Once again I am struck by the level of disloyalty certain media outlets have for America. Can these acts be considered treason? Personally, I think it is a very good question.
Following is the text of a Nov. 8 memorandum prepared for cabinet-level officials by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and his aides on the National Security Council. The five-page document, classified secret, was read and transcribed by The New York Times.
As it states, this is a classified document, many are discussing the content, but in my mind, the deliberate act of treason should be the focus. The behavior of the NYT , as well as CNN in showing the sniper video a while ago, should be in taken into consideration.
The actual definition of the word treason says quite a bit:
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Is this not what the New York Times as well as a few others is guilty of?
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.
This is not the first time the New York Times has leaked classified information, the most recent judgement against the New York Times allowing prosecuters to review their phone records is another instance where the New York Times disloyalty to our country endangered American lives.
The Supreme Court yesterday refused a request from the New York Times to stop federal prosecutors from examining the telephone records of two of its reporters, part of a grand jury probe of an alleged leak in a terrorism-funding investigation.
The court's decision not to get involved opens the way for U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago to review the telephone records of Times reporter Philip Shenon and former reporter Judith Miller. He has said the statute of limitations will expire on Dec. 3 on certain offenses a grand jury is investigating, and on Dec. 13 on others.
The Times had asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to stay an appeals court ruling in the government's favor. She referred the matter to the full court, and it declined yesterday in a one-sentence order that did not state its reasoning.
It was the second time in as many years the court has refused to get involved in a case pitting the government against the Times, and it lets stand a ruling that is the latest in a string of court decisions to go against media organizations that resist revealing confidential sources.
The current case arises from Fitzgerald's post-Sept. 11, 2001, investigation of possible links between al-Qaeda and two U.S.-based Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.
In December 2001, the Times reporters learned of plans to freeze the groups' assets, and called for comment shortly before FBI agents raided the offices. Fitzgerald is trying to find out if any government officials illegally leaked information to the reporters, and said disclosure of the government's plans tipped off the charities, endangering law enforcement officials. The Times disputes this.
The first amendment should never be allowed to be used as an "excuse" for treason, for betraying your country, especially at a time of war.
The New York Times should be held accountable and perhaps be brought up on charges of treason. The fact that information is classified, usually means it is NOT for public consumption and after reading this memo, there was absolutely no need for the American people to know, the only benefit the NYT had was betraying this fine country.
The same can be said for CNN, in the sniper video coverage. The graphic video of 10 sniper attacks was obtained by CNN -- through intermediaries -- from the Islamic Army of Iraq, one of the most active insurgent organizations in Iraq.
(In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.)
Terrorists working hand in hand with CNN.... again, is this not what the above definition of treason states? Does it not state that "cooperation with the enemy" IS treason? Didn't CNN cooperate with the enemy by showing a video that the enemy supplied because the enemy wished it? If this is not treason, what exactly is? Working with or for the enemy as CNN and the New York Times has been guilty of, should result in prosecution.
There is a vast difference between news and betraying your country and it is about time the line in the sand is drawn.
Others discussing this:
Sister Toldjah.
Macsmind.
Gateway Pundit.
PoliBlog.
Right Wing Guy.
Michelle Malkin.
Right Truth.
More on Enemy Propaganda being reported with Michelle Malkin, Mary Katharine Ham and Gateway Pundit.
Flopping Aces, who got this ball rolling.
Please note on Malkins page where the picture that the AP uses in the caption about the "supposed" burned sunni's, when clicked through, is actually a dead Shia!!!!!! That kind of deliberate distortion borders on complete dishonesty by the AP.