Article

2006-06-30 Fifth Column

WND : "12 down: Top secret war plans, 36 across: Treason" (Ann Coulter)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-06-30 02:27|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 thanks anonymous5089,

Ann floats my boat!

Posted by RD 2006-06-30 02:55|| 2006-06-30 02:55|| Front Page Top

#2 Not mine, but she's right on this IMO.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-30 09:13|| 2006-06-30 09:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Demanding criminal charges has reached an impasse. That is, who would be charged? is still nebulous. We need names.

Nothing can happen, nothing will happen, until individuals are named as "should be prosecuted", by somebody.

Only the one NYT editor has come forward as someone who admittedly should be prosecuted. So he is a good start. But who else?

We need names.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-06-30 09:13|| 2006-06-30 09:13|| Front Page Top

#4 Treason isn't the charge I'd bring against the NYT or Keller. It's too subjective and hot. Violations of the Espionage Act are far more objective and less likely to create a martyr. An investigation should be under way NOW and should get at least the resources Plamegate got. Reporters and editors need to spend time in the slammer get the identity of the leakers. Then they should all be put on trial under the Espionage Act. Leave treason to the Post's editorial page and WND.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-30 09:22|| 2006-06-30 09:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Call that editor into a grand jury.
Ask where the info comes from. If he answers, call the next person. If he doesn't answer, put him in the cooler and call another editor.
We do want the leakers, but we also want to ruff up the NYT higher ups as much as possible.

Posted by wxjames 2006-06-30 11:10|| 2006-06-30 11:10|| Front Page Top

#6 Some CIA expert mentioned that historically these leaks are often political appointees and therefore the president rarely makes the leaker's name public for fear of a little embarrassment. (May or may not be the case here but it's a possibility.) Either way I hope there are going to be a few folks quietly or not so quietly fired for this at the very least.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-30 11:24|| 2006-06-30 11:24|| Front Page Top

#7 Broadhead6, if those are Bush appointees doing the leaking, he should be seriously, seriously annoyed. And take it personally, too.

If they are legacy appointees, how does that embarass this administration?

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-30 13:39|| 2006-06-30 13:39|| Front Page Top

#8 TW - quite right, if they're Clinton era folks it's a no brainer to me. I just hope if they are political appointee leakers they are not from either Bush admin.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-30 19:55|| 2006-06-30 19:55|| Front Page Top

00:09 JosephMendiola
23:55 BA
23:49 Frank G
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:44 trailing wife
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:35 trailing wife
23:34 trailing wife
23:28 trailing wife
23:27 GK
23:24 Phil
23:06 Chearong Unoper9371
23:00 Eric Jablow
22:59 Uninter Whereting4376
22:54 Eric Jablow
22:54 Broadhead6
22:51 trailing wife
22:49 Barbara Skolaut
22:46 tu3031
22:46 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:44 Anonymoose
22:42 tu3031
22:41 JosephMendiola