Times of Treason

One of the reasons I started this blog was to recognize and comment on leftist bias in the media. The New York Times is only one mouth, albeit a big one, in the larger leftist Leviathan. What it did by disclosing SWIFT in late June 2006 was not the first outrage, and it won't be the last.

Continued Debate over the SWIFT Disclosure by the New York Times
By Dennis Lormel
Counterterrorism Blog
July 8, 2006 04:16 PM

The reality is the Times SWIFT disclosure has been harmful. At a minimum, it has disrupted an innovative and productive investigative tool. One fact is certain…the disclosure has received intense media coverage and has caused terrorists and their supporters to sit up and take notice. This will cause terrorist operational changes and significant new challenges for the Government in identifying and countering evolving terrorist financing methodologies.

The story of the betrayal of civilization will some day be told in great detail. My guess is some think the audience will be Muslim, so they're not too concerned about the harsh criticism of history. For us infidels who here and now recognize we are targeted by the jihadis the NYT attempts to excuse themselves come across as lame and illogical.

What would have happened if a US newspaper blabbed about the Jap Naval code being cracked before Midway, or the use of Navajo codetalkers, Bletchley Park and ULTRA, or the Manhattan Project? Would we still have won? Would anyone have blamed the media for the consequences we never could say for sure were avoidable? There are dozens of less critical things reporters could have but didn't blab about. Including FDR's handicap. They must have recognized it would be self-defeating.

What's changed? What the media is disclosing now is self-defeating. A Muslim theocracy doesn't have reporters. It frowns on entertainers. It generally shuns technology unless it advances the jihad. If Western journalists won't take sides the least they could do is report honestly what actually happens when Islam uproots an infidel society. Unless, yes of course, that's it, they report everything, except the things that might get them killed. Depending on the situation they can make the argument that the public doesn't need to know about any of this but absolutely must hear about that.

Why do so many in the media spend a disproportionate amount of time covering and inflate the relative significance of wrongdoing in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Haditha? Not only rushing to judgement against the US military every time they're accused of anything, but ignoring or at least not reporting that this is precisely the way the jihadis are trained to play the Western media. They are told to claim abuse. They recognize the media as a tool in their jihad. Meanwhile the media pride themselves in being fair, that the American people - no, the whole damn world - must know each and every unprecedented thing George Bush and his minions are doing. Is it effective? Is it legal? Has anyone (other than jihadis) been harmed? That doesn't matter. If one rabid Bush-hater in the CIA or State Department will break his oath, they will publish.

If there is any logic here it is this: screw civilization. They must have known the disclosure of SWIFT would not hurt Bush. None of the previous "Bush is spying" stories have done anything but help him. So who were they trying to hurt? Did they care if they hurt anyone? "We're not supposed to take sides." But what they did clearly helped the jihadis and will hurt civilization. "We're not supposed to take sides." They can write that on their tombstones. The rest of us can write "Killed by an Arrogant Ignorant Self-Righteous Sellout Media."

Of course the leakers deserve prosecution. Who do they think they're helping or hurting? Who cares? That is a leftist/liberal pitfall. We can do whatever we want as long as the goal sounds noble. We're being fair. We're keeping the government honest. It doesn't matter what actually happens. Only our intentions. And for that reason anyone who experiences a Nixon/Vietnam flashback can go to the media with any rumor or forgery they want and as long as the intention is good it can hurt civilization, that's ok, the media will take over and broadcast it. They may even rebroadcast it when it turns out to be wrong, and the error will not necessarily be emphasized. Allah forbid some part of such a story sticks. Then we get to celebrate anniversaries.

UPDATE: For those of you who didn't know you could click on pictures:

Last week, the mainstream media continued its policy of declassifying America's anti-terrorism intelligence gathering tactics. You didn't think that the editors of the New York Times had the legal authority to declassify national security secrets? Neither did I. In fact, publishing these life-or-death secrets is a crime.

Michael Barone offers a general argument in favor of cracking down on these national security leaks, while the Weekly Standard provides a specific legal justification for a criminal prosecution of the editors of the New York Times and at least one congressman has called for such a prosecution.

As Barone points out, the most recent New York Times exposure of a national security secret is particularly egregious because there is no suggestion that the intelligence program it reveals is illegal the (dubious) argument the Times used to justify its previous exposure of a wire-tapping program.

So the Times cannot claim that it has revealed this information in order to blow the whistle on an abuse of presidential power. That moves their actions into the realm of treason: the editors of the Times published information that they knew would aid the enemy and did so without being able to claim any legitimate motive.

UPDATE II: Via Power Line. Why should I continue to write when other people say it so much better?

UPDATE III: