Wednesday, June 25, 2008

New York Times and treason

Ignoring requests by the CIA, the New York Times published the name of the interrogator of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed. In other words, an American newspaper just placed someone's life and family in danger....someone who was just doing his job keeping us safe.

Whose side is the New York Times on? Won't this discourage others who are fighting our war against terror? I mean, if you worked as an interrogator or investigator for the FBI, CIA or Homeland Security, wouldn't you be hesitant to do your job knowing that the New York Times may put your life and the lives of your family in danger by publishing your name?

If this isn't treason, what is?

6 comments:

Kevin said...

I wonder how the editors at the New York Times would feel if information about their foreign correspondents and traveling reporters was published.

Alcamadus said...

Wasn't Geraldo Rivera fired by Fox News because he was giving away strike points in Iraq? There definitely needs to be an investigation.

Dennis said...

Both of you have good points.

L'oiseau said...

"If this isn't treason, what is?"

Ignoring the Constitution so we can torture people.

(I still think they should never have published his name)

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

Even if you were right about torturing terrorists being unconstitutional, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't make it treason.

Treason is giving aid or comfort to the enemy and I would think that releasing the name of an interogator to our enemies, which not only puts him and his family's lives in danger, but may also hamper our ability to fight against terrorists by make our own people hesitant to do their jobs out of fear that their names will be published--I would think that fits the definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

L'oiseau said...

Maybe treason isn't the right word. But for people who claim to care so much about the Constitution, they are willing to sabotage it quickly in order to torture people. Interesting.