"Toying With Treason"

 
A New York Post opinion piece got it right: The New York Times is “toying with treason” and has been for some time. Labeling The Times the “self-styled paper of record”, The Post thinks the Old Grey Doxy has plans to attempt to have its former loyal leftists return to the fold — the ones it lost when it reported on Saddam Hussein’s WMD:

	Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months.
	It has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.
	The most notorious example was the paper’s disclosure some 10 days ago that, since 9/11, the Bush administration has “secretly” engaged in warrantless eavesdropping on U.S.-based international phone calls and e-mails.

The Post thinks that the Times, along with CNN and CBS, are trying to affix an impeachment proceeding against the President. This is a subject I’ve heard from leftists since Bush’s first election. They are still angry that he’s in the Oval Office and if they can help it, he won’t stay there — even if it means endangering our counter-terrorism activities. These are people who don’t mind being dead right; the important point is to be “right” and get Bush out.

As the Post points out, Bush has precedent on his side: two Democratic presidents who used warrantless searches:

both the last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, used warrantless searches — and strongly defended them as fully justified under the authority granted the president by the Constitution. In fact, the Washington Times reports that Clinton expanded their use to purely domestic situations — such as violent public-housing projects.

And here’s the motivation for the Times’ behavior: according the LA Times, the NYT editors were aware that a book by the author of the article was going to be out in a few weeks, but the Times wanted to have an “exclusive” so the author ran with the story (I haven’t chased down the link to this story from the LA Times but I’ll post it when I do).

The Post doesn’t stop there, however. It lists some of the Old Lady’s many sins, including needless exposure of an undercover operation by the New York City Police Department. Then it asks:

	Does The New York Times consider it self a law unto itself — free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens?
	The Times, it appears, is less concerned with promoting its dubious views on civil liberties than with undercutting the Bush administration. The end result of the paper’s flagrant irresponsibility: Lives have been put in danger on the international, national and local levels.
	The ability of the nation to perform the most fundamental mission of any government — protection of its citizens — has been pointlessly compromised.

This issue is going to have serious blowback for the Times and for people like them. Do you think they’re looking out for our best interests? I sure don’t. The Times, CNN, CBS, NPR, and the other unscrupulous agents of sedition need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean license to say whatever gets your agenda across, no matter the cost to our country as a whole.

This is an issue receiving wide coverage in the blogosphere, left and right. The former hope to get to impeachment. The latter are divided: some libertarians will object to any surveillance on principle -- their belief doesn’t change for convenience’s sake. But many on the right will agree that war gives the Executive branch extraordinary powers. Back before the Left turned into lemmings they thought so, too.

My favorite online curmudgeon, Bill Quick, thinks the Times is running scared because the NSA has sicced the Justice Department on the old bird. Mr. Quick is often right in his predictions; let’s hope this one goes his way when he says:

Yeah, and I’ll bet every one of those “privacy advocates” was cowering under a desk in either the NYT’s newsroom, or its editorial offices.

Maybe someone will get pictures.