"I really do hope we (a) find out who leaked it and (b) prosecute both the leaker(s) and those who published the story."-MN

I vote we send Jack Bauer in to find the leakers.

I really do hope we (a) find out who leaked it and (b) prosecute both the leaker(s) and those who published the story."

Mark, it ain't going to happen. The Bush folks just don't have the balls to go after the NYT and the leakers. They are more interested in playing nice.

The NY Times reporter was on c-span this morning.He should have been having coffee in a jail cell.

This is serious business - we are engaged in war with people who wish us all dead.

Unfortunately, Mark, there are those out there who wish to dismiss terrorism as just a nuisance. We're the fearmongers, remember? And remember Teresa Heinz-Kerry, in 2004, saying that terrorism is "something we'll have to live with, like they do in Europe?" The problem with this statement is, in order for us to "live with it," many will have to die because of it...

Michelle Malkin has some excellent posters on the subject over on her blog. She also reminds us all that today is the 10th anniversary of the Khobar bombing. We should all take a moment of silence for all who died that day.

http://www.michellemalkin.com

I hope everyone has sent an email to both the NY Times and LA Times to thank them for exposing secrets in our fight against the terrorists. If we can't arrest them for their obvious treason, we can at least let them know how we feel about it.

Keefer-

"And remember Teresa Heinz-Kerry, in 2004, saying that terrorism is "something we'll have to live with, like they do in Europe?" The problem with this statement is, in order for us to "live with it," many will have to die because of it...

Posted by: keefer at June 25, 2006 09:39 AM"

And remember George W. Bush in 2004 said that we can't "win it" meaning the war on terrorism. And he said in regards to Osama bin Laden,'" I don't think of him, he's not on my mind". What was on his mind? Iraq Iraq Iraq. The problem with that is how many Americans have ALREADY died because of that.....?

The New York Times is a traitor publication!

The editor is Vile Filth!

OT Mark, but I'm sitting here watching MTP and Face the Nation, and Feingold(MTP) and Boxer(FTN) are both telling outright lies about the Iraqi PM and his "amnesty" proposal. They both are claiming that Malaki is offering amnesty to insurgents who have hurt or killed Americans. This is an outright lie!

Mark, why can these politicians get awy with lying to the American people? They do it all the time, then it's parroted by their mind-numb lemmings.

Barbara Boxer should be hanging from the Golden Gate Bridge; she is a disgrace to our country. Russ Feingold should be arrested immediately. This cheddar-brain is the reincarnation of Jack-ass Murtha...

Talk about dismissing terrorism. Those statements reveal a lack of attention to it.

"Can't win it"
"I don't think of him , he's not on my mind"

The time has come to put the Israel-Palestine conflict front and center. We should call for a regional conference of all the players including Syria,Egypt,Saudi Arabia,Jordan,Yemen,Oman,IRAN and all other's in the area with interests. We should also immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran. If the NYTimes is sanctioned so should the FOX War Network for it's allowing the bush administration's lies to be reported and supported as "truth". Peace

Keefer-

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Leading US senators have expressed fears that the national reconciliation plan announced by Iraq's prime minister could lead to an amnesty for insurgents who have killed US troops.

Is this the course we are suppose to be staying?

Frankly, I don't give a rat's backside what the New York Times has to say. The people have elected the leaders of this country and we don't need or want a gaggle of hired gun journalist majors making strategic and tactical decisions affecting our national security. Furthermore, this was not what the founders had in mind for a "free press". The so-called members of the "press" in this country are nothing more than propagandists paid by rich liberals to undermine our elected government. If any of our weak willed, pandering politicians had any guts at all they'd put a stop to this nonsense.

The only way these liberal rag sheets are gonna get the message, is if you call and cancel your subscription.

OT: Terrorists have claimed they have murdered the four kidnapped Russians. This is more proof we cannot negotiate with these scumballs. I wonder how Moscow will react to this sad news.

Well Mark, I have to agree with you(good grief, again!!!). That sting operation should have not seen the light of day.

Lefty, Bush's comment on the WOT is that this is a war that can never be won, not as other wars have been won. This is not new---do you just ignore facts, or forget them, or what?

Old-fashioned wars were fought by armies representing specific countries, fighting for specific goals. So if we stopped Canada from taking over the Great Lakes states, by defeating the Candadian Army, it would be clear that we won that war. And that they lost. The army of the country of Canada failed to achieve its goals.

So what army are we fighting? What country does it represent? What does it want? How can we tell if we "win" or not?

That is why this is referred to as "assymetrical warfare" and why everything about it is different. Clearly, if the goal of secular Islam is to kill every infidel, and to not stop trying till every secular Muslim is dead, the only way we could accurately claim to "win" this war would be to kill every secular Muslim. Fortunately, we do not have a leadership that thinks we should pursue this goal.

So all we can do is contain the threat, while working from the other side to erode the base from which it stems.

Now, you lefties LOVE to raise Osama up to giddy heights of importance. Why, I wonder?? Why is it so important to you to have the world think we are all obsessed with him, preoccupied with him, place such incredible power in the hands of one man?

Personally, I much prefer the approach of the administration, which is to simply render him relatively impotent and to ignore him. Killing him would make him a martyr. Capturing him would create a whole new set of problems---problems which would have you lefties licking your lips in glee as they would provide you with more fodder for your rampages. But if he were caught, he would once again provide a rallying point. Now, he is just an impotent old man scurrying from cave to cave, trying to save his hide, and losing supporters right and left (well, not LEFT) as he has to choose between being a leader and being a pusher, pushing his foor soldiers ahead of him via tapes while he refuses to get out front.

Now YOU, lefty, would obviously prefer to have the leader of the United States of America announce to the world that this doddering old man is the biggest threat we face, and he just can't sleep for fretting about him. I am tickled to see our President dismiss him, and refuse to give him the validation you seem to think he should have.

Where is the breast-beating Left on this?

Remember the anguish over the LIVES ENDANGERED!!!!!!!!!! when it came out (again) that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? Remember the shrieks of horror at the possibility that LIVES COULD BE LOST !!!!!!! when it came out that a known covert agent, outed years ago, was still working for the CIA? (Let us reflect on the fact that if any lives were put in danger by the Plame non-scandal, they were the lives of professional intelligence personnel who volunteered to go in the line of fire for their country. And no lives were put in danger by a revelation of a poorly designed and executed semi-covert operation which included a publicity-mad political groupie.)

Yet the Left is curiously silent about the very real, very immediate, danger created by the NYT in its crusade to disarm the United States. (And now let us reflect that the lives endangered by this latest testing of the boundaries of treason are those of any Americans, anywhere on Earth, as well as millions of others who have for any reason come onto the radar of the murder-mad lunatics of the world.)

The excuse I heard was "The public has a right to know." Well, I don't have the right to know. And the terrorists for darned sure don't have the right to know. Since when is it a "RIGHT" of anyone to be privy to the innermost workings of our national defense?

If anyone had published the plans for D-Day and then pleaded that we had "the right to know" we also would have had the "right" to attend the hanging.

Leave the Old Grey Lady to the neorads. Leave her to the Daily Kos crowd. Any thoughtful, concerned, American should refuse to support the NYT in any way whatsoever---and that includes quotes and references. Shunning is an excellent way to deal with these idiots, at least until the courts have a chance to deal with them.

"I wonder how Moscow will react to this sad news."

Hopefully, Kimberly, it is still a bad idea to poke the Bear. Russia has never been hampered by an effete elite of appeasers, and may just kick some tail here.

NEVER... EVER... TRUST A LIBERAL with our nation's security, secrets, or military (or anything for that matter)! It's beyond their abilities and comprehension!!!

It's time we round up every last liberal traitor -- including those at the New York Times -- and put them in prison!

If the current laws aren't sufficient to put them in prison FOR LIFE, then we need new laws that will allow just that... and if any American is killed as a result of their actions -- THE DEATH PENALTY -- just like any other common spies and traitors!

The following are quotes from the article: Leaks And The Law (www.weeklystandard.com)

"Although the editors of the Times act as if prosecution is not a possibility, not everyone concurs. One person who is still mulling the matter over is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Asked in late May about the prospect of prosecuting the Times and others who publish classified information, he by no means ruled it out. 'There are some statutes on the books,' he said, 'which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility.'"

"Unsurprisingly, given what is at stake, even that tentative opinion elicited a fire and brimstone denunciation from the Times. An editorial on May 24 dismissed as 'bizarre' the attorney general's 'claim that a century-old espionage law could be used to muzzle the press.' It has long been understood, added the newspaper, that the 'overly broad and little used' Espionage Act of 1917 applies only to government officials and 'not to journalists.'"

"But this interpretation, even if it were accurate (which it is not), is entirely beside the point. The attorney general did not mention the 1917 Espionage Act or any other specific law. But if the editors of the paper were to take a look at the U.S. Criminal Code, they would find that they have run afoul not of the Espionage Act but of another law entirely: Section 798 of Title 18, the so-called Comint statute."

"Unambiguously taking within its reach the publication of the NSA terrorist surveillance story (though arguably not the Times's more recent terrorist banking story), Section 798 reads, in part:"

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

They should remain in prison -- no bail -- while they spend years and years appealing their convictions!

Auction off the New York Times to a pro-American group who are more interested in protecting the lives of Americans and their families and less concerned about giving away our security secrets to our enemies and terrorists who want to destroy the U.S.!

When it comes to our nation's security... It is time to PUT A MUZZLE ON the IRRESPONSIBLE -- and TRAITOROUS -- PRESS!!!

AAR

Almiranta-

Love this statement:

“So what army are we fighting? What country does it represent? What does it want? How can we tell if we "win" or not?”

And yet when the Left asks those very same questions about Iraq we are called traitor and unsupportive of the president. You just proved my point on the Iraq debacle. What army are we fighting? And how are we going to tell when we win? That lovely slogan "When they stand up we'll stand down " sounds good to uncritical ears but what does that really mean? And what qualifies as success? Even you guys can't give a clear and concise answer to the American public on that issue.

"That is why this is referred to as "assymetrical warfare" and why everything about it is different. Clearly, if the goal of secular Islam is to kill every infidel, and to not stop trying till every secular Muslim is dead, the only way we could accurately claim to "win" this war would be to kill every secular Muslim. Fortunately, we do not have a leadership that thinks we should pursue this goal."

BTW it’s Asymmetrical not ASSymetrical.
I would also ask you to pick up a dictionary or a newspaper and learn what the term secular really means. I think if you did that paragraph may make a little more sense. I think what you meant to say is fundamentalist or radical Muslims. If you're going to advocate the invasion and destruction of a people, then at least do them the favor of knowing which one’s you’re going to kill. So here's a short course for you. WE LIKE the SECULARISTS because THEY LIKE DEMOCRACY. WE HATE the RADICALS because THEY HATE THE WEST. Unfortunately your obviously uninformed paragraph is all to true because we seem to be getting more secular Muslims killed than fundamentalist at this point. To paraphrase Jesus that was really a case of “ out of the mouths of idiots thou hast perfected praise?”

"I am tickled to see our President dismiss him,....."

Well I'm glad you can be tickled because the murderer of 3000 Americans roaming free certainly doesn't "tickle" me or this country. Everyday that GWB ignores his responsibility to find this man is another day of insult to those Americans. He owes it to those people to hunt him down and bring him to justice. But obviously the right has it's own agenda and justice is hardly it. We always knew it would be up to the Left to finish the job anyway, as usual. Even GWB so much as stated that. Seems to me that you're more interested in playing politics with this man's image than anything else from your quote. "Capturing him would create a whole new set of problems---problems which would have you lefties licking your lips in glee as they would provide you with more fodder for your rampages." Could you do us all a favor and become a speechwriter for the Republican Party? I'm sure the public would be fascinated to see where the priorities of the right are.

AAR-

Please sit down and relax before you have a heart attack.

Little Alberto isn't going to do anything of the kind to the NYT and he knows it. And here's why

U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931)

But look there's good news, this gives you guys another go nowhere potential constitutional amendment to fantasize over. So many amendments, so little time.

Leftorium,

Your comments once again confirm why liberals cannot be trusted withour national security.

I have yet to hear one liberal denounce the release of classified information about programs designed to help us fight the Global War on Terror. In fact you applaud the traitors who are providing information to the terrorists.

You, axis, Third Eye Blind, and the rest of the liberal posters on this and other sites, care only about criticising the Bush Administration. You never provide a plausable suggestion to help win the War on Terror. You only attempt to undermine the efforts of the Administration.

You may disagree, or you just don't understand, but we are fighting an enemy who has vowed to kill all infidels. The Bush ADministration is taking the responsible actions necessary to defend Americans from another attack.

But you don't care. You don't care that 3000 innocent Americans died on 9/11. You don't care that Saddam was murdering 10's of thousands of Iraqis each year. You don't care that Islamo-fascist terrorists are killing thousands each year. You don't really care about the 2,500 brave men and women of the US Armed Forces have given their lives to fight terrorism, while providing Iraqis and Afghans a chance to live in a free society. To you, their deaths were meaningless.

All you know and care about is that your liberal politicians have lost election, after election, after election. You think that if you paint President Bush as a warmonger, an evil, irresponsible, and incompetent fool, and only got us into Iraq to enrich his oil buddies. Nevermind that there were laws on the books declaring that regime change in Iraq was the official US policy, that Congress had authorized the use of miitary force against Iraq to enforce the UN resolution, and that Saddam was committing acts of war aginst the US by firing on our aircraft. Nevermind that every leading Democrat was saying that Saddam was a threat and should be removed from power, all stated before President Bush was elected president.

You said that we could never defeat the Taliban, because the Soviets couldn't in 10 years, and that our forces would end up in a quagmire. We defeated the Taliban in three weeks, and have allowed for democratic elections in Afghanistan. YOU WERE WRONG.

You said that we would sustain 10's of thousands of casualties during the intitial invasion of Iraq and we would get bogged down. We defeated one of the largest armies in the world in just three weeks with historically low casualties. Now Iraq has have three elections, has a new Constitution, and is moving towards democracy. YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN.

You said that the tax cuts, which, in your eyes were only for the rich, would worsen the deficit and cause a recession. Instead, we have seen record revenues, the rich are paying an even higher percentage of the total income tax, and our economy has been growing strongly. YOU WERE WRONG, YET AGAIN.

Why should we listen to anything you liberals say. You're always wrong.

At the very least, I hope everybody stops buying the New York Times and stops patronizing their advertisers.

Maybe if your government would stop engaging in illegal acts under the veil of national security, the press would be less inclined to blow the lid off them

Like I said before, you people are losers and it's finally catching up with you. America is realizing what a crock you are.

Cheers and Happy Sunday!

We can't afford to let the liberals betray us anymore, and sure as heck can't allow them to regain power, TOO MUCH DANGER!!

Jeremiah

Axis,

"Maybe if your government would stop engaging in illegal acts under the veil of national security, the press-*BOOM!!!*

-A terrorist that evaded our government thanks to the NYT's story.

"I don't think of him, he's not on my mind."-President Bush

That must have been a major blow to Osama's ego. heh. heh.

Keefer,

When Theresa said we'd have to live with it, she meant people of her economic station...being the fabulously wealthy wife of a US Senator is pretty much proof against a terrorist killing you...so, she'd have to live with poorer people dying ... she's ok with that.

Aren't you?

Leftorium...that is NOT what Bush said in 2004. Use the ENTIRE quote and the ENTIRE context. Don't cherry pick.

Isn't it amazing how liberals demand privacy, protection, and absolute security of their own personal information, but yet liberals believe it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to give their enemies the nation's secrets that protects their very lives, families, and cities.

Isn't it amazing how liberals go totally ballistic if anyone gains access to their own personal information, but yet liberals support -- no insist on -- the release of our nation's secrets to terrorists and our enemies around the world.

Isn't it amazing how liberals want their own information kept secret, but willing give away the secrets of others.

Isn't it amazing how liberals insist that we spend millions of dollars and years turning over every stone to find out who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, but actually agree with and support the leaking of the secret information intended to protect American lives and cities.

Yes, Leftorium, you liberals better hope that Conservatives never gain a 2/3 majority because we will put a stop to the foolishness of your liberal traitors who give away our military and security secrets... PERMANENTLY!

Yes, Leftorium, it is liberals who are the threat to this nation!

Liberals should never be given a security clearance or permitted to work on or have knowledge of any programs which affect the security, defense, and protection of the United States.

AAR

add my name to the law suite against the n.y.times for putting me and my familys safety in danger. i think we the people in this country should rise up and stop these papers and news people now for putting all our lives and our kids lives in danger. have we not had enough.
Lamay in okeechobee,Fl.

LIBERAL = ALL IN THE NAME OF PUBLICITY!

The very name of “liberal” concocts the image that all opinions, attitudes, outlooks and thought is to be heard, and all peoples of all ethnic groups are to participate in the political process. SADLY, this is not the liberalism of the 21st Century.

Today’s liberals are the most intolerant, narrow-minded and bigoted people extant! To the liberal today, it’s either their way, or the highway. Liberals have no place for any idea or political concept other than their own loony-leftist ideology. Our liberals are the true fascists of our time. They allow no deviation from their hard-left views!!!!

Liberalism is dangerous to our nation because liberals detest our nation so. They hate our affluence, they hate our position in the world, and they hate our freedoms. Liberals are the most miserable of people. Most frighteningly, however, are their efforts to tear down our nation, destroy our liberty and throw in the towel to Islamofascism

So, do liberals really believe in giving minorities a break? Believe it or not, they don’t care one way or another. What they care about is positive PUBLICITY in the organs of BIG MEDIA. Of course they don’t really have a problem getting positive coverage in the partisan press, but publicity to lefties is all encompassing.

In the meantime, liberals are a danger to America. If they somehow succeed in orchestrating an American defeat in the War with Islam, the ramifications will be devastating to our way of life. This can only happen if we, the American voters, allow it to happen!!

So, our(conservative) pinnacle of success, is what the liberal left would greatly wish to achieve!!

Also at this critical point in time would be a fantastic time for all christian's to come to together and put all our resources combined to some good use!!

Let's put these creepy liberal's out of power!!

Like the old saying "when the going get's tough, the tough get going"!!

Christian's & Republican's: lET'S GET TOUGH AND LET'S GET GOING!!

Jeremiah

Warriornation,

"I don't think of him, he's not on my mind."-President Bush

Is that the better quote you may be looking for? So the murderer of 3000 Americans is not on the Bush radar screen?

You know I will hand it to you Regressives. You are masters at spinning your failures. Lewis Black put it best when he said ,Neo Cons come out, they take a dump, then they stand back and proudly show it off to everyone. Then everyone says, Hey you just took a dump! What's their response, That's very un-American of you to say, that's obviously fertilizer. Keep on spinning you dervishes. LOL

Warriornation,

"I don't think of him, he's not on my mind."-President Bush

Is that the better quote you may be looking for? So the murderer of 3000 Americans is not on the Bush radar screen?

You know I will hand it to you Regressives. You are masters at spinning your failures. Lewis Black put it best when he said ,Neo Cons come out, they take a dump, then they stand back and proudly show it off to everyone. Then everyone says, Hey you just took a dump! What's their response, That's very un-American of you to say, that's obviously fertilizer. Keep on spinning you dervishes. LOL

Leftorium...I'm not a Republican so strike one on you. You again are looking at a quote and not the context yet it is you guys that bitch a fit and say Gore really didn't say he created the Internet and Clinton really didn't lie because is is.

Etc, etc.

I don't need to spin at all. Bush has gone hard after terrorism something that Clinton just simply didn't do. That's why were were attacked the first WTC, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the three embassy bombings, etc.

That strategy didn't work. I don't know if Bush's will work, but I'd rather be proactive about it.

The rest of your post...well the subject of dumping fits you to a tee. I'm guessing you are about 26 years old, have yet to make 50K a year and you simply don't understand the real world. I was a liberal like you one time, many many years ago in college. Then I had a family, got real jobs and grew up. There may be hope for you yet.

AAR-

"Yes, Leftorium, you liberals better hope that Conservatives never gain a 2/3 majority because we will put a stop to the foolishness of your liberal traitors who give away our military and security secrets... PERMANENTLY!"

Another well thought out post of clear, concise, unadulterated garbage AAR? More threats of what you'll do to liberals in your little fantasy world?
Look in case you were'nt informed by the head of right wing propaganda let me clue you in. The days of you guys coming close to 2/3 of anything are long gone. Today you barely poll at 1/3.

Leftorium,

Really?

You might be surprised what can happen under the "right" circumstances!

I would like to see, but don't expect instant changes. It will take many years to repair the damage liberals have done to America over the past 50 years.

The question is, will liberals and liberalism be stopped before liberals make the United States into a third rate nation.

AAR

Leftorium,

Got a question for ya!

Why is it that you criticize someone that has never done anything to purposely hurt or harm you
in any way? When they are only trying to help you to understand the dangers of the liberal type of thinking that you are in, yet you incessantly continue your tripe about how good it is with something that will most likely some day bring this great nation to a more sadistic state than it already is, and eventually to a screeching halt!

You make fun of people that are trying their best to win you to safety!

Now why bother, to write? if you can't try to get along and come to a peacable mannerly agreement and without the hateful smart elic remarks!!

Now I'm going to tell you one thing AAR is a good feller and I respect him, He has a few more years under his belt than you and I, so I would suggest you start listening and learning from him, instead of throwing your insults(to the wind) to your disadvantage, to throw insults at someone thats trying to help you is just plain ignorant... and not only listen to him but HEED what he says!!

Then perhaps instead of floating far off, and you turn to the RIGHT ,the tides will change and you will be more secure with you feet planted on solid(right) rock instead of some weebe-washe(left) liberalism!

Jeremiah

Liberal Democratic Hypocrisy...

-- Following 9/11:

Liberal Democrats BLAMED President Bush for NOT KNOWING about the attack!

Liberal Democrats BLAMED President Bush for NOT DOING MORE to learn about the attack!

Liberal Democrats BLAMED President Bush for NOT DOING MORE to prevent the attack!

-- Now:

Liberal Democrats BLAME President Bush for DOING TOO MUCH to learn about planned Al Qaeda attacks!

Liberal Democrats BLAME President Bush for DOING TOO MUCH to protect Americans from another 9/11!

Liberal Democrats BLAME President Bush for DOING TOO MUCH to prevent another 9/11!

Liberal Democrats TRY TO STOP President Bush's efforts to protect Americans from another 9/11!

Liberal Democrats CHEER, ENCOURAGE and CONDONE the ILLEGAL release our national defense secrets!

Liberal Democrats CHEER The New York Times for DISCLOSING NATIONAL SECRETS about our efforts to stop terrorists!

Liberal Democrats CHEER The New York Times for ALERTING TERRORISTS around the world to what we are doing to stop them!

-- When the next 9/11 happens:

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS... and THE NEW YORK TIMES... can TAKE THE BLAME!!!

AAR

Has anyone thought that the NYT not only underminded National Security, but also put the American public in danger? It is no suprise to me that antiAmerican Sulzberger and the terrorists are in bed together. One can only hope that Arthur chokes on his 20 pieces of silver.

Kimberly,

Two of those Russians were beheaded by the "Religion of Peace". "Group Claims to kill 4 Russians in Iraq:"

"The 90-second video, posted on an Islamic Web site that frequently airs militant messages, showed the beheading of two blindfolded men and the shooting of a third.

In the footage, two men clad in black and wearing black ski masks shout “God is great!” before beheading the first man. Then one militant appears standing over the decapitated body of a second victim lying in a pool of blood, with the head placed on top of the body.

The footage of the beheading victims shows a closed room with white walls. The shooting appears outdoors in what looked like an alley between buildings. The footage was stamped with the logo of al-Qaida.

“God’s verdict has been carried out on the Russian diplomats ... in revenge for the torture, killing and expulsion of our brothers and sisters by the infidel Russian government,” the statement said.

The video begins with a verse from the Quran appearing in white letters on a black screen, and a voice reading “Those who aggress on you, you aggress on them.”

Now, if Russia would just "redeploy" out of Iraq. Oh, wait.... The NYT just helped vicious Muslim terrorists like these.

Kimberly4bush - You spoke of the four Russians that were beheaded - we have killed over 50 thousand Iraqi civilians.

Amiranta - You compared D-Day to Western Union wire transfers. D-Day was a military operation, Western Union is a private corporations and transfers are transactions between private citizens. Allowing government access to private transactions between private citizens is a violation of civil rights and certainly now what this country was founded on.

Amiranta - Q: What Army are we fighting? What country does it represent? What does it want?
A: We are fighting a culture/religion - Islam. Muslim people belong to the Islamic culture. Although Islam has spread to many countries, it started on the Arabian Peninsula. Muslims, especially on the Arabian Peninsula, view western(American and European) and Russian cultures as being ruthlessly imposed on them. This imposition is highly offensive and contrary to the fundemental beliefs of their religion. This imposition has been going on since the turn of the last century. Some even argue that world war I was really predicated on stopping Germany from accessing Iraqi oil(as opposed to being predicated on the assassination of a duke. Obviously we are still addicted to their oil and because of this addiction, must interject our culture into theirs. America and Americans must ween themselves off oil and allow the Islamic countries on the Arabian Peninsula to function as sovereign countries. In my opinion, if they were to understand that as our objective, they would be less inclined to attack us.

A-10 - You mentioned that Saddam killed 30 thousand of his own people. Honestly, I really don't care. To me, one American life is not worth 30 thousand of a people who never threatened us. The Rwandans and Ugandans against the Congolese has resulted in, like, over two million deaths. Not to mention AIDS in Africa. Is 30 thousand Iraqis killed by Saddam worth over two hundred billion US tax payer dollars, over 2500 US soldiers' lives and over 50 thousand innocent Iraqis' lives?
Also, do you really believe Iraq and Afghanistan are anywhere near democracies?

9/11 occurred because of two things: one, our foreign/oil policies and, two, the intelligence community's inability/unwillingness to communicate with each other. They couldn't/wouldn't heed each other's warnings. Fixing the intelligence community's communication problems and violating our civil rights(monitoring phone calls, bank transactions, money transfers) are two totally different things. Allowing them to be confused with each other is very dangerous.

I realize many people will not agree with this post. I hope that we can all remember we are all Americans who hold this country near and dear to our hearts. I would like to submit two thought in closing: one, with what looks like a record fire season coming for the summer in the south west and hurricane season for the southern and eastern seaboards, will a federal government over-burdened by military spending be able to cope? Second, I see nuances from both left and right posts that betray negativity to the rich. This is for anyone who works for a living or who is a self-made rich man: maybe those born into a lot of money are the real enemy.

I think that the liberals and their press are trying to retire Karl Rove. I mean, that they have blundered so much in the past three weeks with their Senate votes and the release of classified programs that 80% of the population will see with amazing clarity that the "progressives" will manage to get us killed if allowed to run the country again.

Find twenty or thirty Liebermans (or even Trumans) and maybe we will throw our lot in with yours again, but for now with the likes of Boxer, Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, and Reed - thanks, but no thanks.

I am tickled to see our President dismiss him,....."

Well I'm glad you can be tickled because the murderer of 3000 Americans roaming free certainly doesn't "tickle" me or this country. Everyday that GWB ignores his responsibility to find this man is another day of insult to those Americans. He owes it to those people to hunt him down and bring him to justice. But obviously the right has it's own agenda and justice is hardly it. We always knew it would be up to the Left to finish the job anyway, as usual. Even GWB so much as stated that. Seems to me that you're more interested in playing politics with this man's image than anything else from your quote. "Capturing him would create a whole new set of problems---problems which would have you lefties licking your lips in glee as they would provide you with more fodder for your rampages." Could you do us all a favor and become a speechwriter for the Republican Party? I'm sure the public would be fascinated to see where the priorities of the right are.

Posted by: Leftorium at June 25, 2006 02:10 PM

Wow, lefty thinks a bunch of Osama bin ladleds CLOANS carried out 9/11..........wow again! You know, bin ladled has been putting out alot of videos these days, you know, chopping peoples heads off and rallying his troops. He should be our top priority, forget these knuckleheaded pansies in Iraq, they got nuthin on bin ladled(sarcasm off)! Get some new talking points lefty, these ones are old and useless!

I have been backpacking for the last week and have not been privy to the news. Could someone tell me when this NYTimes article ran so I can read it?

Thanks, Ash

Ash,

I think it was Friday...

Ash,

And, aha!, we have something in common - in July I'm heading for the hills to do some "fishing"...you know, fishing pole, tackle, bait...beer...fish? Well, yeah, if any of them blunder on the hook...but we've got hot dogs to go with the beer, just in case...

-A terrorist that evaded our government thanks to the NYT's story.

-- Wow, a single newspaper article singlehandedly defeated the efforts of the FBI, CIA, NSA, Dept of Justice, even with all the billions of dollars you are pouring into them.

I guess its true, the pen IS mightier than the sword. Does not speak well of your handling of things however. Another failure by the Republican controlled anti-terror program. What a surprise

Kimberly4bush - you mentioned the four Russian soldiers beheaded. We have killed 50 thousand innocent Iraqis.

Almiranta - D-Day was a military operation. A Western Union transaction is private, between a private individual and a private company. Allowing government access to private transactions is a violation of civil rights and certainly not what this country was founded on.

Allmiranta - You asked, "What army are we fighting?" "What country does it represent?" "What does it want?"

