Conservative Posters call for the murder of NYT's editor, reporters

mc mark · Jun 27, 2006

Coulter would be proud!

-----------------

Posters at the right-wing Free Republic message board today were roused into a fury of indignation by a news story about the New York Times' revelations of the administration's illegal programs of warrantless surveillance. Posted by an individual calling himself or herself "pissant," the story quoted Vice-President Cheney as saying:

"The New York Times has now twice -- two separate occasions -- disclosed programs; both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway. The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging."

The thread which followed this provocative statement was almost entirely devoted to imagining ever-more-extreme ways to get back at the Times for what the posters widely considered to be an act of treason. Their recommended responses started out with the relatively mild and legal:

"Sic the AG on the NYT!!!!!"

"Can we have a class action lawsuit against the Slimes [sic] for endangering American lives?"

However, they soon became increasingly vindictive:

"Whoever it is, needs to spend the rest of his pathetic life in the slammer."

"Indictments, arrests and imprisonments are very much in order here. Not to put too fine a point on it, but just how much treason is our president prepared to tolerate?"

The thread quickly took on the quality of a lynch mob, with posters attempting to outdo one another in their level of imaginary violence:

"I can only hope I get to see the video of Sulzberger's beheading! "

"If the government won't act, perhaps some private citizens will."

"Tar, feathers? You are the very definition of the term 'restraint'. I was thinking more along the lines of the Muslim solution."

"String em up, right next to Murtha's sad carcass."

"They need to hang for this, but it's not PC for me to type this in RESPONSE to their treason."

The inevitable climax of this rhetoric of hatred was a post declaring the Times to be THE ENEMY, followed by additional responses in which they were described as fair game for private vengeance:

"The Slimes [sic] and its puppets in the MSM ARE THE ENEMY. They simply hate America as it is. They want a socialist-homosexual utopia. Thus, they are simply aiding and abetting their faithful followers abroad and here. They are giving intel to their friends of gee-had. They are the enemy. Problem is, many Americans simply do not know or care."

"Any retired snipers out there?"

"They are, without a doubt our enemy. We need to treat them as such."

"I think it will be dangerous for a Slimes [sic] reporter to step foot out of Manhattan."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Posters_at_rightwing_board_threaten_to_0626.html

And people call liberals unhinged.

Burzmali · Jun 27, 2006

Well... isn't that sort of treasonous?

I really don't understand what the problem is with the surveillance, unless you're a terrorist. The Gov. can tap all the phone calls of mine they want.

Burzmali · Jun 27, 2006

Oops, meant to say something else.

While I don't advocate execution...

this isn't the first time the Times has done this, right? I definitely think it should be completely shut down, immediately.

FranchiseBlade · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

Oops, meant to say something else.

While I don't advocate execution...

this isn't the first time the Times has done this, right? I definitely think it should be completely shut down, immediately.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that the Bush administration should be shut down immediately? or retreoactive to 2004?

While this information from the NY Times may or may not have been damaging we know for a fact that when the Whitehouse leaked the name of the double agent who was working on a sting of Al Qaeda operatives it did damage the efforts against Al Qaeda.

Did the Bush Administration Burn a Key al-Qaeda Double Agent?

Simon Cameron-Moore and Peter Graff of Reuters reveal the explosive information that the Bush administration blew the cover Monday of double agent Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. On Sunday August 1, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced a new alert against an al-Qaeda plot concerning fincial institutions in New York and Washington, DC.

Pressed for details by the New York Times, some Bush administration official revealed that the information came from a recently arrested man in Pakistan named "Khan." The New York Times published his name on Monday.

Reuters alleges,
"The New York Times published a story on Monday saying U.S. officials had disclosed that a man arrested secretly in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the security alerts. The newspaper named him as Khan, although it did not say how it had learned his name. U.S. officials subsequently confirmed the name to other news organizations on Monday morning. None of the reports mentioned that Khan was working under cover at the time, helping to catch al Qaeda suspects."

I don't have access to a hard copy of last Monday's NYT anymore, and so cannot check. The article as it appears in Lexis Nexis, from the "late edition" on Monday, already has Khan's full name.

Douglas Jehl and David Rohde wrote in the article published Monday, Aug. 2, "The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials. The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages." Reuters seems to say that the first, early morning edition of the article just identified the figure as "Khan."

Reuters implies that once the Americans blew Khan's cover, the Pakistani ISI were willing to give Rohde more details in Karachi.

This part of the Reuters chronology seems not quite right to me, unless the early-edition Jehl/Rohde story on Monday only gave "Khan" and not the full name.

Anyway, Khan had been secretly apprehended by Pakistani military intelligence in mid-July, and had been turned into a double agent. He was actively helping investigators penetrate further into al-Qaeda cells and activities via computer, and was still cooperating when the "senior Bush administration" figure told Jehl about him.

Pakistani military intelligence (Inter-Services Intelligence) told Reuters,

' "He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He's a great hacker and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz . . . He was cooperating with interrogators on Sunday and Monday and sent e-mails on both days . . ."

In other words, the Bush administration just blew the cover of one of the most important assets inside al-Qaeda that the US has ever had.

The announcement of Khan's name forced the British to arrest 12 members of an al-Qaeda cell prematurely, before they had finished gathering the necessary evidence against them via Khan. Apparently they feared that the cell members would scatter as soon as they saw that Khan had been compromised. (They would have known he was a double agent, since they got emails from him Sunday and Monday!) One of the twelve has already had to be released for lack of evidence, a further fall-out of the Bush SNAFU. It would be interesting to know if other cell members managed to flee.

Why in the world would Bush administration officials out a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against al-Qaeda? In a way, the motivation does not matter. If the Reuters story is true, this slip is a major screw-up that casts the gravest doubts on the competency of the administration to fight a war on terror. Either the motive was political calculation, or it was sheer stupidity. They don't deserve to be in power either way.

Reuters quotes British security expert Kevin Rosser speculating what might have been the political calculation if that was the motivation. He
' said such a disclosure was a risk that came with staging public alerts, but that authorities were meant to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations. "When these public announcements are made they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations," he said. '

So one scenario goes like this. Bush gets the reports that Eisa al-Hindi had been casing the financial institutions, and there was an update as recently as January 2004 in the al-Qaeda file. So this could be a live operation. If Bush doesn't announce it, and al-Qaeda did strike the institutions, then the fact that he knew of the plot beforehand would sink him if it came out (and it would) before the election. So he has to announce the plot. But if he announces it, people are going to suspect that he is wagging the dog and trying to shore up his popularity by playing the terrorism card. So he has to be able to give a credible account of how he got the information. So when the press is skeptical and critical, he decides to give up Khan so as to strengthen his case. In this scenario, he or someone in his immediate circle decides that a mere double agent inside al-Qaeda can be sacrificed if it helps Bush get reelected in the short term.

On the other hand, sheer stupidity cannot be underestimated as an explanatory device in Washington politics.
http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109185597245383648
Click to expand...

Basically the whitehouse didn't like the press questioning the election year terror alerts so its response wasn't to stand firm but to leak the name of someone who was active in Al Qaeda and willing to trick the members of that organization.

Here is more of it. This time from the CS Monitor.

Pakistan, Britain are furious that US officials confirmed name to newspaper.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Reuters reported on Saturday that Pakistani intelligence officers said US officials blew the cover on an Al Qaeda mole last week, when the mole's identity was confirmed to The New York Times. The Times originally identified the source of their information as "senior American officials." The mole, computer expert Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, was arrested secretly in mid-July in Pakistan. He had agreed to help authorities track down Al Qaeda militants in Britain and the United States.
But Sunday US officials defended their actions, CNN reported, saying they had no choice but to let people know about the terror threat they had found detailed on Mr. Khan's computers.

Working with Pakistani intelligence, Khan had sent off urgents e-mails to other Al Qaeda members, telling them to check-in. The New York Post reported over the weekend that Pakistani authorities were concerned that Khan's exposure had jeopardized their efforts to use these e-mails to track down top Al Qaeda members. United Press International reports the revelation of Khan's name by US officials last week " exposed Khan and forced Pakistanis to move him to a secret location."

"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defence publications [who was interviewed by Reuters]. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within Al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place? It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"

MSNBC reported Monday that the early exposure of Khan not only ended the sting that Pakistani intelligence was conducting, but it also forced Britain's intelligence service to move faster than it wanted to last Tuesday to apprehend terror suspects in England that had been e-mailed by Khan. Five other suspects were able to escape before British authorities could arrest them. (The Associated Press reports Monday that 13 men were arrested in the original raid, but only nine are still being held.) Kevin Rosser, a security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said such a disclosure was "a risk that came with staging public alerts but that authorities were supposed to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations."

"When these public announcements are made, they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue, you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations," he said.
CNN reports on Monday that several US senators said US officials should have kept Khan's identity a secret. They noted that Pakistani interior minister, Faisal Hayat, as well as the British home secretary, David Blunkett, had "expressed displeasure in fairly severe terms that Khan's name was released, because they were trying to track down other contacts."
United Press International reports that in an interview Sunday with a British newspaper, Mr. Blunkett took a thinly veiled swipe at the US's decision to raise the terror alert last week.

Blunkett told the Observer newspaper in an interview published Sunday that he does not intend to, in his words, 'feed the news frenzy,' by following the lead of the United States in announcing specific installations as targets, such as those named in New York, New Jersey and Washington ... Blunkett said the government issued as much of a statement as was appropriate after the arrests last week of 12 suspects and posed the question, again in his words, 'Is that really the job of a senior cabinet minister in charge of counterterrorism? To feed the media? To increase concern?'
Also, the BBC reports on Monday that the Pakistani government is also upset with the US over what it described as an "FBI sting operation involving a fake plot to kill Pakistan's UN envoy." Islamabad called the operation " bizarre and mind-boggling."

The Daily Telegraph reports that US officials have " hit back" against the criticism that they bungled the terror alert and blew the cover of the Al Qaeda mole. They released to Time magazine and to Newsweek more information on the plans for attacks in the US that were discovered on Khan's computers. An unnamed military official told Time that spreading panic in terrorist ranks could also bear fruit.http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0809/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2
Click to expand...

If the Times did something wrong then punish them. But all this feigned indignation from Bush supporters seems to ring false considering a much worse leak was instigated by the Bush administration from someone who was actually giving reliable and quality information. I can't believe they effectively ruined their own source of info. Yet none of the Bush suppoerters seemed that upset at the time.

rhadamanthus · Jun 27, 2006

FB:

Sorry. The facts have a well known liberal bias.

/cynical and grumpy/

Burzmali · Jun 27, 2006

Meh.

I have an opinion on the CIA leak issue, but I don't know if I should say it.

RocketMan Tex · Jun 27, 2006

Those who call for the murder of newspaper reporters or for the shutdown of the NY Times have no respect for the US Constitution, or for themselves.

Just like the Bush Administration.

When Dubya began wiping his ass with the Constitution, apparently he left his sh*t stains on the First and Fourth Amendments. Sickening.

Burzmali · Jun 27, 2006

RocketMan Tex said:

Those who call for the murder of newspaper reporters or for the shutdown of the NY Times have no respect for the US Constitution, or for themselves.

Just like the Bush Administration.

When Dubya began wiping his ass with the Constitution, apparently he left his sh*t stains on the First and Fourth Amendments. Sickening.
Click to expand...

People who use the Constitution as a blanket of protection to do evil don't have respect for the Constitution.

The First Ammendment is overrated.

RocketMan Tex · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

People who use the Constitution as a blanket of protection to do evil don't have respect for the Constitution.

The First Ammendment is overrated.
Click to expand...

Yep, the "First Ammendment" is overrated, but the First Amendment is not. I guess you are in favor of a mandated national religion as well as a Federally-run press, eh Burzmali? Maybe you should have lived in Moscow during the Stalin-era. Obviously you would have liked it.

rhadamanthus · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

The First Ammendment is overrated.
Click to expand...

At least you're an honest fac^H^H^H republican.

jo mama · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

The First Ammendment is overrated.
Click to expand...

disgusting

Burzmali · Jun 27, 2006

RocketMan Tex said:

Yep, the "First Ammendment" is overrated, but the First Amendment is not. I guess you are in favor of a mandated national religion as well as a Federally-run press, eh Burzmali? Maybe you should have lived in Moscow during the Stalin-era. Obviously you would have liked it.
Click to expand...

Hooray for arguments based on typos!

Actually, I'm non-religious. I don't believe in God.

Obviously only the extreme examples are possible, there is no middle ground between allowing treason and sedition and having a Facist system.

SamFisher · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

The First Ammendment is overrated.
Click to expand...

Only when you're the one exercising it.

GladiatoRowdy · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

Meh.

I have an opinion on the CIA leak issue, but I don't know if I should say it.
Click to expand...

FB was not talking about the CIA leak case, did you read the articles or just make assumptions?

The case FB cited was one in which Bush himself outed a double agent who was a member of AQ and was providing intelligence from inside the organization.

RocketMan Tex · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

Hooray for arguments based on typos!

Actually, I'm non-religious. I don't believe in God.

Obviously only the extreme examples are possible, there is no middle ground between allowing treason and sedition and having a Facist system.
Click to expand...

So, you're non-religious, yet you wouldn't mind living in a country that had a national religion and no other?

Very interesting.

And if you can show me a middle ground in anything in the last 25 years, show me. I'll believe it when I see it. Truth is, compromise has been thrown out the window.

losttexan · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

People who use the Constitution as a blanket of protection to do evil don't have respect for the Constitution.

The First Ammendment is overrated.
Click to expand...

WOW! Yea if we could just get rid of that pesky Bill of Rights, we might really have something here. We should never question our government (as long as a Republican is President). Let them spy on American citizens; an anyone who questions it or dares to speak against them is just a terrorist sympathizer.

krosfyah · Jun 27, 2006

Burzmali said:

...Obviously only the extreme examples are possible, there is no middle ground between allowing treason and sedition and having a Facist system.
Click to expand...

One thing is constant in life, every government in the history of mankind has violated it's citizens basic rights at some point. Disagree? Simply give me an example of ONE that has not. That's not too much to ask for, is it?

Once you have demonstrated a trustworthy government, then we can continue this coversation about the 1st Amendment being overrated.

No Worries · Jun 27, 2006

Conservatives believed in the Constitution before they did not.

losttexan · Jun 27, 2006

No Worries said:

Conservatives believed in the Constitution before they did not.
Click to expand...

That was before the Messiah (GWB) came to town and McCarthyism, I mean the "War on Terror" started.

Sishir Chang · Jun 27, 2006

No Worries said:

Conservatives believed in the Constitution before they did not.
Click to expand...

I always find it interesting that many of the same people who rail about government interfering in their lives are untroubled by the thought of government spying upon them.

Forums

Conservative Posters call for the murder of NYT's editor, reporters

mc mark Member

Burzmali Member

Burzmali Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

rhadamanthus Member

Burzmali Member

RocketMan Tex Member

Burzmali Member

RocketMan Tex Member

rhadamanthus Member

jo mama Member

Burzmali Member

SamFisher Member

GladiatoRowdy Member

RocketMan Tex Member

losttexan Member

krosfyah Member

No Worries Member

losttexan Member

Sishir Chang Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Conservative Posters call for the murder of NYT's editor, reporters

mc mark Member

Burzmali Member

Burzmali Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

rhadamanthus Member

Burzmali Member

RocketMan Tex Member

Burzmali Member

RocketMan Tex Member

rhadamanthus Member

jo mama Member

Burzmali Member

SamFisher Member

GladiatoRowdy Member

RocketMan Tex Member

losttexan Member

krosfyah Member

No Worries Member

losttexan Member

Sishir Chang Member

Share This Page

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member