Saturday, July 01, 2006

This takes the cake... 
The New York Times, not content with blowing an effective and legal national security program which actually catches terrorists out of the water, specifically on "invasion of privacy" concerns too vague for them to bother enumerating, has decided it is prudent to publish the location and descriptions of residences used by the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense.

The Times also publishes photographs of the front of the house (we wouldn't want a suicide truck bomber to mix up a couple of digits in the address, right), and divulges some specific security measures taken at the residence. Well, that's too vague. Specifically, the Times actually divulges the location of at least one security camera, the cretins.)

Moreover, if security at the homes is too tight, the Times also helpfully publishes the street the Cheneys and Rumsfelds each take to reach their homes.

Obviously, the Times was disappointed that the terrorists missed Rumsfeld on 9/11/01, so why not give them another helping hand? It's just one more, right?

Now, when it comes to the publication of private residence information on controversial individuals - and liberal attitudes theretowards - let us fire up the ol' vacuum-tube-powered Wayback Machine:

Many in the abortion-rights movement, of course, believe Horsley and his allies are the real criminals. Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, who is listed on the Nuremberg site, notes there have been seven murders and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers in the past decade. She believes that the site and the "wanted" posters "provide the information necessary for extremists to target abortion providers for violence."

Indeed, the National Abortion Rights Action League filed a suit against the operators of the website in question - the Nuremberg Files - and won a 100 million dollar judgement (which was later unanimously reversed and remanded by a three-judge appeals panel).

In this case, I believe the appeals course was correct - the publishing of this information, absent an actual call to or threat of violence - should be protected under the First Amendment.

It's just interesting to see the New York Times take the terrorist's side yet again.

I do believe that if Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. want the New York Times to respect their privacy, the best thing they can do is put some girl's ankles in the stirrups and fireup the Hoovermatic.

Splash, out


UPDATE: The Huffington Post has recently published personal information on a dozen or so Swift Boaters, according to the American Prospect.

Via Michelle Malkin

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!