Islam is a religion/culture that originated on the Arabian Peninsula. A Muslim is a person who is a member of the religion. Islam has spread to many countries outside of the Arabian Peninsula. The Islamic culture on the Arabian Peninsula feels it is at war with Western(American and European) and Russian Culture. The Islamic culture feels the American, European and Russian Cultures have been imposed on it. Certain aspects of Russian and Western Cultures directly oppose and severely offend aspects of the Islamic culture. Western imposition on Islam began as early as the turn of the last century, since the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution was the beginning of our addiction to the Arabian Peninsula's drug: oil. Some even argue that World War I was predicated on stopping the Germans from accessing Iraqi oil as opposed to being predicated on the assassination of an arch duke. Our culture should ween itself off of oil. We would have no reason to have a presence in these countries or be at all interested in their day to day affairs. The countries of the Arabian Peninsula would be totally seperate and free from our culture and, therefore, our culture would not be under the threat of a terrorist attack. Again, to make this clear: They are in a cultural war with us that, in their eyes, we started. We stop meddling in their business and they won't attack us.

A-10 - You mentioned Saddam Hussein's killing 30 thousand of his own people. I, honestly, do not care about that. Not one American soldier's life is worth 30 thousand lives from a country that never posed a threat to us. Didn't the government of Rwanda kill over a million of it's own people? That's not even counting the amount of people in Africa that have died of AIDS. Is over 200 billion dollars, 2500 American soldiers' lives and 50 thousand innocent Iraqis' lives worth the 30 thousand Saddam killed?
You also mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan being democracies. Do you really believe they are anywhere close to democracies?

9/11 occurred because of two reasons. One, our foreign/oil policies in the Arabian Peninsula and two, the intelligence community's refusal/inability to communicate with each other. Fixing the intelligence community's communication abilities and violating our civil rights(monitoring phone calls, bank transactions, money transfers) are mutually exclusive. Our civil rights need not be violated in order to fix intelligence agencies communications. You are Republicans. You are for small government. I am not a Republican but I am for the same thing. I do not trust the government with my personal information only because they will abuse that power for their own political and financial gain.

I realize many people will not agree with this post. I would remind people that we are all Americans and we all hold this country near and dear to our hearts. I have noticed nuances in both left and right posts that reveal a distaste for the rich. I submit this to those of us who earn under a hundred grand a year or who have made all our money ourselves(not inherited): maybe those that were born into a lot of old money are the real enemy.
Also, we are entering what might be a record setting fire season in the south west, along with hurricane season for the eastern/southern seaboards. How will a federal government beleaguered by military spending deal with a worst case scenario this summer?

Mark,

Sounds like a good trip you have planned. I had a great time. Beer was a little too heavy to carry in my backpack, but I made up for it when I got back to "civilization". Despite our differences, I suspect we might have more in common than either of us knows.

Thanks for info.

Steiner,

It was more like 300,000 - and that was mostly just in the suppression of the 1991 uprising...

And, good God, man...you are one heartless person...

Ash,

Ah, that doesn't even matter - the main person I'm going up with is the best man at my wedding...part of his toast went, "well, Mark and I both have pictures of President Bush on our walls...mine has darts in it, his has kisses..."

Steiner,

Welcome to the party, bravo man, way to call a spade a spade.

Don't worry about the echo-chamber, i'm sure it's something you are familiar with. Disregard mark, he can be a nice guy, but if you don't put on your matching bib and kneepad set for him, then he gets testy, the rest of the peanut gallery is to be pitied, but they are good for an early morning laugh.

catch you on the flip side

steiner,

I'm one who disagrees with your post.

I disagree with your statement that "we" have killed 50 thousand innocent Iraqis. The last I read, those figures were "compiled" from "extrapolated" estimates based on "interviews" with selected Iraqis. And who might those "selected" Iraqis be? Terrorists? Sunnis? Those with an anti-American "agenda"?

As to 9/11, have you forgotten that Osama bin Laden was encouraged by Clinton's turning tail and running from Somalia? Have you forgotten that even Saddam Hussein had his troops read Black Hawk Down to learn how Americans will run when some of their troops are killed? The fact is, the Democrat's "run from a fight" and "easy stand on terrorists" was one of the causes of 9/11!

Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 1.3 to 1.5 million people -- maybe more -- "...a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

Here are just a few quotes about some of the killing of Saddam, his two sadistic sons, and his regime. There are likely others we haven't learned about yet. How many more mass graves will Iraqis find in the future when they start work on some building or construction project?

The figures are a little misleading in that they don't describe how the people were killed. It doesn't describe how many were tortured, carved up or skinned alive, had their arms and limbs chopped or pulled off, had their eyes or ears poked out, had their tongues cut out, were sexually mutilated, and worse -- all while they were still alive to "appreciate" Saddam's interrogation techniques.

"...history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."

"...Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

"...suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000."

"Kurdish groups estimate Anfal's victims were ... up to 180,000 ... Human Rights Watch concluded that 'the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide.' Anfal's intense phase lasted three months in the spring of 1988. If we estimate its victims at 100,000, the regime was killing Kurds alone at a rate of around 30,000 each month, or a thousand a day.

"The number of Kurds who died in 1991--killed by Saddam's forces or fleeing them--is estimated at 50,000 to 80,000. This range would have been much higher, except that the Gulf War Allies intervened in Iraq's north in response to the massive flow of desperate Kurdish refugees escaping the regime's onslaught."

"Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed..."

"...occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed."

"Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War."

This doesn't include the estimated 5,000 to 6,000 children who were dying each month as a direct result of the ongoing efforts to "contain" Saddam and his murderous regime.

This doesn't include the trillions of dollars damage done to the U.S. and world economies, and which would have been done in the future.

This doesn't include the effects Saddam was having on U.S. and world security -- now or in the future.

This doesn't include the fact that Saddam would have resumed his WMD programs when U.N. sanctions were finally removed.

And more...

I'm not even going to address the rest of your comments...

(NOTE: If anyone has better or more accurate figures, let me know. I want to compile a list to provide our liberals each time they compare Saddam Hussein to our troops, or defend his regime!)

AAR

AAR,

Compare those numbers to Chinsese citizens killed and "dissapeared"...yet somehow, we have a favorable trading party status with them.

How about our buddy-buddy status with the Iron-fisted rulers of Azerbaijan?

What about the close ties with Saudi Arabia?

How about our illegal invasion of Nicaragua, which caused anywhere from 3000-6000 deaths?

You sure do have selective morals when it comes to the oppressed. or was it easier to 'Shock and Awe' an already destroyed nation?

Keep telling yourself you were right, i'm sure it must get easier to lie to yourself as the years go by, and the body-bags pile up

Where on earth does the 50,000 innocent Iraqis come from?

Many of the Iraqis killed have died with a gun in their hands or a bomb strapped to their chest. Give me a break on this "innocent" nonsense.

Where on earth does the 50,000 innocent Iraqis come from?

Many of the Iraqis killed have died with a gun in their hands or a bomb strapped to their chest. Give me a break on this "innocent" nonsense.

TEO...since you're at it...how about the 14 times Yassir Arafat stayed at the White House under Clinton.

Yeah that Clinton, boy was he tough on terrorism I tell ya.

Good grief.

Warriornation,

What are you talking about?

Arafat was here, supposedly, to talk peace, Clinton got farther with the PLO than Bush could have ever dreamed.

Are you really trying to conflate a president being an intermediary between two hated factions, with giving weapons, training, and money to a band of crazy foreign fighters in Afghanistan, just so we could cause Russia some problems, then afterwards leave the civilians there to twist in the wind, while we dis-avow any knowledge of our intervention?

AAR,

Is the purpose, then, of our military and military budget to go on/be spent on humanitarian missions? I believe our military and military budget should go towards protecting our borders. Where's the sympathy for the millions of Africans killed by the Rwandan government and dead because of AIDS? Why are your sympathies so strongly allied with Iraq? Are you Iraqi?

The second part of your post assumes future consequences: trillions of dollars of future damage to the US economy, future security threats. What I'm trying to say is that there is a better way. There is a way for us to move forward in a way that could criple the Iraqi economy. All we have to do is stop buying their oil. They would be an insignificant third world Islamic country just like Tunisia or Malaysia. Also, as I said, if the countries of the Arabian Peninsula see that we are making efforts to extract our culture from theirs, they would probably be a lot less inclined to attack us.
You spoke of children dying under Saddam. 15 million children worldwide die of starvation every year. How come no sympathy for them?

Respectfully yours from your fellow American,

Steiner

TEO,

Close your eyes and take a break!

That liberal smoke screen of yours is clouding your already cloudy vision.

Talk about blowing smoke, changing the subject, and taking a trip around the world!!!

I did stomp some ants this morning, mashed some aphids, and squashed a Japanese beetle.

Tomorrow I hope to get rid of a rat and a ground hog if they will cooperate.

We do what we can, when we can!

Get with your liberal friends over at the "Kettle of S..." and let me know who they want us to invade next. We will need a few volunteers to build up our troop strength for the invasion, so maybe you can ask them to go ahead and sign up!

AAR

Unfortunately this says it all

AAR,

the only one blowing smoke here is you guys, how convenient it is to forget all the stupid things we have done in the name of "helping", then when the poop hits the fan, we find a new way to spin it so we don't look like the foreign affairs idiots we tend to be. If we would let people deal with their own issues, then maybe they will find a way to work through it like we did, yknow about 250 years ago, instead we feel the need to intervene in everyones affairs, even when they don't want us there.

How about we work on the problems we have at home, before we start giving the rest of the world advice on how to solve their issues? For instance, can you tell me how many major administration officials speak Arabic, or Farsi, or Urdu, Pashtoon? I bet you can count them on a couple fingers, we feel the need to overlay our morals and political philosophy on everyone else, when American-democracy doesn't work for everyone, perhaps a constitutional monarchy, or socialist-democracy, or perhaps a loose federation...nooooo, it's our way, or the bunker-buster.

TEO,

Tell your friends to speak English if they want to talk to Americans. English is the language of Business. English is spoken around the world. Anyone who wants America's or an American's money speaks English. You want to speak Farsi, Urdu, Pashtoon, or some other language? Go right ahead. We have interpreters if we need them -- so do they! It's time America gets back to being America -- and not the liberal trash heap you would make it. It's time the liberal agenda and liberalism is put where it belongs... in the trash heap of history!

One thing other nations have learned -- never trust a liberal... never depend on a liberal... never trust a liberal to keep their word... never rely on a liberal for their defense. If a liberal gives their word, forget it. A liberal's word or promise is as useless as a block of ice in Antarctica! That's why every nation must have their own nuclear weapons... because the can never trust a liberal President to come to their defense -- shared defense treaty or not!

Go watch Fox News.

AAR

Warriornation,

How do you get those letters to come up red like that?

Steiner,

This is going to be a little rambling, may have logic or grammar errors, and won't touch on all of your questions, but it's getting late and I'm about "liberalled out" for the day.

No, the role, mission, and primary purpose for our military is not to support humanitarian missions.

Our military does help at times, such as in some U.N. efforts -- on the rare occasions they can get their act together, the Indonesia tsunami disaster, and the earthquake in Pakistan.

America did not go to war to save the Iraqis from Saddam's murder and torture. That might have been the human or right thing to do, but America can't and American's won't support wars around the world to save the people of other nations from their own governments; although, we may help in some cases. America isn't going to solve all of the problems around the world either. I don't say we can or should.

If it were not for Osama bin Laden, Saddam would most likely still be in power. The U.N. sanctions would probably still be in effect, Saddam would still be a threat to the Middle East, and he would still be killing and torturing his people. If Saddam had kept his killing and torture within Iraq, he would likely still be in power. We would not have removed him, even with his killing and torture.

I fully supported and still do President Bush's decision to remove Saddam, but not because it was our job to remove him for killing and torturing his people. I have briefly touched on some of the reasons before, but those reasons only serve as targets for the liberal snipers to swoop in, take a shop, and move on. I don't know if you read any of those posts or not.

To talk about why Saddam had to go means going back through the history of his regime, his prior actions, his likely future actions, the threat to his neighbors, the threat to the mid-east in general including Israel, his attack and withdraw tactics that our military had to counter, the threat of his actions and impact on the U.S. and world economies, the likelihood that he would have resumed his WMD programs when sanctions were removed, and yes, even the security of the oil that runs this nation and the entire world. Those discussions and reasons could fill a book or more and I cannot even begin to do it justice here.

