Dept. of Lousy Analogies
June 22, 2009 5:21 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Newsbusters complains that the New York Times didn't report the fact that journalist David Rohde was held by the Taliban, even though it did disclose government torture:
In their watchdog role of keeping the public informed, the New York Times has over the years disclosed government secrets regarding anti-terrorism tactics, overseas prisons, interrogation tactics, and military tactics, that critics contend have harmed the effectiveness of the programs and put America and our military at greater risk.
...
So when Times journalist David Rohde was captured by the Taliban and held for seven months, the Times was going to report that, right? After all, doesn't the public have a right to know about the threats they may face while traveling in Afghanistan?
Yeah, because getting kidnapped is exactly the same as torturing people and conducting warrantless spying on American citizens.
Seriously, that's what Newsbusters is saying: Because the New York Times reported that the Bush administration was probably violating the law, the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and basic human decency, the Times was obligated to report that the Taliban was holding Rohde, even if it may have jeopardized Rohde's life.
That is lunacy, though the blatant disregard it shows for Rohde's life probably shouldn't be surprising coming from people who are, after all, defending torture.

















Now he thinks that there Darfur place he keeps hearing about on tv might be a real good place to visit.
First of all, if you're traveling to Afghanistan, if you don't realize it's probably one of the most dangerous places on the face of the Earth at this point in time, you're an idiot.
Second, who is traveling to Afgahnistan? Is there some tourist destination that I don't know of?
Third, the only people really traveling there are our brave soldiers, and some reporters, and the reporters no doubt get security briefings from the State Department, and probably from their own security teams before leaving.
How would reporting the kidnapping of their reporter be for the public good? It wouldn't be.
How is exposing warrantless wiretapping good for the public? It is, because it shows how willfully disregarding our previous administration was as pertains to the RIGHTS we have as American citizens.
It's not surprising to me that these guys don't see the difference.
I know, I can hardly believe it myself. But what other conclusion could one reach?