TREASON

Treason is defined in Webster's Pocket English Dictionary as "giving your country's secrets to the enemy". Those leaking the NSA surveillance story to the New York Times, and the New York Times itself, are traitors. I am not sure who is worse. The Times sat on the story for over a year, claiming to do "follow up reporting" to their initial information. It only decided to go public with the story when one of its reporters quit and wrote a soon to be published book mentioning it. The Times had to go to press before the reporter's book made it to the bookstore. That is even worse. I would hope that the person who leaked the story at least had some noble intentions. The Times was worried about money and reputation, and was willing to betray this country for both.

The war on George Bush by the left wing media has gone beyond the pale. What options did the New York Times have other than publishing this story and giving this information to the enemy? It had several:

1) The Times could have done nothing. It is called "watchful waiting". At some time in the future, when it would appear the War on Terror was under control, they could have gone public then.

2) The Times could have approached the Senate Intelligence Committee and quietly asked them to investigate, IN PRIVATE, the practice that the Times found offensive.

3) The Times could have quietly entered the court system itself. It could have asked the FISA court, the court with jurisdiction over the matter at hand, to review what was going on IN PRIVATE.

Instead, the Times chose to play politics, embarrass the President, and put you and me at risk. To be frank, I could give a good "God damn" about privacy issues when it comes to terror. While the Times is worried about a wiretap monitoring phone calls between terrorists, my father was being strip searched at airports, twice, because of his artificial knees. My mother's breasts were felt up because of her pace maker. Of course, in those circumstances, that is alright because the Times is worried about "racial profiling".

I am being patted down, x-ray'd, scanned and every other degradation there can be trying to get into the courthouse downtown. I am being monitored by cameras continuously. In grocery stores, in parking lots, and on our very streets. Where is outrage for the traffic cameras in Girard and the kangaroo "courts" that follow the tickets the camera gives to you? Where is the probable cause there? I am stopped by the highway patrol at checkpoints to see if I am drunk driving. Where are the search warrants to search me? There are none. But warrants don't apply to those things that are politcally correct.

This is the angriest I have been about a political story in a long time. The New York Times, and The Washington Post disclosing mosques are being monitored for radiation from illicit nuclear devices, have sold this country down the river in every possible way. As for George Bush, he hasn't done much that I like on a number of issues. But on this issue, he damn well better continue to monitor these bastards on the phone, and wherever else he thinks they may be up to no good.

The attacks on 9/11 are a direct result of this dangerous New York Times-Washington Post thinking. For your consideration, this is a link, which may or may not work as the content is proprietary, to a Time Magazine article about Zacarias Moussaoui and the FBI experience with warrants and the FISA courts. WHY DIDN'T THE FBI FULLY INVESTIGATE MOUSSAOUI? Time Magazine; May, 2002 Then go and ask Jamie Gorelick of the 9/11 Commission how her interference with our intelligence operations when she was in Clinton's Justice Department helped lead to the fiasco described in the Time Magazine article.

America better wake up and smell the coffee, soon. Enough of this stuff.