Monday, November 10, 2008

NY Times-traitors again, but in an instructive way

I've lost count of the number of times the NY Times has published classified information that may threaten the safety of our soldiers. Today's story is not as egregious as some in the past, as it in theory only reports on past operations,. The story discusses a 2004 classified executive order, signed by Rumsfeld and authorized by Bush, which allows special forces to conduct military operations in 15 to 20 countries in order to fight Al Qaeda terrorists. Apparently the traitor who leaks this news to the Times has confirmed for them at least a dozen operations which were carried out under this order.

These are just the kind of operations I want my government carrying out. We will never know how many attacks have been thwarted by these operations, and by our more public operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our safety for the last 7+ years suggests they have been successful. Will President Obama immediately reverse this executive order? I hope and pray not, but I fear the worst. Hopefully a reporter will actually ask him to comment.

And on another matter, these type of leaks are completely unacceptable. I hope the administration in its waning months will use whatever means it has to discover the source and punish the leakers to the full extent possible under the law. Leaking details of top secret military operations during wartime should be considered treason, and punished as such.


Anonymous said...

Could you please prove or show there is a direct cause-effect connection between carrying out those particular operations and the state "our safety" for the last seven years? Thank you.

right-wing prof said...

Uh, no I can't and neither can you. But that is WAY too high a standard. I can reason logically that when our military kills and captures terrorists, that contributes to our safety. I can reason that when our intelligence services discover terrorist plots against us and break them up, killing or capturing the conspirators, that that leads to our safety. I can read the details of multiple plots which were disrupted, and expect that there are many more with the details still secret.

Can you "prove" that the Allied victory in WWII saved any lives? No you can't 'prove' it, perhaps Hitler was just about to stop slaughtering Jews and invading his neighbors, but we didn't get to find out. This isn't some argument against winning WWII. You reasoning abilities are suffering anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, non sequitur. I never claimed that winning WWII saved lives.

Could you please tell us what "terrorist plots" "against us" have been broken up by those operations?

When you mention our "intelligence", is it to be related to the intelligence that informed of WMD in Iraq?


right-wing prof said...

please read about this terror plot disrupted:

dave3544 said...


Didn't the Bush administration already pledge to hunt down the source of leaks that could rise to the level of treason, only to decide that those crimes weren't so bad after all when it was discovered that Cheney, Rove, and Libby were involved?

More importantly, you seem to be arguing two things that I find puzzling.

You seem to be asserting that it is fine with you if the president secretly authorizes invading countries without reveling it to the American people. Is this the case?

You also seem to be supposing that there is an Al Qaeda terrorist out there plotting and planning thinking that he is safe from the United States military because the United States has not publicly declared their willingness to invade the particular country in which the terrorist is plotting. is this a reasonable assumption? Better yet, is it really reasonable to suppose that any terrorist plot is going deeper underground because of this story.

I would submit that the American people have the right to know which countries that our president plans to invade or has, in fact, invaded. In fact, I believe the Constitution gives that power to the people through their Congressional representatives. I would also submit that any terrorist plotting against the United States already has a healthy fear of being found out and killed. I doubt that a story in the NYT telling terrorists this information is likely to alter their plans.

right-wing prof said...

What leaks are you referring to that Cheney/Rove/Libby were involved in? I can only think you are referring to Valerie Plame but it has already been thoroughly established that:
*leaking her name was not a crime
*Richard Armitage was the one who leaked it.

Any yes I think it is ok if the US Military conducts secret operations in some places without informing the American people. I don't agree that we have a Constitutional right to this information. Often these operations are conducted and our representatives are briefed, sometimes the whole Congress, more likely just the intelligence committee members. Do you honestly think that military operations not announced to the general population are automatically unconstitutional?

dave3544 said...


Cheney, Rove, and Libby leaked Plame's name not knowing that Armitage already had.

Whether or not it was a crime is still debatable. It wasn't charged.

Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the leaking of the Plame's status in the CIA, as he found it outrageous. He did not fire people involved in the leaking of that status. in fact, he pardoned one of them.

Leaks are obviously not that important to the Bush administration.

No, I am not saying military actions not announced to the general population are unconstitutional. I am saying that they are dangerous. Anytime the president feels comfortable using our military without informing people should give us all pause. In a democracy secrets are dangerous. Hopefully we can agree to that, and argue over where that line should be drawn and when these secret should be revealed.

As no US personnel is put in any immediate danger and as the president has already announced several times that the US will use the military against Al Qaeda anytime, anywhere, I don't see what harm this story does.

I believe I have a right to know what my government does in my name.