In case you had any doubt about the sinister motives of New York Times, this latest publication of yet a third set of classified data should remove it.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007. [SNIP](Emphasis mine.)General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.
I'm sick of this sh*t.
Find the leakers, Mr. Gonzales, and punish them. Have the NYT traitors sit in prison for a few years if they won't name them. I no longer care.
(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)
Previous: Little Games, Big Portent
Leak away!! What a ridiculous statement from another General. Of course, he can say anything about that far out because something will always come up.
We have a right to know and I congratulate the NYT for finding exactly what is going on. The President of THe United States has declared WAR on the Constitution and individual freedoms. We are fighting back. Get used to it.
Posted by: Kevin | June 25, 2006 at 05:46 AM
You don't have a "right" to know classified material, Kevin and those who are leaking this material have signed statements swearing that they would not leak this inforamtion and stating that they would be subject to fines and imprisonment if they are found guilty of doing so. They belong in prison.
If you want to become one of the arbiters of what's classified and what isn't and what *everyone* should know and what they shouldn't, go apply to work for one of the intel agencies and move up through the ranks. You don't even have to join the military. Otherwise stop making yourself look foolish.
Posted by: baldilocks | June 25, 2006 at 08:37 AM
The passage you cited is a little strange--it says the briefing was classified but remains "a closely held secret", which is different than classified. Based on the article, I actually doubt that this was classified and it strikes me that this was actually an orchestrated leak. You don't have a bunch of officers talking to the NYT like this and leaking classified info unless they really believe they are exposing something they think may be illiegal etc. (wiretapping, SWIFT etc.), which a troop reduction is clearly not. It's hard to imagine a government official thinking "yeah, I'll risk going to jail to leak that we may reduce troops in Iraq over the next year." Leaks like this are just a way to get information to the press w/o an official announcement.
Plus, I would be surprised of the NYT would publish this if it were classified. Just a guess on my part.
Posted by: Justin | June 25, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Kevin,
I have a "right to know", who decides?
"I have a right to know" cuts both ways.
What I have a right to know is who the leakers are.
What I have a right to know is why the NYT ran a story about a classified program that is constitutional, legal and effective (is there any other reason other than to spy for the terrorists?).
Posted by: Bill | June 25, 2006 at 12:10 PM
That's tough talk considering that no one was willing to stand up when Danish cartoonists were being threatened with their lives for publishing something that was considered 'insensitive'.
Standing up against the American system is pretty safe - you won't have a 'jihad' declared against you and you won't have your throat slit.
Meanwhile, Soldiers are endangered by ppl who want the world to know they don't like President Bush.
We know it - okay.
Posted by: beth | June 25, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Sections 793 and 798 of the federal espionage laws say you not only don't have some "right" to know, but that telling you is a felony ounishable by a good number of years at Club Fed. I want some prosecutions.
Posted by: Tully | June 25, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Why doesn't the concerned parties know who is leaking?
If these plans that were drawn up are classified, you KNOW who has seen these plans.
You haul everyone involved into a room and do polygraphs.
Posted by: DarkStar | June 25, 2006 at 06:21 PM
Tully,
The law is referenced in the previous post. I suspect certain commenters here haven't seen it.
DarkStar,
I hope that's what is happening.
Posted by: baldilocks | June 25, 2006 at 06:41 PM
Plus, I would be surprised of the NYT would publish this if it were classified. Just a guess on my part.
They would publish it. Newspapers seem to publish "classified reports" on a too frequent basis.
Posted by: DarkStar | June 25, 2006 at 07:10 PM
Re-reading the NYT article closely, I don't think this was a leak of classified information. It seems pretty clear that the White House is pruposefully putting out this info. I doubt the NYT would run this particular story if was a classified leak (ie, this isn't a story like SWIFT or the NSA wiretapping, but just a run-of-the-mill talk about troop reductions, which really shouldn't be disclosed if classified).
Posted by: Justin | June 25, 2006 at 07:27 PM
This is PIG SIMPLE. You only want the enemy to know what you want the enemy to know. You want to beat them with the fewest casualties.
