The Times believes that it should be the arbiter of what will and will not help the terrorists and thus impair our national security. I don't agree. Under the Plame precedent, this case is a no-brainer. The intelligence officials who leaked to the Times should be identified, criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison. Under the Pentagon Papers case, the reporters and editors at the Times who published the leaked story can't be criminally prosecuted. Perhaps the Supreme Court should revisit that precedent when the opportunity arises.
Yep. In fact, here's an even better idea. We at HazZzmat dare call this treason. Do a search on that word the next time you read the U.S. Constitution. Or better yet, we'll help. Check out a transcript of the Constitution. Try Article IV, Section 3. It's a useful trip down memory lane that maybe Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and their friends in the CIA, NSA, and State should take. Along with the Attorney General and the current leaders of Congress. The language is a bit archaic. But the legal path is quite clear.

No comments: