Say Anything Blog

Sad.

But the fact of the matter is, the leakers are breaking the law and the papers are doing their jobs.

Watch out, Jefferson quote in
3 2
1

“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

  * Letter to Colonel Edward Carrington (January 16, 1787)

I’ve said all along that while I’ll criticize the press for stuff like this, I’ll not support putting them on trial.

The people we should be going after are the leakers themselves.  Of course, if that means putting a reporter or two in jail until they reveal their sources I have no problem with that.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I’ve said all along that while I’ll criticize the press for stuff like this, I’ll not support putting them on trial…..Of course, if that means putting a reporter or two in jail until they reveal their sources I have no problem with that.

How’s that work?

There is a difference between trying a reporter for a crime and putting a witness who won’t cooperate with an investigation in jail.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I’d say the editors have just as much if not more culpability than the reporters themselves.

Under the law it is a crime to leak government secrets, not necessarily to print them once they’ve been leaked.

The media is worthy of criticism for this, but not legally cuplable.  That responsibility lays with the leakers who broke the law.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

But above all this is just another example of how government can’t control itself. 

You’d think our government could screen its employees better.

The difference is the atomic bomb was secret , this arms shipment is not.

an arms-sale package approved last year

I think the administration is playing the MSM in this case; this news must leave Hez and Iran scared shiteless, and for good reason.  We should ignore the UN and the rest of the terrorist sympathizers in the world.

this news must leave Hez and Iran scared shiteless, and for good reason.

No.  What scares then is that they may be blown away and not take out a Jew or two. 

That’s why this war is a quandry, we fight to stay alive, they fight to die but take out Jews and Americans.  How do you fight someone whose goal is to die?

If it wasn’t a secret, woofie, then why did the sources speak anonymously?

And you’re saying that last year our lawmakers predicted this conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and, in light of it, authorized an increase in arms shipments?

You really need to quit doing drugs.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I agree with Rob that the reporters, and editor, publisher, etc., should not be charged.  They are not, technically, guilty of anything that I know of.  That said though, if there was no publication that would print leaked information, there would be no leakers.

But the power of a free press in a free market rests entirely on the consumers.  The NYT is hurting, but not more than most other print media outlets.  If you’re really pissed at how the NYT has decided it should be the leakers’ go-to-source for publication of classified information, hit them in their wallets.

The information in this story was not just secretive, assuming this is actually accurate and we’ve seen enough that it could very well have been Priested,* but it also is very misleading based upon their own reporting within the body of the article.  If increased munitions shipments approved one year ago have occured to Israel, it has nothing at all to do with the current situation.  But the NYT apparently feels there is a connection, and there’s little question in my mind such a connection was proposed by whomever leaked the information.  The NYT apparently feels the old, concrete media responsibly to sort real news with what might be fake news no longer applies.

*Priested - printing a story from leaked information that is false, i.e. “Secret Prisons” throughout Europe.

And you’re saying that last year our lawmakers predicted this conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and, in light of it, authorized an increase in arms shipments?

He must have checked out WorldNetDaily where they are quoting the San Francisco Chronicle “Israel set war plan more than year ago”.

Selling arms in constant US gov’t business.

Anonymity is not necessarily synonymous to secret classification.

  F-16 sale to Pak will go through

Under the law it is a crime to leak government secrets, not necessarily to print them once they’ve been leaked.

The media is worthy of criticism for this, but not legally cuplable. That responsibility lays with the leakers who broke the law.

Rob,

Not exactly.  Title 18 U.S.C. Section 798 specifically mentions the act of “publishing” purloined classified information.  Title 18 U.S.C. 793 (d) and (e) address receipt of such information, and 18 U.S.C. 371 clearly makes the NYT criminally culpable for conspiracy as well.

Traditionally, the US government has taken the view you mention as a matter of unofficial policy, and chosen not to prosecute, but there is no law or precedential judicial ruling that I’m aware of that would de jure protect the NYT from criminal prosecution in either the SWIFT case or the prior NSA Surveillance Program case.

The US has been an arms supplier since it was the Thirteen Colonies.  It’s part of our history.

Since when did Israel’s national security become ours?
This is a non issue.  If you want to worry about something, worry about what kind of government we’re fighting for in Iraq.  Here’s their prime minister’s comment about Israels actions:
“The hostile acts against Lebanon will have effects on the region and we are not far from what is going on in Lebanon,” al-Maliki said. “We will speak with the United Nations and American government to call for a cease-fire quickly.”
Saddam couldn’t have said it better…

“Since when did Israel’s national security become ours?”

Since 1948.  Sorry I had to tell you that.

“Since when did Israel’s national security become ours?”

Since 1948. Sorry I had to tell you that.

Explain your reasoning Robert. 

What did we have to fear in 1948?

Maybe if we would have been more proactive in heading off the Soviets in their making of allies of the Arabs we would have been better off.

I would say that the Iranian Revolution of ‘79 made Israel’s problems ours cause the last of our puppets was gone.

It’s history.

I don’t speak for Robert, obviously, but when Israel declared itself a state in 1948 it also became a U.S. ally.  All U.S. allies are important to our own national security.

There you go, Chad.  It seemed so obvious to me that I was ashamed to think I had to tell anyone such a thing.  Although Iraq promises to be one, Israel has always been, and continues to be, our only real ally in the ME.

I don’t speak for Robert, obviously, but when Israel declared itself a state in 1948 it also became a U.S. ally. All U.S. allies are important to our own national security.

Israel declared itself a state in 1948?  Sure, but that didn’t make it a state.

The United Nations gave Israel the blessing to exist and that is why it is there.

Israel does not have a God given right to exist.

They must fight for the right to exist just as much as we must.

But there is no arguing the fact that without the U.N.‘s approval, Israel would not exist as it does today.  Israel was the result of a document signing.  The momemt pen when to paper the war of ‘48 was on.

Yeah, Israel’s bad because it’s the only proven democracy in the Mideast.  Plus the arab-Israelies actually have rights.

I guess what makes them bad is that they refuse to let their enemies destroy them.  Hardly fair.

Ok I admit it, I don’t understand the anti-Israel viewpoint.

But, I agree with Rob, that the best thing is to prosecute the leakers.  Let’s stay away from the 1st amendment.  However that doesn’t mean that reporters don’t have an obligation to cooperate with the authorities.

Yes, the UN(of which we were a main member and financial supporter) declared Israel a state in 1948.  How does that nit-picking fact change anything in this discussion?

My point is that the NYT didn’t endanger U.S.security when they published this information.
France is an ally.
Germany is an ally.
Even Tajikistan is an ally, but if I published something detrimental to their security it could hardly be called treason in America.

With or without the UN blessing on a specific date, the day the U.S. recognized Israel and it became an ally was the day that it’s national security became ours.  It’s as if this is a completely foreign concept.  This isn’t a hard concept to grasph and for the life of me cannot figure out why one cannot. 

Israel is the State’s only true, time-tested ally in the Middle East.  If shit were to hit the fan anywhere, name one nation other than Israel in the Middle East that would drop what they were doing to help us out.  Egypt might.  Turkey might.  Saudi Arabia might.  Might, might, might.

So pardon any implied insinuations on my part, and from what it sounds like on the part of Robert, but people saying the security of a U.S. ally is in no relation to our own security is akin to saying there was a nation called Palestine and a group of people called Palestinians prior to Israel’s existence.  Neither are based in reality.

My point is that the NYT didn’t endanger U.S.security when they published this information.

Actually a good point.

The initial analogy is a false dilemia.

Is delivering weapons to Israel the same as to U.S. Forces?

Is Israel a member of the U.S. Armed Forces?

I would call Israel an ally in the war on terror.  (Certainly the enemy considers us both to be bad…The enemy of my enemy is my friend.)

That said if US laws were broken by the leakers they should be prosecuted.

Are you saying that legally the paper could be convicted of treason for revealing Israeli military secrets?

Unless Isreal is now a member of the U.S. Armed forces, you can’t compare shipping weapons to the Pacific in WWII to shipping weapons to Israel now.

Greg, what makes the publication, actually the leaking of, classified material treason is not because it deals with an ally, but rather because it’s classified material dealing with an ally in a time of war.  The United States is at war and we have been for five years against the very same enemy our ally Israel is fighting against right this second.  If our past administrations had done anything about it, we would have been at war against Hezbollah starting in 1983 when they declared war upon us.

Being a member of the armed forces doesn’t matter.  IF we were shipping something to the British in the war it’d amount to the same thing.

Now I don’t claim that Israel today is the same as Britain 60 years ago.

Sorry Chad but with respect I disagree.  There isn’t a jury in the land that would convict the NYT in this case.
Israel is a good ally perhaps, but their National Security and ours are separate.

I think this nit has been way overpicked.  The NYT wants to undermine this Administration, and that is the origin of their treachery.  They are misusing “freedom of speech”, like the lefties always do, to do something harmful to our overall national security.  They hope to distance us from one of our important allies.  Don’t any of you get that?

Now I don’t claim that Israel today is the same as Britain 60 years ago.

I would hope not.  But I wonder what happened when info about the Lend-Lease programs was leaked to the Germans?  The same thing should happen to the leakers here.

And yes, I realize the issue of supporting Israel is a mute point.

We’ve made that bed, now we have to sleep in it.

They are misusing “freedom of speech”

Misusing?

How can they misuse something that is constitutionally unrestrictable?

FreeRepublican:
“Misusing” free speech to these posters is obviously being critical of the Bush administration.

“Misusing” free speech to these posters is obviously being critical of the Bush administration.

Listen.  There were no laws broken by publishing this infomation.

Bad judgement? Yes.
Biased reporting? Definately.

But if there were laws against the publishing of the information, we really would be in a facist state.

How can they misuse something that is constitutionally unrestrictable?

They have a constitutional right to lie.  They have a constitutional right to print things about you that are none of their business.  They have a right to print inflamatory statements.

In this case they are printing information that is harmful to the United States and an ally.  There is no compelling reason to inform the citizens of the US of this activity. 

They are only doing it to be malicious.

Misusing…..

Greg, I certainly agree the NYT shouldn’t be prosecuted in this case.  I said so in this same thread before, but that doesn’t mean the leaker of the classified information should not be.  There is an important distinction and you made it with regards to a jury. 

On that note, are treason cases not decided by military tribunal?  I don’t know and at present don’t have the time to look it up.

What has yet to be discussed is that this increase in munition sales that started one year ago might be related to a certain nation’s nuclear program.  MI6 told Israel late this week Hezbollah had obtained nuclear rods for use in Katyusha rockets.  This, naturally, implicates Iran.  That, I should hope, we all could agree is directly involved with our national security.

But if there were laws against the publishing of the information,

Try to understand; we aren’t saying that the Times broke the law.  We are saying that there may be laws that were broken by the leakers.  That’s two different things.

“we really would be in a facist state.”

That’s really an idiotic statement.

MI6 told Israel late this week Hezbollah had obtained nuclear rods for use in Katyusha rockets.

LoL.  Now thats funny!

Jimmy-rigged nuclear rockets.

Why is it idiotic?

The Constitution says “congress shall make NO law abridging…”

What part of “No Law” is vague?

If we had laws against the publishing a) they would be unconstitutional and b) facist/totalitarian in nature.

I don’t understand the issue. Is the problem that the Times reported the story of expediting the delivery of arms to Israel?

I don’t understand the issue.

Join the club.  $50/mo.  I accept Paypal.

Why is it idiotic?

Why don’t you think about it for a bit.

Why don’t you think about it for a bit.

I have.  The only conclusion I can come up with is that you think the 1st Amendment is idiotic.

And yet you do not support the 2nd Amendment. You want people to have free speech, and yet you refuse to allow them to defend themselves. Very telling.

And yet you do not support the 2nd Amendment. You want people to have free speech, and yet you refuse to allow them to defend themselves. Very telling.

You’ll need to indicate who that was directed toward cause I know it wasn’t me.

Actually, if the information published was classified by our government (obviously, both our government and that of Israel could each, separately, classify the same information.) as well it might have been, then the NYT is criminally liable for having published the information.  The act of publishing information which is classified is a criminal violation… and the fact that the information may have been made public, or was made public by the publication in question, does not relieve the party who publishes of any criminal liability.

That said, I doubt that the US government is likely to prosecute… at least not in this case.  There are certainly several other cases of way more national security impact that the Times and its reporters and editors can, and should be held criminally accountable for.  On the other hand, it is also possible that the Israeli government might take a much dimmer view of this than does the US Justice Department.  Cancellations of select travel visas, disinvitations to certain briefings by “high government officials who wish to remain anonymous,” unreturned phone calls… the government of Israel has all manner of weapons of mdeia displeasure at their disposal for dealing with the NYT.

Bat One,

So let’s say that the arms sale/delivery was classified:

Then the real question is this: “Do the American Voters and American Taxpayers have the right to know this or not?”

I am all for sending arms to Israel, fuck it, lets send them napalm by the fucking shipload. At least they will kill Wahabi deathcult shitbags by the train load.

Then the real question is this: “Do the American Voters and American Taxpayers have the right to know this or not?”

Free,

No, Sir.  That may be a valid question, though I think not.  But your “real question” has nothing to do with whether the offense of publishing the classified information warrants prosecution (I leave aside the “question” of the NYT’s editorial bias as that has been answered so often and so meaningfully as to be a non-sequitor by now.).

The NYT is misusing free speech the same way the Supreme Court misused the “right to privacy” in authorizing the abortion holocaust, which is at over 50 million deaths and counting.  The NYT and other leftie demagogues must exist in some fantasy country called “leftieland” where they are entitled to do anything they want to express their temper at not getting what they want.  They seem to think that harming the President somehow magically doesn’t harm the country, and so they do everything they can to harm the President, undermine and obstruct the war on terrorists, and try to downtalk the economy, all to harm the President, without the germ of awareness that they are harming the country.  They are like a willful six year old who wishes his mom and dad were dead because they won’t let him stay up late to watch a TV show.  The First Amendment was to allow political Free Speech, which wasn’t allowed in Great Britain at the time, and freedom of the press, which didn’t exist in GB at that time, either.  It should be obvious, but not to the leftards, that using this right to harm the country isn’t a good thing to do.  Their pathetic rationalization of “the public’s right to know” is idiotic.
They should desist from this destruction for the good of the country, but maybe they don’t regard it as their country.  So much for the consent of the governed.  I guess for them, it’s the constent of the NYT.

Robert108:
“They seem to think that harming the President somehow magically doesn’t harm the country”

I’m not sure I even know how to answer your post.  Are you suggesting that criticising the president is harming the country?

I have. The only conclusion I can come up with is that you think the 1st Amendment is idiotic.

Since you’ve stretched your brain out to it’s maximum and still can’t come up with a glimmer I’ll help you.

It’s idiotic to assume that that we are one step away from being a fascist country.

It’s idiotic to assume that the New York Times is the defender of our freedoms, when in fact they’ve chosen sides against the United States in this war.

It’s idiotic because the post and the discussion was not saying that the Enemy Times didn’t have 1st amendment times.

It’s idiotic to use that kind of term (fascist) when discussing keeping secrets during a time of war.

It’s idiotic to say that we’d be a fascist country with a limitation on the freedom of the press, when we have an illegal limitation (IMO) on Freedom of speech that was put on by the Congress, President and the Supreme Court.  Even with that we are not a fascist country, although of the two it’s much more significant.

I could go on, but I’ve probably already overloaded your comprehension circuit.

I’m not sure I even know how to answer your post. Are you suggesting that criticising the president is harming the country?

Duh, NSA Terrorist monitoring program, The Treasury’s terrorist monitoring program and now helping an ally.

There releasing this to harm the President, but they’re harming the country.

So Whistler, Impeaching Bill Clinton harmed the Nation?

So Whistler, Impeaching Bill Clinton harmed the Nation?

No, Bill Clinton committing perjury while he was President of the United States harmed the nation.

Trying to equate lying under oath to get out of a sexual harassment suit and properly conducting a war is absurd.

Whistler,

Maybe you should travel back in time to tell the founder’s to limit the Press to patriotic purposes.

Because what I am hearing from you is the Leftist idea of “Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee.”

Amend the constitution to say that the Press must be pro-America and pro-President - for God, King, and Country.

No, I’m not suggesting anything at all; I’m coming right out and saying it.  What the NYT is doing is not criticism; it’s attack, lying, dirty tricks, treason and propaganda.  That is way beyond “criticism”.  Try to get a grip on reality, dude.  Your attempt to rationalize their foul deeds is despicable.  Criticism is reasoned debate, or unreasonable debate, but what they are doing is straight out treachery, designed to bring harm to the President.  Like I said, they either don’t know or don’t care about the effects on our country.  Clear now?

Not convicting him harmed the country.  He was a convicted criminal who gave nukes to the NKers and who sold missile secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign donations.  There are many more reasons.

Whistler:
You said they (the NYT) did it to “harm the President”.  I was merely pointing out other instances where someone was clearly trying to harm a president.

Free:

Maybe you should travel back in time to tell the founder’s to limit the Press to patriotic purposes.

Because what I am hearing from you is the Leftist idea of “Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee.”

Amend the constitution to say that the Press must be pro-America and pro-President - for God, King, and Country.

In response to my posts where I said this about the 1st amendment:

It’s idiotic because the post and the discussion was not saying that the Enemy Times didn’t have 1st amendment [right to print the story—I screwed up]times.

Try to understand; we aren’t saying that the Times broke the law. We are saying that there may be laws that were broken by the leakers. That’s two different things.

I agree with Rob, that the best thing is to prosecute the leakers. Let’s stay away from the 1st amendment.

Free, I’d recommend you try something to increase your reading comprehension.

I know what you said and what you meant.

You said they (the NYT) did it to “harm the President”. I was merely pointing out other instances where someone was clearly trying to harm a president.

I will grant that you can disagree with the President (or even me ) without harming the country.

I know what you said and what you meant.

That’s why you were somehow claiming that I wanted to do away with the 1st amendment, when I was not saying anything of the kind?

I can’t resist even though I have unbsubscribed to this thread several times already.

“You said they (the NYT) did it to “harm the President”. I was merely pointing out other instances where someone was clearly trying to harm a president.”

Even though I didn’t agree with it, the person who hurt the presidency was impeached.

Here’s an interesting question: “What harm would have been done to the country by ridding ourselves of a criminal and dishonest President?(Clinton)
What harm is now being done by accusing a President of being criminal and dishonest who is advancing the cause of the country?(Bush)  The two are only comparable in the deranged minds of lefties partisans who want revenge, and don’t care how much damage is done to the country in the bargain.  No harm would have come to the country had we convicted Clinton in the Impeachment proceedings(except that Al Gore would have assumed the office of President).

Chad:
For what it’s worth, I never voted for Clinton.
I do worry these days though, that people seem to equate criticism of the President, or the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan with treason.
To me it’s a very healthy part of our Democracy.

No, giving away our intelligence secrets and our movements of materiel, for the purpose of obstructing our ability to defeat the terrorists is treachery or treason.  This has nothing to do with criticism.  You are the only one trying to equate that with what the NYT and the rest of the treasonous lefties are doing.

Robert108:
It’s hardly a secret that we supply Israel with her weapons, and as for your comment about ‘revealing movement of materiel’: are you worried that a Hezbollah submarine will sink the convoy?
You need to move past WWII….

That’s why you were somehow claiming that I wanted to do away with the 1st amendment, when I was not saying anything of the kind?

I never said that and I dare you to show me where I did.

First I am accused of being anti 2nd Amendment by someone else, then you, then your claim that I said something I didn’t.  Grow up.

Gregdn,

As detailed above in my comment to Rob,  Section 793 of Title 18, U.S.C. specifically includes “publishing” of classified information as an offense punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison.  Sections 798 (d), and (e) deal with unauthorized receipt and possession of classified information, while Section 371 details the criminal offense of conspiracy.  You can final all these cited Sections of US criminal law at Findlaw.

In none of these SEctions is there an exception for information which may or may not be publicly known to one extent or another.  The ONLY criteria is that the information in question is classified.

There is also no exception of either submarines of sarcasm… however mordant. or ill-conceived.

Bat: I think we are beating a dead horse, here.  He still seems to be stuck on the concept that the treason of the NYT is the same as criticism of the President.  What can you do with such a person?  He just doesn’t get it, and doesn’t want to.

Greg: “It’s hardly a secret that we supply Israel with her weapons…”
If you mean that they buy them from us, and that we sell weapons to our allies, those facts are well known;  by wording it the way you do, you seek to misinform, but the exact time and quantities are not well-known.  In war, intel is basic.  Giving it to the enemy is always wrong, and as a civilian, you apparently have no idea how wrong it is.  You are simply ignorant.

Greg, I agree to an extent, but there is a certain level of criticism that should and should not be thrown at the Office of the Presidency during a war and there’s a certain level that should and shouldn’t be thrown at a war that is still being waged.  There has been, or at least what appears to be, a very concerted effort by some media outlets, CIA spooks, politicians and political advocacy groups that have put their own agenda ahead of the best interests of this nation.  It is not in the best interest of this nation to lose any war, much less a war against an enemy that is born and raised to circumvent what you and I call basic freedoms.  Criticisms that put this nation on a back footing with regard to the current wars I believe are contrary to the very principles in which this nation was founded upon.

Leaks of classified material, no matter what it is, still constitutes a violation of the law.  When there have been a series of leaks that have been used to damage the president, the war effort and the very foot soldiers that fight in those wars many people are left scratching their heads wondering “what side are they on?”  The sides are clearly drawn for all to see; pluralistic society versus Islamo-fascism.  Yet, as we see countless times, some people simply just don’t get it and instead use whatever they can, truth or blatent falsehoods, against political opponents to suit their own disposition.  Our enemy is doing it, and our fellow countrymen do the same damn thing. 

It is this two-sided war, so to speak, that drive many of us who support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the greater GWOT absolutely furious.  If I had just one nickle for every terrorist statement, video, communique, audio address, etc. that mimmicked what we hear in this country by opponents to President Bush I could buy the Chicago Cubs and hopefully put the fans out of their misery. 

So while I agree to an extent, the rhetoric needs to be curbed, but it should be curbed internally and not through an outside force (i.e. arrests).  If those that criticize this nation and the efforts of this nation truly love this country, they could realize that their poisoned daggers will eventually lead to their own demise.  The problem is that it will bring the rest of us down too and I, for one, will not sit here and listen to this political positioning that helps our common foes without at least calling out what I believe is helping our enemies.

In this case, it is crystal clear that the article in question was slanted in such a way that it brings what should be old news (we all know the U.S. sells arms and munitions to Israel) into the current situation in order to damage this country’s standing.  It’s not the material of the article necessarily, but the way it was delivered and the NYT knows better; they just don’t care.

Chad,

Allow me to gently disagree with you on one point.  Whioe I have no doubt that the editors and publisher of NYT are opposed virulently to this President, and because of that personal animus, to his policies as well (asctually seems kind of childish of them when you put it that way, doesn’t it?), I don’t really much care what their motivation is where questions of criminal culpability are concerned.  The reasons for the leaks, and the reasons for the publication of classified information are really irrelevent.  In my mind, to allow consideration of motive, political partisanship in particular, is to allow consideration of an excuse.  And this allows for no such excuse.

In a sense, it’s no different from the question of hate crimes legislation, which I also oppose.  Determination of motive by a judge or a jury is a subjective exercise, absent a confession, and should only be a factor when it is mitigating or exculpatory.  Not when it could make the crime and the punishment more severe by comparison.  Determination of guilt based strictly on facts presented is not subjective.

