The War Over "War Secrets": Why The NY Times Is Not Treasonous (Op/Ed)

And here we go again, another "secret" program of the Bush administration has been revealed by the NY Times (and others, but the "Gray" one is taking all the heat) to a predictable chorus of angry reaction from right-sided pundits. And soon to follow, righteously indignant responses from the aptly labeled "liberal elite" pundits will set the stage for another tail-spin of counter productive rhetoric. Like clockwork, these distraction surface precisely when they're most needed.


Let's examine this most recent event with tin-foil hats firmly in-place, and consider the conspiracy potential under the surface.

Now, let's look at this latest distraction which is in my mind the very definition of a non-event. It would seem that, with past administration transgressions of domestic spying in the form of wiretapping without court approval and the creation of a massive database of Americans' phone records, the newspapers saw fit to inform the public of a system to monitor international financial transactions. The monitoring, we're told, is used to locate terrorist collaborators and provide preemptive intelligence to stop terror before it happens.

The angry rabble carrying verbal pitchforks and torches rose up immediately to denounce the source of this latest egregious revelation of sensitive anti-terror techniques. Figures such as Republican Peter King (the Houses DHS committee chairman) have publicly called for the prosecution of the NY Times for treason. The hard-right leaning NY Post devoted nearly four full pages of scathing commentary today, and an innumerable number of talking heads, conservative journalists, talk show hosts, talk show callers, bloggers, and everything else in-between have joined the fray. It's as if a message went out by secret conservative channels: "Attention: all right-minded patriots turn to page 749 and follow the instructions."

No doubt a similar, but less organized and generally tepid response will hit the airwaves, cable channels, and weblogs in the coming hours and days. The righteously elite left-minded "terrorist sympathizers" will exchange barbs with their callously aloof right-minded "Orwellian fascists" and another fine distraction centered on a non-issue diverts our collective attention from anything of substance.

Please. This process stinks. This financial monitoring system is no more secret than Hillary's pearls. No one expected that this wasn't being done... no one is surprised it is being done... and few think it's a bad idea to do it. But like a finely honed and rehearsed Broadway show, this non-issue surfaced quickly to public awareness, was followed swiftly by the well-oiled machine of political spin, and is now front and center in the minds of all the political patsy pundits and their loyal minions knee-jerkers.

But, I must give credit where credit is due, it's a brilliantly conceived salvo in the war.

No, I'm not referring to the "war on terrorism" (that should be a criminal affair). And I'm not referring to the "war" in Iraq either. This is the long-standing war waged on the U.S. citizens to gain deeper control through limited liberty. This one brilliant skirmish in that war delivers a punishing blow on two fronts:

1) Fighting against a free press -- now everyone is talking about the possibility of criminal prosecution of the NY Times. Not to mention even more rhetoric that classifies administration critics as treasonous terrorist sympathizers.

2) Continuing the grand distraction -- with everyone focused and angry over another non-issue, no one has time to think about any of the recently emerging "real" issues.

Brilliant. Masterful. Exquisitely conceived and executed.

With all of this in mind, we can surmise that the NY Times is simply playing it's scripted role to create another politically divisive issue as part of the master plan. That's not treason, that's playing along.

I couldn't agree with you more...one of the key componants of a transparant government is....surprise....transparancy.....and when they complusively hide everything they do behind a wall of secrecy and accusations it really makes me wonder what they are doing that we don't know about.follow these two links to read what the Belgians think about all this:

www.truthout.org...

Shortened Link to story

[edit on 6-28-2006 by worldwatcher]

Complete rubish.............

The NYT's has provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states.

The "press" as a matter of record refuse to print the names of rape victims to protect them, yet find it within thier "power" to declassify national intellegence.

The owner should be placed under arrest............

Originally posted by thermopolisThe "press" as a matter of record refuse to print the names of rape victims to protect them, yet find it within thier "power" to declassify national intellegence.

I will answer you with a quote from SkepticOverlord's piece....

This financial monitoring system is no more secret than Hillary's pearls. No one expected that this wasn't being done... no one is surprised it is being done... and few think it's a bad idea to do it. But like a finely honed and rehearsed Broadway show, this non-issue surfaced quickly to public awareness, was followed swiftly by the well-oiled machine of political spin, and is now front and center in the minds of all the political patsy pundits and their loyal minions knee-jerkers.

Originally posted by thermopolis
The "press" as a matter of record refuse to print the names of rape victims to protect them, yet find it within thier "power" to declassify national intellegence.

Terrible analogy. The Bush administration most certainly are not rape victims.

Where in the first ammendment does the "press" have protection from "high treason"?

It simply says congress shall make no law...............there is no "exemption" for treason.

No person in the US is above the law, not even the "press". If a "citizen" were to have disclosed such a "secret" they would be in jail. How is a trash writter for a rag like the NYT's immune?

[edit on 27-6-2006 by thermopolis]

Originally posted by Communication_Burger

Originally posted by thermopolis
The "press" as a matter of record refuse to print the names of rape victims to protect them, yet find it within thier "power" to declassify national intellegence.

Terrible analogy. The Bush administration most certainly are not rape victims.

How, the Bush admin represents a majority of the people of the united states and the "times" continues to rape the safety of those citizens........

Originally posted by thermopolis
Where in the first ammendment does the "press" have protection from "high treason"?

You've completely missed the point.

The focus of this Op/Ed piece is that this could very well be a scrited fabricated event that is being used to shape opinion that could result in eventual restrictions on the press. And, as a lucky-strike extra, it's a means to focus domestic attention away from troubling issues, onto an easily polarized non-issue.

That premise was clearly laid out, yet you reverted back to "blame the liberal press" rhetoric... why is that?

I wholeheartedly agree.
They are not treasonous.
Just terribly irresponsible.

NYT lacks competent editorial management. The made a stupid decision to print the story.
No matter how much may have already been known, they asisted in providing more
nuggets of information GLOBALLY.


There will be no restrictions on the press. Unless you count a further slide in subscriptions.
And the possible boycotting of NYT advertisers, which I've heard being thrown around as an idea. A lot of thier advertisers are national companies, might be a good place to start, if you're interested in voting with what REALLY matters, your DOLLAR.

Skeptic, I'm curious about your assertion that the NY Times is playing 'their part' in this distraction game. I have wondered myself why they chose to hold back on the NSA story for a year and then release it. And didn't they keep this one under their belt for a while, too? I wonder what their part is and why they're choosing to release the stories when they do.

I'm not sure I believe that the NY Times is actually trying to distract the people from the more important issues such as the imminent dictatorship or what we're really doing in Iraq. I don't see the benefit for the NY Times to distract the people from that. If anything, I'd think they would highlight the real issues instead.

I also can't help but be curious about why the president is so upset about this. Is he just angry because someone isn't playing the game by his rules? Is he really upset or just feeding into the distraction? Is this his way of starting in on Freedom of the Press? Is he rounding up his supporters to support him in taking the critical press down? (and it's clear they're ready, willing and able to do just that)

I'm afriad I only have questions...

Edit: Can someone please do something about grover's link?

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by thermopolis
The NYT's has provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states.

And yet, no such charge has been filed....hmm, could it be that even the adminstration realizes that it did nothing illegal?

Well, the Supreme Court seems to be ruling on a lot of controversial cases recently that IMO would adversely affect the average American. That might be a place to start to see what this story is trying to distract from.

On the other hand, it could just be that the NYT is trying to be rebellious and fight for a cause it truly believes in, that is, freedom of information. And they also might truly believe that this doesn't adversely affect any anti-terrorism operations.

If this were truly classified information then something will happen, don't doubt that. But, if something DOESN'T happen, then you have to ask yourself, why is that?

So let me make sure I understand....

You believe the government is using the NY Times article as a strategic pawn?

If this could be proven there would be some amazing ramifications.

Originally posted by thermopolis
The NYT's has provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states.

Enemies?

Since we've tried terrorists in court, does that not make "terrorism" a criminal act?

If "terrorism" is criminal, how are "terrorists" enemies of the state?

There have been numerous stories about the means to track and hunt drug traffickers (who are criminals), how is this story about tracking other criminals ("terrorists") giving aid to enemies of the state?


You see... we have conflicting messages.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wonder what their part is and why they're choosing to release the stories when they do.

I wonder as well, and keep in mind this is a speculative opinion-piece on a conspiracy theory website.

