NYT describes Jewish terror as "romantic"

[al Haq]

And that totally negates their policy of publishing classified national security matters when the publication would aid Al Qaeda.

Oh, wait...no, it doesn't. The NYT has chosen to side with terrorists.

How, exactly did it help Al Qaeda? (I gather that the underlying ASSumption here is that Al Qaeda is too stupid to have figured out the rather non-specific stuff themselves).

The 9/11 Commission, in seeking to explain how we fell victim to a surprise assault, pointed to the gap between our foreign and domestic intelligence-collection systems, a gap that over time had grown into a critical vulnerability. Closing that gap, in the wake of September 11, meant intercepting al-Qaeda communications all over the globe. This was the purpose of the NSA program—a program “essential to U.S. national security,” in the words of Jane Harman, the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee—the disclosure of which has now “damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

One might go further. What the New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism. If information about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a cut-and-dried case of espionage. Publishing it for the world to read, the Times has accomplished the same end while at the same time congratulating itself for bravely defending the First Amendment and thereby protecting us—from, presumably, ourselves. The fact that it chose to drop this revelation into print on the very day that renewal of the Patriot Act was being debated in the Senate—the bill’s reauthorization beyond a few weeks is still not assured—speaks for itself.

If I had revealed that same information, I'd be in prison.

But please, by all means, continue to cheerlead for terrorists and their supporters.

You're quoting JonathanPollard.org to back up your whine about the New York Times "compromising" national security?!

LOL @ the irony.

 

[Marc39]

How, exactly did it help Al Qaeda? (I gather that the underlying ASSumption here is that Al Qaeda is too stupid to have figured out the rather non-specific stuff themselves).

The 9/11 Commission, in seeking to explain how we fell victim to a surprise assault, pointed to the gap between our foreign and domestic intelligence-collection systems, a gap that over time had grown into a critical vulnerability. Closing that gap, in the wake of September 11, meant intercepting al-Qaeda communications all over the globe. This was the purpose of the NSA program—a program “essential to U.S. national security,” in the words of Jane Harman, the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee—the disclosure of which has now “damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

One might go further. What the New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism. If information about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a cut-and-dried case of espionage. Publishing it for the world to read, the Times has accomplished the same end while at the same time congratulating itself for bravely defending the First Amendment and thereby protecting us—from, presumably, ourselves. The fact that it chose to drop this revelation into print on the very day that renewal of the Patriot Act was being debated in the Senate—the bill’s reauthorization beyond a few weeks is still not assured—speaks for itself.

If I had revealed that same information, I'd be in prison.

But please, by all means, continue to cheerlead for terrorists and their supporters.

You're quoting JonathanPollard.org to back up your whine about the New York Times "compromising" national security?!

LOL @ the irony.

LOL, you follow a cult started by an illiterate pedophile derelict. LOL

 

[daveman]

How, exactly did it help Al Qaeda? (I gather that the underlying ASSumption here is that Al Qaeda is too stupid to have figured out the rather non-specific stuff themselves).

The 9/11 Commission, in seeking to explain how we fell victim to a surprise assault, pointed to the gap between our foreign and domestic intelligence-collection systems, a gap that over time had grown into a critical vulnerability. Closing that gap, in the wake of September 11, meant intercepting al-Qaeda communications all over the globe. This was the purpose of the NSA program—a program “essential to U.S. national security,” in the words of Jane Harman, the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee—the disclosure of which has now “damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

One might go further. What the New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism. If information about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a cut-and-dried case of espionage. Publishing it for the world to read, the Times has accomplished the same end while at the same time congratulating itself for bravely defending the First Amendment and thereby protecting us—from, presumably, ourselves. The fact that it chose to drop this revelation into print on the very day that renewal of the Patriot Act was being debated in the Senate—the bill’s reauthorization beyond a few weeks is still not assured—speaks for itself.

If I had revealed that same information, I'd be in prison.

But please, by all means, continue to cheerlead for terrorists and their supporters.

You're quoting JonathanPollard.org to back up your whine about the New York Times "compromising" national security?!

LOL @ the irony.

And that makes his point wrong...how, exactly?

Oh, yeah...it doesn't.

 

[editec]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Same for Zionists as Hamas, really.

Let me know when the NYT starts referring to Hamas in terms like "romantic" and "freedom fighters."

Sarcasm Alert!

Oh come on, now...

Why... it's almost as though you doubt the NYT's impartiality, or something.

 

[al Haq]

If I had revealed that same information, I'd be in prison.

But please, by all means, continue to cheerlead for terrorists and their supporters.

You're quoting JonathanPollard.org to back up your whine about the New York Times "compromising" national security?!

LOL @ the irony.

And that makes his point wrong...how, exactly?

Oh, yeah...it doesn't.

Your "source" is an organization dedicated to a convicted spy who committed high treason against the United States, and which runs a continuing public relations campaign to try to justify his crimes and pressure the U.S. government for his release.

Hardly a credible expert on what does, or does not, constitute "compromising national security."

 

[Marc39]

You're quoting JonathanPollard.org to back up your whine about the New York Times "compromising" national security?!

LOL @ the irony.

And that makes his point wrong...how, exactly?

Oh, yeah...it doesn't.

Your "source" is an organization dedicated to a convicted spy who committed high treason against the United States, and which runs a continuing public relations campaign to try to justify his crimes and pressure the U.S. government for his release.

Hardly a credible expert on what does, or does not, constitute "compromising national security."

You Arabs are so dumb. Pollard was convicted of spying for an ally, which is not high treason and normally carries a prison sentence of between 2 and 4 years.

The US gov't, in fact, offered Pollard a plea deal that would have resulted in his release from prison.

Now, you know, camel herder.