Oh Treason, Where is Thy Punishment?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Now, I don't know about you, dear reader, but I believe that revealing secret plans that aid in capturing, and ending the reign of terrorism falls under the category of treason. Which is punishable by death, by the way, a punishment that certainly fits the crime. (If you don't have access to, or don't want to pay the fee associated with reading the NYT article online, go here to read some clips from it.) Here's the great part! Only TWO witnesses are needed!!! Well geez, I think we've got that covered, I mean at least 2 people read the NYT right?
When is the NYT going to stop sabotaging US plans to capture and kill terrorists? Or at least cripple them? When is this administration going to get some....guts about them and start handing out punishment? Are they short on volunteers to help with the executions? I don't want to seem too eager or anything, but, where is the signup sheet?

Do they not understand the repercussions of their actions? Let me break it down for them. We are at WAR. It's like, dangerous and stuff, and like, people die in wars. Some of those people are our American Boys and they're not going to stop dying until the war is over. The war won't be over until the Iraqi government/people can get a grip on dealing with terrorism. Terrorism, in great amounts is funded by, you guessed it, money. We're trying to figure out the source of their income to cripple terrorism. We can't do that if the NYT is spreading how we're doing it ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!! Get the picture? Good, I'm glad that something that's obvious to second-graders is something you can finally grasp.

It is not an infringement on your freedom of press /speech to ask you not to publish something. If I were president (oh what a wonderful world....) I wouldn't have asked. I would have told. And yes, I am fully aware that this is not a dictatorship, it's a democratic republic. Sometimes, in their elitist mentality, the NYT forgets this. Sometimes it's in the best interest of the American people, especially the people actually fighting the war, to not know things. But, as the times editor so eloquently put it "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest." Oh, I'm sure those are their true intentions. If I may, I would like to translate:
"We are so bitter about the fact that this stupid Texan has been so successful with his plans in Iraq, that as a unit, we've decided to sabotage this portion of his plans so as to make him fail miserably, which is what we thought he would do in the first place. Since he hasn't, we're going to do the only thing we're good at, help the other team. You remember Jane Fonda, right? She's our idol."
There, I believe that is a more accurate portrayal of their line of thinking.

Since I don't have a loved-one actually in Iraq, I cannot pull out my soon-to-be-a-military wife-card. I do however know of several people who have been to Iraq, are there, or are about to leave. I'm not so sure that they or their family would appreciate the added danger to their already dangerous jobs. Read this woman's blog. Her husband is in Iraq. She longs to see him. She fears his death with such great intensity, she can't even write about it. Her only interest as a member of the general public is that her husband gets home safely. Not about secret plans to track terrorists financial transactions.

As a matter of fact, I believe the general public is more interested in finally seeing pictures of TomKat's baby than of secret plans to track terrorists financial transactions. You know, because we as Americans care so much about the welfare of our troops.

Which brings up another point. If you support the troops but not the war, and, this is a question pointed directly at the NYT and the supporters of their treason, why then is it acceptable to print something that can put the troops in more danger? Just a simple question. And please, do not insult my intelligence by coming at me with some response that contains the words free speech or freedom of the press. I've already addressed that.

Seems like treason just isn't taken all that seriously anymore. Well, unless of course a conservative were to commit treason. Then, the NYT would be the first in line to prosecute. Following them would be John Kerry, who's service record is sketch, Hillary Clinton, who makes noise just for the hope that people will forget what a dog her husband is, and Cindy Sheehan, just because she likes to make anyone conservative look bad.

Golly, with Americans like them, who needs enemies?