Given a step back and a broad glance at all converging events, then a fine focus on this event, we see numerous repetitive cycles. In this case, at a point when the administration is experiencing catastrophically low "approval ratings", a sequence of events is put into play, this story among them. The base is rallied around a agenda-promoting topic... brilliant.

I'm not sure I believe that the NY Times is actually trying to distract the people from the more important issues such as the imminent dictatorship or what we're really doing in Iraq.

They are the foil. The arch-enemy. Controversy cannot exist without two clearly opposing sides. The veracity by which the "conservative pundits" attack this issue is enhanced by the source, the legendary thorn in their side. It makes for fantastic drama that would certainly be diminished and less effective if it was any other source.

I don't see the benefit for the NY Times to distract the people from that. If anything, I'd think they would highlight the real issues instead.

Keep in mind that all news is now event-inspired entertainment. This story plays well to the liberal audience the Times targets, while also serving the larger agenda.

I also can't help but be curious about why the president is so upset about this.

That's what tipped me off to the angle of this Op/Ed. His veracity seemed over-the-top and very "unpresidential"... he literally waited for the question to come (it took like 6 or 7 questions at the photo op for the question to be lobbed his way, normally he only takes 2 or 3 questions at such events).

Is he rounding up his supporters to support him in taking the critical press down?

Under the speculative theory presented in this thread, that is exactly the point.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
That premise was clearly laid out, yet you reverted back to "blame the liberal press" rhetoric... why is that?

Opps, oh mighty one........I never used the "L" word. My issue is with the insane rhetoric of the "protected" press. There is no such "freedom of the press" in the first amendment. Just as there is no "seperation" clause.

A little more "reading" and less intepritation please........

The Time has committed treason and should be treated as such

Originally posted by thermopolis
The Time has committed treason and should be treated as such

Well... that is the current "chant" of those who "blame the liberal press"... in this case, the Times.

Can you elaborate on that please? I'm not sure we can classify revealing the methods to track criminals as "treason".

This financial monitoring system is no more secret than Hillary's pearls.

REPLY: True, but THE WAY we were doing it was not widely known. Why and when they print their information is no secret, but the history of the Grey Lady is not so well known, but it shows that they should have called themselves the "Red" Lady, which has a long history of being anti-American.

I'll be submitting a historical view of the NYT and, by extention the LA Times, tonight. The tentative title will be, aptly: "Red, and the New York Times."

[edit on 28-6-2006 by zappafan1]

We must keep in mind that many hard line Republicans depend on the success of this
administration for their livelihood.

Military industrial contractors, security contractors, IT contractors, banking, housing, service industries and religious organizations who all depend on this neo-con agenda moving forward.

They are so blinded by the promoted idealism of "American values", that they do not see
or choose to ignore the blatant and systematic destruction of the protections of our Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.

Raising your voice to denounce tyranny and corruption is NOT a treasonous act.

I think Bush is showing his outrage because we now know that not only are they monitoring
the phone lines of American citizens without a warrant, but NOW we also know that they
are monitoring private bank transactions of American citizens without a warrant
and that IS illegal.

This administration was given emergency war powers 5 years ago without a formal declaration of War.
Since then it has become crystal clear that this administration lied to
drag us into the War in Iraq.
OBL is still free, more than 2515 of our troops have died and more than 18,000
brave young soldiers have suffered serious injuries.

They have abused the system beyond the scope of anything We The People might have imagined to the point where even many conservatives are now seeing through the smoke screen.

YES Americans from all walks of life are outraged when they see what is happening.

Freedom of the press is not some far fetched liberal concept.

It is one of the most important foundations of a free society.

If a media outlet that covers a large population and demographic is really doing its job then it cares about all the people in its area of reach and not just those that support a particular political party or ideology.

The NYTimes serves interests foreign to the US and even if it has good intentions much of the time or more likely part of the time it is overshadowed by its need to always support one predicatable side in every struggle.

You can make a good story but outlining a concept and not stating facts or state facts but do not associate them with substantive entities.

The goal is to draw out the truth from those in power to cause denial or admission if possible.

To eagerly reveal truths after truths for sheer ability to cause harm is not profession nor is it helpful nor is it patriotic.