The U.S. government took a body blow when one of its most sensitive war-fighting programs turned up on the front page of the New York Times. It wasn't that the New York Times didn't know it was exposing a closely held secret national security project. The administration not only told the New York Times how sensitive the information was, it "implored" the Times not to reveal it.
The New York Times ran the story anyway, arguing that running the story was "in the public interest." The Times' story failed to demonstrate how. It admitted the program was limited, was carefully overseen to prevent abuses, and that it was perfectly legal.
Times editor Bill Keller decided that the limited, supervised and legal operation had been conducted in secret long enough and splashed the program, the names of the cooperating government and banking officials and the methods being employed all over the front page.
No public interest was ever demonstrated by either the story or the Times' explanation. The program itself, although responsible for numerous successful operations against the enemy, will most probably be shut down, its effectiveness compromised.
The Times' editors didn't view publishing the administration's secret programs as harming the United States government's war-fighting capability. With spectacularly focused tunnel vision, all they saw was a chance to hurt the Bush administration in advance of the upcoming mid-term elections.
Since exposing one of the government's most effective war-fighting operations, the Times' editorials have returned to complaining about U.S. failures in the war on terror and the Bush administration's mismanagement of the war. They must have been dancing for joy at the news that the Supreme Court handed the Bush administration "a total repudiation of his war policies" by ruling the government "lacked the power to hold military war crimes trials for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
Of course, the Times didn't say "the government." In its version, it was a blow to "the Bush administration" and therefore their "joy runneth over." Surely they are aware that the fate of the Bush administration and the fate of the United States government, insofar as the war is concerned, are inextricably linked. And they are presumably aware that New York City is in the United States and thus uniquely threatened by this outcome.
It's the liberal "disconnect" that fails to grasp that the Bush administration is at present the United States government that is such a strange thing to behold. The Supreme Court ruling that the liberal press trumpets as a "blow to the Bush administration" is also a real blow to the government. And if one takes the increasingly archaic view that "we, the people," are the government, then "we, the people," also absorbed the blow.
There are several hundred vicious, dedicated jihadist killers securely locked away at Guantanamo Bay where they are unable to plot attacks against the United States (which includes both New York City and the Bush administration).
The "total repudiation" handed the U.S. government by the Supreme Court is based on the alleged failure of the Executive Branch to obtain formal authorization from the Congress. The White House and congressional leaders are already at work correcting that oversight.
But the liberal majority on the Court then handed "we, the people" (and not just the current administration), a repudiation when it forbade the government the authority to withhold classified information at their trials, even if revealing that information would compromise national security.
Here's how that translates to prosecuting terrorists. The prosecutor in these cases would have only two choices. Choice one: To get a conviction, he would have to reveal information that endangers our national security. Choice two: Refuse to reveal this information that is vital to the case, thus letting the terrorist walk free. Then the terrorist gets a new suit, $25 and a free ticket back to join the global Islamic jihad against America.
The lawsuit on which this decision was based – now get this – is on behalf of Osama's personal chauffeur, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. He contends that he was just an innocent hired hand unjustly accused of being an associate of Osama bin Laden. Anyone who has any understanding of bin Laden's security modus operandi would surely know that a person would not be entrusted with such a sensitive personal service for him unless his loyalty was proven beyond question.
Amazingly, Justice Stevens even assumed that this was probably true of Hamdan. He wrote, "Even assuming that Hamdan is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him."
Can you imagine how our people are treated when captured by al-Qaida and the other Islamic terrorist groups? They usually get an on-the-spot judgment in the name of Allah while the one who will behead him sharpens his sword. If they are lucky, they get killed before being tortured. Does anyone get the irony? We are at war with a brutal, barbaric enemy who wants to kill as many American's as possible. And we allow legal technicalities to release those captured to return to the battle against us.
Meanwhile, the champagne must have flowed freely at the New York Times' editorial offices when they heard the good news, "Supreme Court Repudiates Bush Administration Policy." To the Times, it meant winning a battle against the hated Bush administration. To the American people, it meant loosing a battle against a deadly enemy that is bent on our destruction.
Related special offer:
Get Hal's "Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad"