Ace of Spades HQ

« Another "Outrage" We'll Be Hearing About Ad Nauseum | Main | Perforated-Colon Horse-Intercourse: Catch The Fever! »

December 30, 2005

And The Washington Post Exposes Another Secret Program...

This time, the Washington Post uses its contacts in the CIA to expose an umbrella program called GST, the code for a loose affiliation of dozens of programs designed to locate and fight terrorists abroad rather than wait for them to show up here. Nothing about the article stands out as a smoking gun, it never alleges anything specifically illegal, but Dana Priest writes the front-pager as a warning that the President has gone out of control in defending the US from attack...
This effort by Priest mirrors the slop served up by the NY Times on the NSA surveillance of international communications, except in one regard -- the activities described by Priest clearly fall under the category of the President's war powers. One cannot even claim the limited ambiguity of the NSA position on that point

More on the full story at Captain Ed, linked above.

To repeat myself: It is not Ms. Priest who is actually breaking the law here. It is her sources, determined to undermine the War Against Terror out of a partisan liberal animus against Bush. Ms. Priest should be subpoenaed and forced to reveal her sources, and locked up if she refuses to comply, not as punishment -- she is, after all, just doing her job, if perhaps insufficiently careful about national security -- but rather in order to get the names of the actual criminals in our national security apparatus.

Hat tip to Heard Here, who makes the case that the New York Times is badly in need of "adult supervision."

posted by Ace at 01:37 PM

Comments

I think you may be too generous to Ms. Priest. While publishing the story is not illegal, that does not make it appropriate.

Posted by: M on December 30, 2005 01:43 PM

In like manner, it would not be illegal to publish Dana Priest's phone number and address, but it would not be appropriate.

Posted by: Jake on December 30, 2005 01:47 PM

The Washington Post, exposing all these government programs designed to keep us safe, as well as putting together hit pieces on mil-bloggers, has clearly declared whose side it's on in the war on terror: and it ain't America's.

Posted by: Sean on December 30, 2005 01:49 PM

Now, don't go questioning their patriotism ...@@.

Posted by: carin on December 30, 2005 01:51 PM

Sean, you just aren't sufficiently nuanced to appreciate that the only reason they're damaging this country's national security is because they love it so damn much. :/ Kinda like an abusive spouse, I guess.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic on December 30, 2005 01:51 PM

Um, I think Dana Priest is a guy. Just like Dana Carvey.

Posted by: Eric Lindholm on December 30, 2005 02:05 PM

I think Dana's a goil.

Posted by: Paul Freedman on December 30, 2005 02:13 PM

My theory is that Dana Priest is a Thai tranny.

Adds a certain frisson to reading his/her articles.

Posted by: Carl in N.H. on December 30, 2005 02:18 PM

dana priest is a man baby!

Posted by: steveeboy on December 30, 2005 02:18 PM

I read that article this morning and thought to myself that it was almost information-free, unless you think GST is meaningful.

Maybe we should wonder why stuff at this level is even secret. It is the rough equivalent of the paper telling you the gov is really doing stuff in the War on Terror. Surprise.

Posted by: searp on December 30, 2005 02:37 PM

Maybe it's the only way to get the paper to tell you the gov is really doing stuff in the War on Terror.

Posted by: Victoria on December 30, 2005 02:40 PM

Anyone named "Dana" working at the WaPo should be placed in a burlap sack and beaten with reeds.

Posted by: Dr. Evil on December 30, 2005 02:40 PM

Dana Priest is a chick. I've seen her on TV.

I cut her a little slack because she's cute. Well, "reporter-cute," anyway. (Not hot like Laurie Dhue or Norah O'Donnell; just "reporter-cute.")

Posted by: ace on December 30, 2005 02:42 PM

I'm sure all the commentors here would be every bit as supportive of surveillance by executive fiat if it were ordered by a Democratic president.

Right?

Posted by: sglover on December 30, 2005 02:46 PM

Well, I certainly did support Clinton's extraodinary renditions. About the only good thing he did to actually fight terrorism.

Posted by: ace on December 30, 2005 02:50 PM

Regarding the WOT- it looks like the Bush administration is on the ball. Go, George, Go!

As for calling the leakers traitors- I prefer the term "tubinos".

Posted by: roscoe k on December 30, 2005 02:59 PM

"I'm sure all the commentors here would be every bit as supportive of surveillance by executive fiat if it were ordered by a Democratic president. Right?"

If ordered to eavesdrop on foreign nationals with suspected terrorist ties, with incidental effects on American citizens, then yes. If used to smear political opponents, then no.

Posted by: Sobek on December 30, 2005 03:32 PM

Um, I think Dana Priest is a guy. Just like Dana Carvey.

Um, I think a couple of comment-folks are mixing Dana Priest up with the just-as-feminine Dana Milbank. The latter allegedly possesses the Y chromosone, but that's tough to prove.

Cordially...

Posted by: Rick on December 30, 2005 04:58 PM

Even tougher to detect "his" Y *chromosome*

Posted by: Rick on December 30, 2005 05:00 PM

The reporterette on FoxNews this a.m. said that what the GST acronym stood for was secret

Gullible
Stupid
Tool

Posted by: Joe Mama on December 30, 2005 05:16 PM

The liberal news media is aour biggist enemy boycott these birdcage linners dont even let your bird read this

Posted by: spurwing plover on December 30, 2005 08:23 PM

the names of the actual criminals in our national security apparatus.

Easy one: Bush & Cheney

Posted by: Steve J. on December 30, 2005 09:46 PM

Good one, Steve J. How long did it take to formulate that incisive thought? An hour? Did you put a trackback on DU so all your moonbat buddies could marvel at your wit?

Posted by: BrewFan on December 31, 2005 09:41 AM