January 21, 2014
Espionage Porn: You had me at "Porn"
Marc Thiessen asks why the NYTimes thinks it's important to publish how our intel community gathers intelligence when there's not even an accusation that some of those methods are being used domestically. Papers like the Times constantly tell us they weigh national security and intelligence concerns against the public's right to know what the government is up to. That's a very noble sentiment, except in practice it means .... what? It means that an editor at the Times self-appoints himself to the role of what secrets deserve to be kept and which secrets they're going to publish.
Do you trust the NYTimes to make that call? Before you answer, consider this. A good friend of mine was tipped off that the NYTimes was about to reveal some information. Because the information was in regards to an ongoing criminal investigation, the Times was asked not to publish it. Not to withhold the story. Not to lie to the public. Just to withhold a couple of key points, in this case the name of a single individual. The Times ignored the request. The public needed to know, you see. And so the target of an ongoing criminal investigation know knew he was the target of a criminal investigation.
Before this disclosure, terrorists believed that if they did not connect to the Internet, they were “off the grid” and out of range of NSA surveillance. Now they know that is not true. As a result they can take countermeasures — and stop using the offline computers the NSA was monitoring — which means we will lose access to vital streams of intelligence we needed to prevent an attack.Indeed, how is the Times any different then the "rag" across town, the Post? At least the Post uses real porn to titilate its readers. They put boobs on the front page with the promise of even more cleavage on the inside. The Post is honest about what it's doing, the Times hides behind a veneer of the leftwing concerns of its typical readers.
As one former senior intelligence official told me recently, stories like this are nothing more than “espionage porn.” They serve no greater social purpose other than to titillate.
Read the whole article, it lists a bunch of Snowden revelations about our foreign espionage capabilities which do nothing to promote civil liberties but do directly hurt our ability to spy. It's almost like Snowden, the Times, and its lefty readers want America to be weaker.
To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, I'm not sure how to define espionage porn, but I know it when I see it. And most of what Edward Snowden has released fits that description.
H/T: Hot Air link thing