So while I agree that the Times’ reason for publishing, in all three cases, is most likely their partisan bias, I don’t see that their motive in any way effects questions of guilt.

I agree Bat One and I didn’t mean to imply that the motive necessarily would effect guilt, legally that is, either way.  My previous diatribe was essentially written as my opinion on dissent as a whole rather than this one specific issue. 

With dissent, the motive I think is extremely important to point out, debate and criticize if needed.  On legal matters, I don’t believe it matters at all, much like the hate crime comparison you brought to the table (I also disagree with the issue of hate crimes by the way).  But with this issue, my pointing out what I believe the motive of the NYT is merely is criticism of that motive rather than either professing legal guilt or innocence.

Chad,

We are in agreement.

Much of today’s leftist political rhetoric stems from a dangerously vile and hypocritical mixture of what was once termed “situational ethics,” and the old standard “the ends justify the means.”  Witness the excuses used to rationalize the three instances of the NYT willfully printing classified information.

The sad fact is that in today’s “progressive” environment, Democrats don’t much ascribe to democracy any more.

Oftentimes, what is technically legal is not right.  The NYT has given us multiple examples of their inability or unwillingness to make that distinction.

Geez, I need to quit commenting on this thread.  Heh. 

Bat One and Robert, I largely agree with both of you.  I do disagree that progressives are adverse to Democracy.  They like Democracy if it suits their goals which, among many other things, includes both a fascist and communist stance of nationalistic socialism.  What I mean by nationalistic socialism is that they want socialism period, including the complete downgrading of society’s wealthiest, wrapped in the fine cloth of censorship of other ideas and the complete disregard of how a nation was built to free itself from government.  It’s the reverse of actual nationalism, but they don’t think so.

Wait, did I just lump fascism and communism together?  Wow!  That’s a far cry from the usual line of thinking they are polar extremes, yet nothing could be further from the truth.  Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union fought in what was, at the time, thought to figure out which leftist ideology would survive the 20th Century.  Funny how now people seem to believe fascism is right-wing by pointing out specific characteristics of fascism while leaving out others.  But I digress, as I do too often.

Chad: In the sense that both fascism and communism involve an all powerful central govt, they are so much alike as to make detail differences merely academic.  The reality is that “progressives”(lefties, IMO) don’t favor democracy at all, they just say they do to rope in the “common people”, who they then want to control, because the “mass of people” don’t know the right thing to do, and so the dictatorship of the proletariat is imposed.  When Clinto told a town meeting that he might have overtaxed them, but didn’t think it was a good idea to give any of it back because they might not do the right thing with it, he epitomized his real philosophy, which is dictatorial socialism.  You have it right.

I never said that and I dare you to show me where I did.

First I am accused of being anti 2nd Amendment by someone else, then you, then your claim that I said something I didn’t. Grow up.
FreeRepublicans.com on July 22, 2006 at 8:31 PM

Well there were these quotes by you.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that you think the 1st Amendment is idiotic.

Because what I am hearing from you is the Leftist idea of “Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee.”

Precision-guided bombs save civilian lives.

Precision-guided bombs save civilian lives.

Except for the ones that don’t.

RBB,

Your link doesn’t… and the religion of peace isn’t either.

In any case, you’ll have to admit that at least the Israelis are making the effort at saving innocent life, with with precision weaponry (this IS a war after all) and with leaflets spread throughout their intended target areas warning civilians to leave.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, is specifically, indiscriminately, targeting Israeli civilians.

hmm…try this

err on the side of strife

Let’s see RBB you could drop a pile of bombs to destroy a target hidden in a civilian area or one precision weapon.  That saves lives.  Still it’s a war and civilian casualties do happen.

Why don’t you save your anger towards the terrorist idiots that started this war and are hiding behind civilians.

Hizbullah is holding civilians in close proximity to its ammo dumps and fighting/command positions. The IDF is dropping leaflets and using low flying slicks with loudspeakers to warn civilians away from areas where airstrikes and artillery fire are directed. Now, who are the terrorists?