After 9/11, events came together just right so that President Bush, Tony Blair, and the other coalition members who shared the same belief could remove him. Those conditions would only have lasted for a brief moment in history. President Bush recognized that moment, and took action! If he had not acted when he did, if he had waited even a few weeks longer, the opportunity could have and likely would have been missed and lost.

It is very likely that the total cost to the United States and the world of leaving Saddam in power would have far exceeded the costs we have spent so far on his removal and rebuilding Iraq. No, I can't prove that, but I do believe it based on everything I know. Can a liberal touch and feel it? No? But they wouldn't believe it if they could.

When I talk about Saddam's killing and torture, it's because liberals can only understand tangibles and things like body counts, and even then they try to spin it into something it isn't. Liberals make a huge issue if American soldiers kill an Iraqi, but forget the million or so that Saddam killed and tortured. They demonize our troops and ignore the killing and torture by the terrorists.

Liberals make American soldiers out to be inhumane torturers because the actions of a few. They lead the world to believe that American soldiers allowing a dog to bark in a prisoner's face, taking embarrassing photos, etc. is the same as Saddam's torture. Each time they do, I try to remind them of what real torture was and how Saddam tortured tens or hundreds of thousands with real torture. I do not condone the actions of those troops, but they will and are being tried and punished.

That is not to say that I do not support interrogation techniques like loud music, sleep deprivation, standing upright for hours, uncomfortable temperatures in some cases if it can save the lives of our troops. How far should that go? I have to leave that up to those who are assigned and authorized to conduct the interrogation -- not to those who amuse themselves at the misery of others. Does that go to cutting off fingers as some of the liberals allege we do -- which as far as I know are lies? How do you answer? If you knew that your family and city were about to be destroyed, and you knew beyond any doubt that the person you had in custody had the information that could prevent it, would you allow the interrogator to chop off a finger? Or, would you sacrifice your family, your city, and the lives of everyone there in the name of "humane treatment" of a terrorist prisoner? If you were in charge of a group of soldiers, some of whom were your good friends, and you had a prisoner who you knew had information that would save their lives, would you fire a pistol near his head and make him believe the next one would be for real, or would you allow your friends and the soldiers under your command to die in the name of "humane treatment" of a terrorist prisoner?

We tried sanctions and talking for years. France, Russia, and other Iraq trading partners essentially ignored or worked around them. U.N. officials, and those of France and other nations were being bribed and working around the sanctions. France and Russia were even keeping Saddam updated on our plans.

Would more time and talk eventually have worked? Eventually is a very long time, but the cost would likely have been very great also!

We are in Iraq now, and I want America to win.

AAR

Warriornation,

How do you get those letters to come up red like that?

Posted by: Jeremiah

It's an internet HTML hyperlink, Jeremiah. Perhaps this site can help you to create one: create links

"Little Alberto isn't going to do anything of the kind to the NYT and he knows it. And here's why: U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931)."

Sorry, Leftybarfatorium, but your legal scholarship -- oh, what's the technical term? -- sucks. The statute that was challenged in Near v. Minnesota provided as follows:

"Any person who...shall be engaged in the business of regularly or customarily producing, publishing or circulating,...selling or giving away...a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical, is guilty of a nuisance, and all persons guilty of such nuisance may be enjoined, as hereinafter provided."

This statute has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the current case against the NY Times, because it doesn't apply to a newspaper's revealing secret national security intelligence information. So right of the bat, the statute challenged in Near v Minnesota has nothing to do with the New York Times' current treason.

Second, the statute in Near v Minnesota imposes a PRIOR RESTRAINT on the press, in that it not only penalizes a newspaper for having printed something in the past, but also prohibits it from publishing IN THE FUTURE. Prior restraints on the press are HIGHLY disfavored under the U.S. Consitution. But the statute violated by the NY Times isn't such a prior restraint. It would only punish the Times for something it already published in the past, the same way that defamation and obscenity laws do, both of which are constitutional.

Finally, the Supreme Court in Near also said the following:

"'When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."

See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931).

In other words, the Court in Near EXPRESSLY recognized that the legislature may constitutionally punish a newspaper for having published in the past information that damaged national security, and may even constitutionally prohibit a newspaper from publishing such intelligence information IN THE FUTURE. The Near case therefore SUPPORTS prosecuting the NY Times for having revealed secret national security information in time of war.

I, and I'm sure millions of other intelligent Americans, would therefore cheer "Little Alberto" (YOUR little slur) if he prosecutes the Times.

"Little Alberto isn't going to do anything of the kind to the NYT and he knows it. And here's why: U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931)."

Sorry, Leftybarfatorium, but your legal scholarship -- oh, what's the technical term? -- sucks. The statute that was challenged in Near v. Minnesota provided as follows:

"Any person who...shall be engaged in the business of regularly or customarily producing, publishing or circulating,...selling or giving away...a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical, is guilty of a nuisance, and all persons guilty of such nuisance may be enjoined, as hereinafter provided."

This statute has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the current case against the NY Times, because it doesn't apply to a newspaper's revealing secret national security intelligence information. So right of the bat, the statute challenged in Near v Minnesota has nothing to do with the New York Times' current treason.

Second, the statute in Near v Minnesota imposes a PRIOR RESTRAINT on the press, in that it not only penalizes a newspaper for having printed something in the past, but also prohibits it from publishing IN THE FUTURE. Prior restraints on the press are HIGHLY disfavored under the U.S. Consitution. But the statute violated by the NY Times isn't such a prior restraint. It would only punish the Times for something it already published in the past, the same way that defamation and obscenity laws do, both of which are constitutional.

Finally, the Supreme Court in Near also said the following:

"'When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."

See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931).

In other words, the Court in Near EXPRESSLY recognized that the legislature may constitutionally punish a newspaper for having published in the past information that damaged national security, and may even constitutionally prohibit a newspaper from publishing such intelligence information IN THE FUTURE. The Near case therefore SUPPORTS prosecuting the NY Times for having revealed secret national security information in time of war.

I, and I'm sure millions of other intelligent Americans, would therefore cheer "Little Alberto" (YOUR little slur) if he prosecutes the Times.