.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Frog March This Man


Bill Keller is the executive editor of the New York Times, and in all seriousness, I believe federal agents should walk into the Times, handcuff this man (along with several key reporters) and hall him off to jail to stand trial for treason.

Am I actually serious? Yes.

One of the valid criticisms of the Bush adminstration is that they seem to want to fight a war (the big one. The one against Islamic fascist jihadists) without naming it or actually acting like were in a war. This war is real, it's serious, but the Bush administration seems to want to pretend it's not. No wonder the Democrats like to call it the "so called" war on terrorism and other such nonsense.

But part of taking the war seriously is taking treason seriously. Blowing the cover of the telephone monitoring and now the bank monitoring is just that, treason. If the Bush adminstration wants to convince us that they take the war seriously, this man needs to stand trial, public relations be damned.

Blogger King Oliver said...

Agreed. See clever anti-treason posters on Michelle Malkin's blog: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005433.htm

4:29 PM, June 24, 2006  
Blogger King Oliver said...

This comment courtesy of Diamond Dog:

Your assessment of Bush's "unseriousness" is silly. Because this is an asymmetric war and is not to be confused with a war waged upon all of Islam, the Executive's nuance is necessary. But then perhaps you agree with Coulter and think we should begin to carpetbomb Saudi Arabia.

I think you are dead on right about Keller, however. This is treason and Mr. Keller and his top writers blowing the Swift story should be jailed. I propose Guantanamo, where they can see and then eventually report upon conditions in that facility and they will be able to rub elbows with folks who would like to thank the NYT for their help.

Prosecution is not an option, but a necessity. If we do not prosecute, the msm will continue to jeopardize the safety of the American people.

Good call. Frog march this man.

3:37 PM, June 27, 2006  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Andy McArthy at NRO writes a persuasive argument that while it would be right to prosecute the NY Times, it wouldn't be smart because given our current Supreme Court, we would lose and the Times would end up being seen as the victorious defenders of the Constitution. Instead, he proposes we go after the leakers through the NY Times. That is, they admit they know who the leakers are and the Plame case makes clear that we can get the courts to require them to give their names or go to jail for contempt. I agree that if this is feasible, this is good enough since if the press chooses to give up their sources, the leaks will dry up, and if they don't, every time they do it, some of them spend 18 months in jail. That is probably a big enough disincentive.

But Diamond Doug, am I still silly about my seriousness comment if Bush does neither of these? Can you be serious and do nothing whatsoever about something like this?

3:47 PM, June 27, 2006  
Blogger King Oliver said...

Diamond Dog (a visiting blogger) responds:

HP. So now you want to "about face" and restrain yourself from frog marching Keller?

As a Power Line reader, I believe I am informed that statutes on the books criminalize what the Two Timers have done in compromising our national security during wartime.

"But Diamond Dog, am I still silly about my seriousness comment if Bush does neither of these? Can you be serious and do nothing whatsoever about something like this?"

Bush is not doing "nothing whatsoever." The White House has to choose its battles. It seems to me W is wisely using the bully pulpit to advocate his stand while the citizens of this country tell their congressmen they are fed up with the liberal press.

Frog march.

1:36 PM, June 28, 2006  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

About face? I think not.

In a world with a good judiciary, they should be frogged marched. They have no right to do what they did and we have every right to criminally prosecute them and jail them for it.

But for the sake of argument assume:

1) The courts will allow the editors and reporters to be held for 18 months, not for publishing, but for not revealing their sources.

2) The courts won't allow them to be jailed for publishing, instead they will find section 798 of the criminal code (the law they broke) unconstitutional.

Would it still make sense to go for the frog march given these (assumed) facts? Remember, either way they go to jail (unless they reveal their sources, in which case the sources go to jail).

9:53 AM, June 29, 2006  

Post a Comment