Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Who Decides What's A Secret?

If the New York Times is to be believed - a stretch, I know - it's unaccountable journalists, not an elected representative government, who should be in charge of exposing national secrets. The article is full of the usual fearmongering about Team Dubya's "secrecy", but this chunk really gets to the heart of the matter:

"It's my father's legacy," said Kevin N. Anderson, a Salt Lake City lawyer and one of the columnist's nine children. "The government has always and continues to this day to abuse the secrecy stamp. My father's view was that the public is the employer of these government employees and has the right to know what they're up to."

The F.B.I. says the dispute over the papers, which await cataloging at George Washington University here, is a simple matter of law.

"It's been determined that among the papers there are a number of classified U.S. government documents," said Bill Carter, an F.B.I. spokesman. "Under the law, no private person may possess classified documents that were illegally provided to them. These documents remain the property of the government."

The standoff, which appears to have begun with an F.B.I. effort to find evidence for the criminal case against two pro-Israel lobbyists, has quickly hardened into a new test of the Bush administration's protection of government secrets and journalists' ability to report on them.

Ya got that? The same media who scream about the invasion of privacy that tapping Al Queda agents phones is supposed to be (and blows the secret about) also demands that they get to have illegally disclosed documents that they can then use to subvert or national security!!!

Hey, if it's OK for Democrats to falsely obtain a black Republican candidate's credit report for poilitical purposes, what's a little treason if it means more power for the Left?

Remember this when you hear a liberal blathering about "privacy"; it's just another lie.

No comments: