Holte's corner

Terrorist Plot or Well Orchestrated Effort to Get A National Secrets Act passed?

I've got two choices for what to believe about this latest "plot"
that's been uncovered.

Judging by the official propaganda coming from the Bush
Administration and the [liberal?????] media:

http://tinyurl.com/rfehg

The Government just broke up a serious ring out to do us harm.

"Eight suspects — including an al-Qaida loyalist arrested in Lebanon
and two others in custody elsewhere — had hoped to pull off the
attack in October or November, federal officials said. But federal
investigators working with their counterparts in six other countries
intervened. The other five suspects remained at large."

Of course, if "secrecy" is so important, publishing this information
while those 5 suspects are still at large may make it difficult to
apprehend them -- if they were serious about what they are doing.

According to this report;

http://tinyurl.com/fcpkh
"One former intelligence field officer says, and two other CIA
officials confirm, that the alleged plot by Muslim extremists to bomb
the Holland Tunnel in New York City was nothing more than chatter by
unaffiliated individuals with no financing or training in an open
forum already monitored extensively by the United States Government,
RAW STORY has learned."

According to RAW story the "plot" was little more than what was known
as "chatter" before 9/11 and the new attitude towards law
enforcement. So which is it? Were these folks part of a vicious
determined enemy out to destroy our country or was their talk
mere 'chatter'? What does this say about the State of US and world
civil liberties?

See this post from the other day:
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/holte/archives/001098.html

RAW story's version seems to be corroborated by lines in the original
report:

""It was never a concern that this would actually be executed,"
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Boston. "We
were, as I say, all over this."

So Michael Chertoff agrees with RAW. If there'd ever been any chance
of these people actually executing their plot, the Government wasn't
going to let them get that far:

"They were about to go to a phase where they would attempt to surveil
targets, establish a regimen of attack and acquire the resources
necessary to effectuate the attacks."

Obviously they are going to try these guys on "conspiracy" -- if they
are ever brought to trial. And this sets a precedent for ever
increasingly spurrious charges. Don't think this approach won't be
applied to increasingly "American" crimes. It already is.

Why release this information now? Unfortunately the official reports
don't support this as anything but part of an orchestrated effort to
roll up our press and individual freedoms. For a reason why, one need
only go visit Fox news and listen to an evening of their propaganda --
which unfortunately many people actually believe as truthful. On the
Hannity I heard a CIA agent (former?) explain that this is further
proof of a need for an Official Secrets Act. And I heard Newt
Gingrich extolling the need for even stronger restrictions on
personal liberties and the Press. I missed Olivar North expounding on
the need for a National Secrets Act (so he could do the things he
went to jail for in the Reagan Administration with impunity?)
Everyone was talking in goose-step. Sorry but the analogies are no
longer hypothetical or hyperbolic -- if still for a moment figurative.

Just read Linda Chavez:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060706-085929-8918r.htm

And here is Oliver North with his faux historical analogies;
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/onorth.htm

"The revelation of yet another super-secret operation to root out
terrorists has prompted some in Congress to call for hauling editors
of offending media outlets into court. Rep. Peter King, New York
Republican, has called on the Justice Department to prosecute the New
York Times for "treasonous actions." As our FOX News "War Stories"
documentary "Deception In the Pacific" noted, that's what President
Franklin Roosevelt wanted to do in June of 1942 when Robert
McCormick's Chicago Tribune revealed that we had won the Battle of
Midway because we had broken the Japanese JN-25 naval codes. Though
the story did terrible damage, leading the Japanese to immediately
change their codes. McCormick was never prosecuted -- in part because
Adm. Ernest King, chief of naval operations, feared that a public
trial would result in revelations about other ongoing intelligence
operations."

Except, that in reality, (this is not reality -- it is propaganda)
what the New York times did was neither illegal, nor immoral, nor
revealing anything not already known by the general public. They were
just revealing things that were "embarrassing" to allies and to the
Government; probably illegal, and possibly unethical. (click here to follow link)

"That's just one reason why the "reporters," editors and publishers
who repeatedly promulgate classified information will never be tried
for treason. But that shouldn't be the case for the leakers. They
clearly have broken the law -- and they need to be found, prosecuted,
convicted and jailed -- for they are no different than Walker, Ames
and Hanssen."

In Oliver North's mind he is practicing his own version of "uchi iri"
the revenge/vindication game. Oliver North sought to use illegal
(smuggling, arms sales, and conversion) means to achieve what he
thought was a noble end; defeat communism. He was punished in the
courts for it. If we get an Official Secrets act, we can guarantee
that nothing like that will ever happen again. He goes on:

"Defenders of what the New York Times has done will claim that the
press must "protect their sources" -- and not reveal the leakers.
That too is wrong. The courts have the power to compel media moguls
to reveal government employees who unlawfully divulge classified
information about intelligence sources and methods during time of
war -- or be jailed for contempt. If we fail to do so we're accepting
the premise that media "sources" are more valuable than the sources
and methods used to protect the American people from those who seek
to kill us. If that's the case, we might as well just fax all our
secrets to our enemies."

It would be an uneven contest indeed. Tell me what the goal is of
these people? Is it to preserve our freedoms or theirs?

How long before I have to stop posting on this subject or risk arrest
myself?

Chris

Posted by cholte at July 7, 2006 11:11 PM