The NYT and the LAT are currently providing the perfect example of the Antique Media's hypocricy, arrogance, and stupidity. After releasing detailed information on an anti-terrorism program that not even the two newspapers can find a legal problem with, they refuse to discuss their decision in public.
I wonder how much more of this treason we are supposed to put up with?
The Scratching Post has the financial picture of the NYT over the lasty five years, and with any luck its stockholders will soon sit up and take notice of how badly the NYT's agenda has damaged the paper's credibility and profit margin.
Truth Laid Bear is keeping track of all the coverage and has an impressive "read all about it" collection, and Malkin has some interesting photoshoppery in the vein of the poster shown here.
The ACLU is attacking the program without even the slightest hint of a legal argument, and Stop the ACLU takes advantage of the opportunity to point out an interesting detail about the ACLU:
It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.”
All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy!
I guess if you include America's enemies, that client list shoots right through the roof. Of course, as Captain Ed points out, criticizing the ACLU from within is one civil liberty too many so we shouldn't expect anyone who likes their job to question ACLU policy.
I think Bird of Paradise has probably summed up this latest sordid episode painfully accurately:
Once again the NY & LA Times have decided that the interests of the enemies of the United States are more compelling that the interests of the people of the United States and the elected government which exists to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare."
It would be one thing if "selling newspapers" were the bottom line. As a capitalist I could understand that, if not support it. But neither paper even has that to fall back on. That leaves only idealogy. It has been clear for some time now what that idealogy is and it is not good for the citizens of America.