During the Cold War between Soviet Communism and the United States, communist party officials would refer to persons who, for various reason, could be co-opted to their cause as "useful idiots." These were folk who did not understand the real nature of the Soviet-communist threat to the ideals of a democratic republic that values person liberty, but they found communism a kind of avant garde or radically chic philosophy to play with.
Well, the New York Times has proved its mettle as a "useful idiot," but not for the now defunct USSR. Rather, they are useful for the purposes of radical islamist terrorism. The proof: the publication of THIS REPORT.
Of course, the Times thinks it has a right to publish any and all things that it uncovers, but it does not report all it uncovers -- no paper does. So, one has to wonder how the Times decides to print such a story, especially when the context in which it arose was the successful squashing of a terrorist plot to blow up the Sears building in Chicago and the FBI headquarters in Miami. And it is even further ironic when the Times own reporting of the matter acknowledges that the practice is entirely within the law of the United States of America. So, where is the news value. No great government conspiracy is uncovered, not even an illegality. Just something sensational that can arouse certain left-wing passions, I guess.Data from the Brussels-based banking consortium, formally known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, has allowed officials from the C.I.A., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies to examine "tens of thousands" of financial transactions, Mr. Levey said.
While many of those transactions have occurred entirely on foreign soil, officials have also been keenly interested in international transfers of money by individuals, businesses, charities and other groups under suspicion inside the United States, officials said. A small fraction of Swift's records involve transactions entirely within this country, but Treasury officials said they were uncertain whether any had been examined.
As a Christian, I am quite aware of the potential evil that an unaccountable government can be. It can become demonic. But, a Christian has to recognize that government has a provisional role to play in the purposes of God. And when some other entity, such as the New York Times, undercuts the ability of the government to carry out a proper provisional role (i.e., protecting the citizens of a nation) then one must say -- enough!
It is a well-known reality that the NYT management hate the Bush administration. All well and good. But, reporting in detail a strategy that has been effective in protecting innocent Americans from terror crosses the line. Don't they get it! If (or God forbid when) another terrorist attack occurs, it will not be politicians that the Times despises who will be killed. It will be the average Joe or Jane in America. Should such a horror occur, no doubt the good reporters and editorialists at the Times would tell us that the Bush administration had not done enough to protect us then.
Get real, you people at the Times.
4 comments:
Possibly the NY Times is more interesting in selling papers than in the safety of the average citizen. Thanks for your thoughts. I enjoy your blog.
Martin Davis
I am so glad you took the time to comment. I agree with you about the economic incentives that drive the NYT.
Best,
Steve
The NYT gives new meaning to the phrase "The enemy within our gates."
From The Right Valley:
http://www.cliffordcroft.com/rightvalley/index.asp
The New York Times has delighted in revealing confidential information about the methods our security services are using in the war on terror. These disclosures naturally compromise our efforts to fight terrorists by making the terrorists alert as to how we track them, making the terrorist plots harder to discover and increasing the risk that terrorist attacks against the US will be undiscovered. In other words, their disclosures potentially put lives in danger.
But the Times seems to feel that the public's "right to know" outweighs all this. If the public's "right to know" is so strong, I think the public also has a "right to know" more about the New York Times. I think the government should do the following:
o) Tap the phones of all columnists of the New York Times and then print the names of all their sources in their articles (if these sources actually exist). The public has a "right to know" who these anonymous sources are, to better judge the credibility of their statements. This might inhibit people from giving off-the-record information to the times, but hey, the public has a right to know.
o) Print the income, net worth, and credit card and bank account numbers and balances of all editors and reporters for the New York Times. Sure, people could misuse this information, but the public's right to this information is more important.
o) Publish the net worth and distributions from the Sulzberger trust fund. Again, this is private financial information, but the public has a right to know who is funding the Times and where the money is going. And besides, once this disclosure is made, we can find out how much the Sulzberger's are giving to "the poor" every year!
o) Publish the political affiliations and political donations of all reporters and editors of the times, as well as political organizations they belong to. A small invasion of privacy, but that still doesn't trump our "right to know". If this information is displayed in a pictorial format, we can play "Where's Waldo" to find the single Republican!
Post a Comment