Even though running highly classified information in an international publication is incredibly illegal, the New York Times should have at least considered that publishing the details of Special Operations could have devastating consequences for our new president...you know, the guy they endorsed. From today's front page [NYT]:
The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.Obama comes to power when he faces difficult challenges of hammering out diplomatic negotiations with the newly formed government of Pakistan and possibly some carrot-and-stick type balancing act with Syria to defeat the international threat posed by terrorism. Running lengthy stories formulated from "anonymous officials" lets the enemy know how we can target them and could potentially lead to lost lives for our SpecOps guys.
These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.
Other traitors in the mainstream media include Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post for disclosing classified information. As for the sources of these leaks, they're either disgruntled with the Bush administration and seek to dish out a parting slap, or they are trying to make the new President's foreign policy wrought with problems. If they want to engage in NoBama activity, that doesn't involve high treason, they can feel free to swing on by The Obacalypse for cheeky criticism without the illegal disclosure of classified programs.
See what the others have said:
0 comments:
Post a Comment