Ann Agrees
In keeping with Jim's thoughts on the New York Times and its war against the war on terror, here are some thoughts from Ann Coulter:
Coulter was writing about what she called "the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government antiterrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times," noting that "last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the U.S."
To Coulter, a lawyer, that amounted to nothing less than treason, and she wants the newspaper punished for betraying a vital antiterrorism operation meant to prevent future 9/11s.
"Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots," Ann recalled. "She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.
"Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher 'Pinch' Sulzberger has just been named al-Qaida's 'Employee of the Month' for the 12th straight month.
Coulter agrees that what the Times has done fits the definition for treason.
"The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: 'Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.'"
Seems pretty clear to me, too.
Liberals, she wrote, invoke 'freedom of the press' like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the First Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in the New York Times building."
Freedom of them press, she explained "does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason - or for any other crime. The First Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from the New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page One story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans ...
Yes, the old "Freedom of the Press" defense. It doesn't really take much intelligence to figure out what Coulter says above..."Freedom of the Press" does not excuse revealing top secret programs which put the country's security in jeopardy. I agree with the Editors of National Review as noted in Jim's post...the New York Times needs to pay a price for this outrage. Revoking their press credentials is only the start. There needs to be an investigation and the leakers need to be found. Subpeona the reporters responsible for this and make them reveal their sources. If they won't, throw them in jail.
Coulter was writing about what she called "the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government antiterrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times," noting that "last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the U.S."
To Coulter, a lawyer, that amounted to nothing less than treason, and she wants the newspaper punished for betraying a vital antiterrorism operation meant to prevent future 9/11s.
"Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots," Ann recalled. "She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.
"Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher 'Pinch' Sulzberger has just been named al-Qaida's 'Employee of the Month' for the 12th straight month.
Coulter agrees that what the Times has done fits the definition for treason.
"The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: 'Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.'"
Seems pretty clear to me, too.
Liberals, she wrote, invoke 'freedom of the press' like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the First Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in the New York Times building."
Freedom of them press, she explained "does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason - or for any other crime. The First Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from the New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page One story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans ...
Yes, the old "Freedom of the Press" defense. It doesn't really take much intelligence to figure out what Coulter says above..."Freedom of the Press" does not excuse revealing top secret programs which put the country's security in jeopardy. I agree with the Editors of National Review as noted in Jim's post...the New York Times needs to pay a price for this outrage. Revoking their press credentials is only the start. There needs to be an investigation and the leakers need to be found. Subpeona the reporters responsible for this and make them reveal their sources. If they won't, throw them in jail.
posted by Jennifer at 2:18 AM
<<< Home