Send As SMS

Friday, July 07, 2006

 

It Was the Worst of Times

The American Spectator reveals that the Times went ahead and printed the SWIFT story despite repeated warnings from the Feds that doing so would jeopardize ongoing investigations of terrorist plots targeting you and me, as well as the idiots at the Times themselves:

According to Treasury and Justice Department officials familiar with the briefings their senior leadership undertook with editors and reporters from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the media outlets were told that their reports on the SWIFT financial tracking system presented risks for three ongoing terrorism financing investigations. Despite this information, both papers chose to move forward with their stories.

"We didn't give them specifics, just general information about regions where the investigations were ongoing, terrorist organizations that we believed were being assisted. These were off the record meetings set up to dissuade them from reporting on SWIFT, and we thought the pressing nature of the investigations might sway them, but they didn't," says a Treasury official.

In fact, according to a Justice Department official, one of the reporters involved with the story was caught attempting to gain more details about one of the investigations through different sources. "We believe it was to include it in their story," says the official.

And today it is revealed that these terrorists were indeed plotting to attack New York City once again, this time destroying the Holland Tunnel for starters:

The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned. The terrorists sought to drown the Financial District as New Orleans was by Hurricane Katrina, sources said. They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

Well the Times doesn't care about that. They'd rather protect the privacy of terrorist masterminds than their own readers' lives. Now that the SWIFT program has been blown out of the water, how soon before a plot like this doesn't get caught in time? How many deaths will be on the head of the NY Times and their hateful little troll of a publisher?

Now, reread this quote:

. . . one of the reporters involved with the story was caught attempting to gain more details about one of the investigations through different sources. "We believe it was to include it in their story."

Did you get that?! They not only wanted to blow the SWIFT program itself out of the water; they wanted to announce to the world the details of an ongoing investigation! They wanted to warn off specific terrorists that they were being investigated. This is really getting out of control, and I truly wish the Bush Administration had the balls to arrest these traitors and give them an exclusive tour of the interrogation rooms with which the Times is so obsessed.

UPDATE: After the leak, the official corrections.

FBI and New York City officials would not go into details of the plot, but did confirm that the PATH system was the likely target, not the Holland Tunnel, as the Daily News reported.

And so, it turns out that three suspects are in custody, and that there were at least five other suspects they were hunting "around the world." Five terrorists we may never catch, thanks to our beloved free press exercising its Constitutional right to publish any classified top secrets they feel like publishing, without consideration of consequences, either from a legal standpoint, or from the perspective of a potential victim of the next major attack.


Comments:
What kind of ignorant whackjob are you, exactly? Your opinions only demonstrate your ignorance, you stupid bohunk! My dog writes better prose and has more coherent political theories! I won't be back here, missy. Ever!

(Sorry. "Missy" was a little over the top. I don't even know you. I just didn't want you to feel like no one was paying attention.)
 
If you're going to troll, the least you could do is make a relevant comment, however retarded it might be. If you have no specific complaints or arguments about what I've posted, then you only reveal that you are logically, politically and philosophically bankrupt.

Don't let the closing browser window hit you in the ass on the way out.
 
Don't let the fact that financial transaction monitoring has been known about for a long time get in your way of trying to bring down the 1st amendment.

The whole NYT attack by the right is nothing more than attempt to silence disent.
 
> Don't let the fact that financial transaction monitoring has been known about for a long time get in your way of trying to bring down the 1st amendment.

That's just a backtracking lie. Go read the Times' actual article, where they admit the program was not only legal but EFFECTIVE in stopping attacks and capturing actual terrorists. This proves that it was not as "known" as you claim. But over and over they state that this program was covert and a classified top secret. Not "known."

Only when it became evident that the Times might have to pay for their treason did they start to claim that this was not only a "known" program, and no surprise to anybody, but that it wasn't news at all. SO WHY DID THEY GO AHEAD AND PRINT IT THEN?

So when the Brooklyn Bridge collapses after the next attack, taking 10,000 people with it, how worth it will this great expose have been to you? Did it contain any actual useful news you could use? Did you even understand what the heck it was about? Apparently not.

The ONLY people this "scoop" did help out with useful information was the terrorists. Why should the Times be so concerned with their right to evade a legal monitoring program? And why do you not give a crap about stopping these murderers from hitting us again? Why are you so much more concerned with global warming and your precious Kyoto treaty?

Because you are a worthless partisan, that's why.
 
It can be easy to blame our rights as something that has allowed us to be wrong, but the fact is, just like the terrorists the journalists were trying to unveil to "protect" us, journalists are still human and still privy to fault. What should be questioned, instead of our 1st Amendment right, is the ethics of said journalists. Power is a dangerous thing and media has many times misused their power for fame. Solving this problem doesn't come from looking at the rights given to us by our founding fathers. Solving the problem means taking a hard, cold look at the people behind media who influence what information is communicated, in what light at at what time.

First time reader. I think you have interesting things to say. Funny I found your blog on "blogwise" under humor.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?