ANYONE that lengthens the conflict and/or contributes to more KIA and WIA among our forces is operating in a treasonous manner. Period.
All that "The Public's Right to Know" is drivel to cover people wanting to sell newspapers, make money and to advance their personal careers. Nearly all the public wouldn't know a Brigade from a Battalion or a tank from a dumpster.
No, I too, do not want our democracy to slide toward any form of totalinarianism, but we fought WW II with all kinds of voluntary censorship and when we were done, the press again had few priviledges.
Bottom Line: The media, some of it, are painting themselves into the camp of our enemies. The press, lawyers, entertainers, academics....mostly do NOT know how to fight wars....AND will not have to do so.
Attention Americans, including the press, decide which side you're on.
Posted by: tad | June 26, 2006 at 05:09 AM
The most egregious error our President made when he took office was to NOT fire every single remaining Clintonista in the bureauacracy. These leaks are absolutely treasonous, and I hope AG Gonzales is vigorously going after these folks!
Posted by: DagneyT | June 26, 2006 at 02:38 PM
Kevin,
The unelected nitwits at the NYT do not have a "right" to break laws written by the people we actually elected to represent us. I did not vote for Bill Keller, Pinch Sulzburger, or any of the rest of them; and if they ran for office, they would lose very very badly. They do NOT represent American interests.
The NYT is indeed at war. What they fail to see is that their enemy includes the majority of the American people, including me.
Their arrogance is breathtaking, as is yours.
Posted by: Bostonian | June 26, 2006 at 07:19 PM
We all must fight for our national security. We must prosecute the NY Times. The web site for the Society of Americans for National Security, www.saneworks.us, is a perfect example of people who care about our national existence.
Posted by: JakesK | June 27, 2006 at 03:57 PM
For those of you who, like me, have security clearances, and even less of you, like me who have very high-level security clearances, I ask the following question: "What is the maximum penalty for disclosure of classified information?" The answer my friends is the DEATH PENALTY -- that is if you are a Republican or a low-level, patriotic Democrat. From the last couple days of hypocrisy, we see that Clintonian pimps like Sandy Berger and NYT editors/reporters are strangely exempt from such rules. WHY!!!
Posted by: Mescalero | June 27, 2006 at 07:38 PM
To those of you who have high-level security clearances like me I ask the following question--what differentiates those of us who act out patriotic responsibility from the likes of the editors of the old gray hag (I'm being nice here) New York Times? It is helpful to point out that the Old Gray Hag managing editor has never served in the military and has never had to deal with classified information in the sense that you and I have. The same goes for the idiot Los Angeles Times Washington editor Doyle McManus. I'm not sure, but I would not be surprised if the same considerations didn't apply to LA Times editor Dean Baquet.
Posted by: Mescalero | June 27, 2006 at 07:55 PM
I don't now have the clearances since I am retired but I did and had the very high level ones as well. You are right on the money in your letter and I am absolutely livid that Berger got off as lightly as he did and that the NY Slime and the other media types print this information. When I was in your position back in the days of Kennedy and Johnson, I would have been frogmarched straight to the jail cell for doing even part of what these people have done. I would love to see them really slap down the perpetrators of this treachery.
And as for Justin, what part of the enemy knew all the details that were published in the article? That is what the secret is. You can guess that the US is checking your financial dealings or your cell phone usage. However, if you do not know exactly how they are doing this, then you will not know how to protect against it. Thanks to the NY Times and others, now the terrorists know exactly how it is done and therefore how to protect against it. The next time a soldier or marine is killed by an IED, thank the NY Times for making it possible.
Posted by: dick | June 28, 2006 at 08:56 AM
At what point in time did treason become a slap on the hands?
Posted by: skinner | June 29, 2006 at 12:39 AM
I tried to trackback to you but got rejected. The Woman behind New York Times SWIFT Leak
Do I need to get on a list?
Posted by: bernie | July 01, 2006 at 05:25 PM