Ann Coulter Vs. NY Times

Posted on June 28, 2006

She can be out there sometimes, but she is right on about this one.

Before the Vietnam War, this country took treason seriously.

But now we’re told newspapers have a right to commit treason because of “freedom of the press.” Liberals invoke “freedom of the press” like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals’ theory of the First Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn’t in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it’s in the New York Times building.

Freedom of the press means the government generally cannot place a prior restraint on speech before publication.

But freedom of the press does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason – or for any other crime. The First Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from the New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page One story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans.

What if, instead of passing information from the government’s secret nuclear program at Los Alamos directly to Soviet agents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had printed those same secrets in a newsletter? Would they have skated away scot-free instead of being tried for espionage and sent to the death chamber?

Ezra Pound, Mildred Gillars (”Axis Sally”) and Iva Toguri D’Aquino (”Tokyo Rose”) were all charged with treason for radio broadcasts intended to demoralize the troops during World War II. Their broadcasts were sort of like Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio – except Tokyo Rose was actually witty, and Axis Sally is said to have used a fact-checker.

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason for a single remark she made on air: “Orphans of the Pacific, you really are orphans now. How will you get home now that your ships are sunk?” For that statement alone, D’Aquino spent six years in prison and was fined $10,000 (more than $80,000 in today’s dollars).

Axis Sally was convicted of treason for broadcasts from Germany and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Pound avoided a treason trial for his radio broadcasts by getting himself committed to an insane asylum instead (which I take it is Randi Rhodes’ “Plan B” in the event that she ever acquires enough listeners to be charged with treason).

There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn’t require it.

The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States … adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.”

Thanks to the New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: “Head of Counterintelligence – al-Qaida.” You just have to read the New York Times over morning coffee, and you’re done by 10 a.m.

The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn’t the Islamic insurgency – our military can handle the savages. It’s traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn’t traitorous liberals – it’s patriotic Americans, also known as “Republicans,” tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.

Read the whole thing.

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Ann Coulter Vs. NY Times”

Terrence on June 28th, 2006 5:45 pm

She did a great job with this piece. The Times must hate having to acknowledge her on their bestseller list…
Constantine on June 28th, 2006 7:27 pm

From today’s Boston Globe:

A search of public records — government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 — describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.
‘There have been public references to SWIFT before,’ said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ‘The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.’

From Victor Comras, a counterterrorism expert formerly with the State Department and United Nations:

Reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries. The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:
‘The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.’

From commentator Alex Koppelman, who sums things up pretty well:
This isn’t about whether the Times (but, uh, not the Journal) violated national security, not really. It’s about changing the subject, about diverting attention, once again, from an administration that has systematically been bending and breaking the law and the Constitution in order to assemble ever more information about all of us. The convenient scapegoat, once again, is the press, and the liars — come on, let’s call them what they are here — are proving once again that when it comes to political gain, no fundamental American value will stand in the way.
kerwin_brown on July 1st, 2006 12:53 am

If we took treason seriously then we would have to empty the jails so that we would have enough room to put all the lawyers and judges guilty of it in jail.