NY Congressman calls for criminal investigation of New York Times
US Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island, NY) called upon the New York State Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation of the New York Times for publicizing sensitive anti-terror operations. He made this call this morning on Fox News (So far there are no websites carrying the story).
Okay, I want to see the New York Times brought back to reality as well. The damage their irresponsible reporting did to counter terrorism operations will never be completely known. It's difficult to measure a 'might have been.'
It is obvious to me the New York Times has declared war on the President and the War in Iraq. Clearly they sided with al Queda when they published the wire tap, call detail record and now the banking tracking stories. It is also crystal clear the people at the Times don't give two hoots how many innocent people people get hurt so they can beat their drum against the administration.
That really strikes me as a little odd. If any news organization had an up close and personal look at terror in action, it had to be the Times with their ringside seat for Sept. 11th.
Chances are King's words are just so many words. The first amendment will protect the Times for better or worse. This is a good thing because there are subjects the news media needs to publicize that the local, state and federal governments would prefer to avoid.
But that first amendment comes with a heavy responsibility. A responsibility the New York Times seems to have forgotten. The courts have consistently ruled it is not free speech to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Clearly this kind of limitation is required to prevent injury and death.
But the New York Times editorial staff claims the public's right to know outweighs any security concerns.
I wonder if aiding and abetting terrorists to make a successful attack on US soil comes under the same heading as the injury and death caused by yelling "fire" in the theater.
The events of 9/11, as well as the war in Iraq, require our government to intensify its efforts to combat terrorism.
- Arlen Specter
Okay, I want to see the New York Times brought back to reality as well. The damage their irresponsible reporting did to counter terrorism operations will never be completely known. It's difficult to measure a 'might have been.'
It is obvious to me the New York Times has declared war on the President and the War in Iraq. Clearly they sided with al Queda when they published the wire tap, call detail record and now the banking tracking stories. It is also crystal clear the people at the Times don't give two hoots how many innocent people people get hurt so they can beat their drum against the administration.
That really strikes me as a little odd. If any news organization had an up close and personal look at terror in action, it had to be the Times with their ringside seat for Sept. 11th.
Chances are King's words are just so many words. The first amendment will protect the Times for better or worse. This is a good thing because there are subjects the news media needs to publicize that the local, state and federal governments would prefer to avoid.
But that first amendment comes with a heavy responsibility. A responsibility the New York Times seems to have forgotten. The courts have consistently ruled it is not free speech to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Clearly this kind of limitation is required to prevent injury and death.
But the New York Times editorial staff claims the public's right to know outweighs any security concerns.
I wonder if aiding and abetting terrorists to make a successful attack on US soil comes under the same heading as the injury and death caused by yelling "fire" in the theater.
The events of 9/11, as well as the war in Iraq, require our government to intensify its efforts to combat terrorism.
- Arlen Specter