Why censor when we can just execute? (Joe)

I feel the need way to work my way through this one, because it just seems so incredibly outlandish to me.

You see, The New York Times is apparently guilty of treason.  Or if not the Times, then at least its editor.  Precision, clarity of thought, is not necessary if you are a conservative, after all.

Of what, precisely, is the Times guilty?  Or executive editor Bill Keller?  Well, the newspaper ran a story revealing that the US Administration kept tabs on suspected terrorists by tapping into bank records which track global transactions.

This reminds me of the "scandal" where the NY Times earlier revealed the illegal NSA program.  Of course, President Bush is quick to draw a distinction: "What we did was fully authorized under the law."  He's still maintaining that as King he has the constitutional authority to violate the constitution, mind you, but this is at least a tacit concession that there's a real difference between this program and the nominally not-fellonious NSA program.  But the reason I see a similarity here is stunningly obvious: it's not a secret.  NOT. A. SECRET.  Seriously, "the terrorists" think that they're not being spied upon?  Just because we're led by stunningly incompetent buffoons doesn't mean that they are.

But back to the Times and treason.  I'm hearing a backlash against the New York Times.  The liberal, purportedly anti-Chimperor paper.  You know who else ran stories about the bank monitoring program on the same day as the NY Times?  The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times.  Funny, I haven't heard any calls for the execution of the WSJ--or at least, of its editor.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't treason a capital offence?

So that means, if we take seriously the hyperbole of Republican congressmen and screaming pundits, that they would actually EXECUTE the New York Times.  For publishing a story which effectively says, "Hey, we're watching you and monitoring your activity."

Fascinating.

The scary thing is, I'm actually somewhat frightened for Bill Keller (editor).  Why?  Because the outlandish, the absurd, the nonsensically insane has a way of happening these days, especially in this country.

Comments

[Snave]

Excellent post, Joe. It IS scary, because we have a religious fundamentalist controlling the White House at the time, and fundamentalists tend to take things very literally. While this president seems to have a general disregard for things that impede him (things like the Supreme Court, Congress and the Constitution), I am certain he would fully use any existing laws, in a literal translation of those laws, if he knew it would benefit him personally or help to advance his quest for total control.

He is a sickie. And we still have about 900 days left of his administration.