Fox poll: 66% support prosecuting media for leaks that help terrorists
posted at 12:41 pm on July 1, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Bryan had to wait a few days, but here ’tis:
Seventy percent, including 58% of Democrats, say they support “the U.S. Treasury Department tracking suspected terrorist financing through a secret program that looks at money transfers.” Among Republicans, 65% think media sources who publish national security secrets are guilty of treason; 55% of Democrats disagree. There’s widespread support for punishing the leakers themselves — 87% agree to that.
The big one:
The PDF is here. Keller and Baquet have a joint op-ed running in each of their papers today, most of which is devoted to the agonizing ordeal they face in trying to determine which state secrets, if exposed, will cause trouble for Bush without endangering so many people that they’ll piss off the left, too.
Here’s my favorite part. How can they be accused of helping Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda hates free speech:
We have correspondents today alongside troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others risk their lives in a quest to understand the terrorist threat; Daniel Pearl of The Wall Street Journal was murdered on such a mission. We, and the people who work for us, are not neutral in the struggle against terrorism. [Indeed. -- ed.]
[T]he virulent hatred espoused by terrorists, judging by their literature, is directed not just against our people and our buildings. It is also aimed at our values, at our freedoms and at our faith in the self-government of an informed electorate. If the freedom of the press makes some Americans uneasy, it is anathema to the ideologists of terror.
Towards the end they write, “It is not always a matter of publishing an article or killing it. Sometimes we deal with the security concerns by editing out gratuitous detail that lends little to public understanding but might be useful” to terrorists. For more on that, see the boss’s latest.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
“We, and the people who work for us, are not neutral in the struggle against terrorism.”
This is true, they’re on the side of terror. They see the terrorists as a tool that they can use against the people who stand in the way of their goal (resumption of power).
Mike H. on July 1, 2006 at 1:39 PM
I disagree that they are purposefully “on the side of terrorism”. But they end UP being there, even if that is not their intention.
This problem stems from anti-American leftism as opposed to a desire to see terrorists win. But, in the destruction and recreation of America leftists and terrorists share a goal. They don’t share an end game, but they BOTH want the US destroyed and remade in a different, un-American, image.
The NYT should be prosecuted.
Warner Todd Huston on July 1, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Since most liberals long for the days when the Soviet Union was in it’s glory, killing dissenters, gulags, and state controlled everything, let’s give them a little taste of the “old days” and take ‘em out back and shoot ‘em.
I don’t see how they could possibly be upset. That’s how their heroes in the USSR would have handled this. Perhaps liberals would start liking the U.S. if we did that.
darwin on July 1, 2006 at 1:56 PM
“…so when we help terrorists elude capture, they actually hate us! Because, see, because they condemn the very freedom of speech that… that… Wait. This can’t be right, can it? Do you think anybody will really buy this? Aw, what the hell. What are they gonna do, fire us?” [uproarious laughter]
Jim Treacher on July 1, 2006 at 2:16 PM
Purposefully or not, consciously or not, they are clearly on only one side – the one which is against President Bush. In a way it is easy for them. Would a John Kennedy-like president of the left fight terrorism they would have to be complete hypocrits. Let’s hope they never have that chance.
They believe that without them we are complete uninformed morrons. Though, by ‘informing’ us they hope desperately that most of us will vote left. Puerile and sheep-like logic. With alternate sources of information and analysis, the opposite effect is achieved, dragging the sane democrats away from them too.
Entelechy on July 1, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Hopefully, they’re gonna hang them instead.
georgej on July 1, 2006 at 2:30 PM
“So if we shut the hell up, the terrorists have won…”
Pablo on July 1, 2006 at 3:11 PM
Elmer Fudd has more sense than these clowns.
Repeat after me: Be vewwy vewwy quiet,wheah hunting tewwowists”
bbz123 on July 1, 2006 at 3:14 PM
When New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey offered himself as the sacrificial Republican Candidate for President in 1944, campaigning against the then dying President Franklin Roosevelt, he was aware that the The United States Navy had cracked the Japanese “PURPLE” Codes~~ PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR. Had Mr. Dewey caused this information to be appropriately leaked, it might, if adroitly exploited, have made Mr. Dewey President instead of the dying Mr. Roosevelt (and Senator Harry S. Truman, the Democrat Candidate for Vice President, would have remained in the Senate, where he was respected for his exemplary service). Dewey kept the Secret Of The Codes, which saved American and Allied lives, while shortening the War. Compare Mr. Dewey’s patriotic refusal with the Democrat LEFT’S eagerness to insure the defeat of the United States Armed Forces in the Middle East and it is both horrifying and disgusting to observe the vile degeneracy of approximately one half of the United States Electorate, deluded by those Nests of Traitors inhabiting the Tax-Free Foundations, Academia, and the News Media responsible for the “First Draft Of History”. These SCUM-MONGERS propose to sell out America for another term in high office, which they connfidently expect to extend into perpetuity. After all, Fidel will die in bed, publicly mourned in Cuba while privately execrated by all of this Earth’s Lovers of Liberty. Such are their heroes.
Waumpuscat on July 1, 2006 at 4:22 PM
Just one question. Does anyone at the NY Slimes know the wherabouts of Osama Bin Laden, and if they do then where is the article?
All we can depend on is that the MSM will always publish reports that hurts America, not the terrorists.
DannoJyd on July 2, 2006 at 4:34 PM
It’s called polishing a turd. Both papers realize that they may have finally crossed the threshold from biased journalism to outright treason.
geo11 on July 2, 2006 at 9:43 PM
LOL! I thought you people HATED these insignificant public opinion polls?!
FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!
FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!
FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!
FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!
better off blue on July 3, 2006 at 7:48 AM
Want to know a secret, blue? The only reason I don’t ban you is because you’re a lefty. You’re fully moronic enough to be banned, but I don’t want to hear the whining about how I can’t handle intelligent dissenting viewpoints. Viewpoints like FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!
Moron.
Allahpundit on July 3, 2006 at 8:42 AM
Comment pages: