There's been a lot of electrons spilled over the
New York Times revealing the secrets of what it acknowledges is a perfectly legal and effective surveillance programme of terrorist finances. The
Captains Quarters,
Power Line,
Little Green Footballs,
Instapundit,
Hugh Hewitt, et al have all weighed in over the story and the NYT editor Bill Keller's defence of leaking classified information in a time of war that boils down to "
because we can," but I haven't added anything simply because my take can be summed up in one word:
Prosecute.
Update:
Wizbang summarises the
New York Times' position.
Dear Reader:
- We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.
- We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.
- We ran the story anyway, screw you.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Rules for submitting comments:
1. No profanity. I maintain the pretense that this is a family-friendly site.
2. Stay on topic. A bit of straying and off-hand commenting is okay, but hijacking the discussion is right out.
3. No ad hominem attacks. Attack the subject, not the other person on the thread and keep the discussion civil.
4. No spamming or commercial endorsements. These get deleted immediately.
Tip: Beware of putting hyperlinks in your comments–especially at the end. For some reason, Blogger interprets these as spam.
Note: Due to the recent spate of anonymous spamming, registration for comments is now required.