Current Events: May 2006 Archives

Is the New York Times about to be indicted? That’s what James Pierison of ARMAVIUMQUE thinks is possible. Hat tip to Instapundit.

Is The New York Times about to be indicted? That would be a fair inference from the strange exchanges that have gone back and forth over the past few days between the Justice Department and the editors of the paper.

On Sunday, during the ABC news program, “This Week,” Attorney General Gonzales was asked if the federal government might prosecute journalists who published classified information.

“There are some statutes on the books,” he answered, “which … would seem to indicate that this is a possibility.” He went on to suggest that such prosecutions were implicitly authorized by the Congress when it passed the statutes. “We have an obligation to enforce those laws,” he said. “We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected.”

…

The editorial stressed that Mr. Gonzales was mostly blowing hot air because the Espionage Act could not be applied to journalists. Revealing some sensitivity on this issue, however, the Times went even further in its editorial to suggest that the Bush administration was in no position to invoke congressional statutes since, in the view of the editors, it had routinely violated them in authorizing wiretaps without warrants and in failing to enforce civil rights and environmental laws. If the Bush administration can ignore the laws, the editors seemed to ask, why can’t we? The editorial reads much like a pre-emptive strike designed by lawyers to ward off impending indictment. In that case, however, the editors may have gone too far in implying that they have as much right as the government to determine what the laws are and which ones deserve to be obeyed.

…

In view of their editorial on Wednesday, the editors of the Times must believe that a prosecution is a real possibility. One obvious reason for concern is that the indictment of corporations often turns out to be a death sentence, as it was with Arthur Andersen & Co., which was forced to fold even though the indictment under which it was prosecuted was later thrown out on appeal. Time will tell. In the meantime, the unfolding story will be fascinating to watch.

We’ll see. I would be happy to see a whole gaggle of New York Times reporters and editors and managers in jail. Revealing secret information about our war on terror has probably cost lives and has rendered these programs at the very least less effective. Imagine if the New York Times had published information about the D-Day raid on Normandy a week before it happened. They might believe in their hearts that they had a good reason to do so — after all, D-Day was costly in American, British, and Canadian lives — but it’s not the place of the mainstream media to reveal secrets in wartime without prior clearance.

We have to consider the source, but I think it likely that Israel will attack Iran in the next 12 months — if the United States doesn’t do it first. Middle Eastern governments will howl and squeal but will secretly be relieved that Iran has lost its nuclear capabilities. They are very well aware that Iran’s missles can reach them and that Ahmadinejad is a nutcase who is plotting an all-out war to bring the return of the 12th Imam. From The Daily Times (Pakistan).

WASHINGTON: Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next “month or two or three,” an Israeli official has been quoted here as saying.

The unnamed official told Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-in-chief of the United Press International (UPI), at the recently held national day reception at the Israeli Embassy that he believed Israel would strike Iran first in the next two or three months and that fighter bombers would not be involved as they had been to take out Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981. For Osirak, Israel had used 14 F-15s and F-16s. This time, the Israeli said, it would be missiles. Asked if Israel would employ Cruise missiles, he replied, “with a gesture of his hand that went up and down again”, which meant that it would be the weapon of choice.

“Asked if tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear facilities would be targeted, he responded that Israel had its own geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimetres. ‘We know far more than anyone realises,’ he added.”

Asked if tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear facilities would be targeted, he responded that Israel had its own geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimetres. “We know far more than anyone realises,” he added.

De Borchgrave’s report quoted a poll of conservative Republicans by a conservative web-based news service, which showed overwhelmingly strong support for bombing Iran. Almost 60,000 people took part in the poll and 88 percent agreed that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. To the question, “Should the US undertake military action against Iran to stop their (nuclear) programme?” 77 percent replied yes, 23 percent said no. Forty-five percent said that military action should be taken by the United States, while 35 percent wanted Israel to do that. Twenty percent said neither. As for whether US efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear weapons are working, 93 percent said they were not, while 89 percent said the US should not rely solely on the UN.

According to de Borchgrave, “Israel has developed some 100 Jericho-II medium-range ballistic missiles (which entered service in 1989). Jericho II’s range varies from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometres, depending on payload weight. They are deployed in underground caves and silos. Israel has several satellites in orbit - Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 - that were launched by Shavit space launch vehicles (SLV). The first two stages of the Shavit were Jericho II missiles. There are unconfirmed reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile with a range of over 3,000 kilometres.