Hypocritical Concerns
Not so amazingly, this New York Times story worries that people who are only "talking" about terrorist actions -- perhaps not even having "intent" to commit them -- are being unfairly arrested (poor things).
Of course, part of a conspiracy charge often involves the commission of one "overt step" in furtherance of the underlying act around which the conspiracy centers (whether the "overt step" is one of the necessary elements to proving the crime is a legislative choice in federal law). And it's certainly much easier to prove that a crime is being committed (or planned) if there are secret programs in place to track terrorist activities -- the "overt steps" that prove intent without a doubt.
In fact, as this American Spectator story notes, the Bush Administration has now been forced to "bust" suspected terrorists prematurely, taking down just one rather than being able to wait as the suspect reveals more of the terrorist network to which he belongs.
Why? Because, the piece suggests, of The New York Times' revelations about formerly secret classified programs. Terrorists have learned of them, and as a result, the government has lost hitherto-effective ways to keep track of what the terrorist is doing -- terrorists switch techniques, and those tracking them lose evidence of their actions that manifest intent to commit illegal acts.
In light of its role in the matter -- the fact that it's responsible in part for the great difficulty the Administration faces in proving what terrorists are doing or intend to do -- The New York Times' concerns over "preemptive" arrests seems a little hypocritical, doesn't it?
Of course, part of a conspiracy charge often involves the commission of one "overt step" in furtherance of the underlying act around which the conspiracy centers (whether the "overt step" is one of the necessary elements to proving the crime is a legislative choice in federal law). And it's certainly much easier to prove that a crime is being committed (or planned) if there are secret programs in place to track terrorist activities -- the "overt steps" that prove intent without a doubt.
In fact, as this American Spectator story notes, the Bush Administration has now been forced to "bust" suspected terrorists prematurely, taking down just one rather than being able to wait as the suspect reveals more of the terrorist network to which he belongs.
Why? Because, the piece suggests, of The New York Times' revelations about formerly secret classified programs. Terrorists have learned of them, and as a result, the government has lost hitherto-effective ways to keep track of what the terrorist is doing -- terrorists switch techniques, and those tracking them lose evidence of their actions that manifest intent to commit illegal acts.
In light of its role in the matter -- the fact that it's responsible in part for the great difficulty the Administration faces in proving what terrorists are doing or intend to do -- The New York Times' concerns over "preemptive" arrests seems a little hypocritical, doesn't it?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:10 PM
5 Comments:
The TIMES is not being hypocritical. These stories share a common theme: the TIMES feels the Bush administration is trampling on individual rights in its fight against terrorism.
What is unfortunate is that many of these stories are based on classified information that the TIMES has no legal right to possess and that unelected editors substitute their views of what’s in the national interest for the views of our elected leaders.
In the spirit of total honesty - back in 1962 - while in High School in NYC - I delivered the NY Telegram and Sun, a competitor to the Times. Therefore any comments that I make about the Times must be taken with that fact in mind.
Yes, Carol! We all know you are some combination of:
1) mind-numbed robot who is incapable of reasoning for herself, so is controlled by her husband into doing his bidding.
2) rich Republican who is willing to print things she doesn't believe simply to make another fast buck at the expense of "the Poor" (e.g., the Sulzberger family and New York Times stockholders).
3) female Svengali.
4) modern day Circe who turns all readers of her column into swine, except for a few "deep thinkers" who come daily to trash her and, thus, prove their ability to withstand her wiles and charms.
5)female Pied Piper leading the stupid, ignorant rats (conservative readers) to their inevitable drowning in the River of Conservatism.
6. etc., etc., etc.
'Scuze me while I send for a complete listing of every investment my retirement fund manager has bought, so I can file a disclaimer anytime I deign to comment in the future.
And since a commenter has raised the issue, let's expect to see such disclaimers in all his/her future posts, as well. Because without them how are we stupid, ignorant, easily led, racist, bigoted, mind-numbed swine to know those posts are completely untainted by bias?
Heavens! (S)he may even have been reading the New York Times itself (or Daily Kos or Huffington Post) and been bitten by a rabid, hydra-headed "Liberal Bug."
I have no interest at all (financial or otherwise) in the NY Post or Sun, and I still haven't taken the NY Times seriously for some time.
Anyway to the Times, we have lots of instances where we already regulate speech. (Divulgence of classified information is one of them.)
Talking about something that would become a crime, especially an act of war, in many contexts is itself a crime.
And incidentally LQ, why should we care about what the Times "feels" on a page other than the Opinion page?
Also LQ, exactly what right is the Times intent upon preserving? The right to have conversations about dangerous events -- for jollies?
So the NYT divulges secrets that alert the terrorists and help them elude detection; then they criticize the administration for even trying to catch the terrorists.
Just whose side is the NYT on?
Post a Comment
<< Home