 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
arkadyfolkner
PO3
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 271
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:46 am Post subject: NYT Times Columnist makes case to go after Rathergate |
 |
|
from barking-moonbat.com
| Quote: | Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004 10:10 p.m. EDT
Safire: It Was a Crime
Quoting U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343, New York Times columnist William Safire went straight to the heart of the CBS Rathergate scandal, writing, "At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources."
Writing in Wednesday's New York Times, Safire noted that the statute holds that "Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
Story Continues Below
Safire contends that law applies to those who "conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents and append a photocopied signature to one of them."
Says Safire, that person "then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of television communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election" – which he adds is "no mere 'dirty trick' but a potential violation of federal law."
Safire writes that it must be revealed:
Who was the forger?
Did others conspire with him or her to present an apparent government document - with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Texas?
Who was meant to to benefit from the forgery and how?
While admitting that the feds and the courts "have no business forcing journalists to reveal sources," Safire argued that there is no ethic that requires a journalist to protect a source who lied.
Accordingly, he wrote, Dan Rather went to the Texas ranch of his source and telecast Bill Burkett's admission to having falsely "thrown out the name" of someone who gave him the false evidence, adding that his real source was some hard-to-find mystery woman named Lucy Ramirez.
Safire speculates that in return for his fake documents the Bush-hating Burkett got "coveted access to someone high up in the Kerry campaign."
Burkett was able to reach Kerry's ally former Sen. Max Cleland, to "plead for access to higher-ups so as to launch a 'counterattack' on Bush, who was benefitting from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on Kerry's war record. Cleland, he says, confirmed getting the call and said he told Burkett to try the Democratic National Committee. ..."
When Burkett's call to DNC headquarters was not returned, he then asked CBS producer Mary Mapes to help him get the top-level Kerry access he craved.
Prior to the "60 Minutes" telecast, Mapes or some other "60 Minutes" staff member got Burkett what he wanted - a call from Joe Lockhart, the newly hired former Clinton press aide.
With the number generously supplied by CBS, Safire recalls that Lockhart called Burkett. "We don't know what was said," Safire wrote, adding that "the call from on high was payoff in itself."
Safire wonders what CBS should do now. He suggests that:
The network should release Rather's interview with Burkett in its entirety, including the outtakes.
Mary Mapes, at the center of all this, should be allowed to speak to reporters.
Viacom should use its vast resources to track down the possible original sources, who likely have engaged in criminal conduct.
Appointing independent reviewers should not be a device to duck all others' questions, Safire argues, saying that this is U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's trick to stonewall his Oil-for-Food scandal.
"Conservatives," he adds, "should stop slavering over Dan Rather's scalp, and liberals should stop pretending that noble ends justify fake-evidence means. Both should focus on the lesson of the early '70s: From third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate forgeries, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sround
Commander
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 328
Location: Stockbridge, GA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re: arkadyfolkner
Thanks for posting!
IMHO, Bill Safire is the only reason
I'd ever read the NYT. Here are my three
main reasons not to subscribe:
1. Don't read fiction or propaganda
2. Don't have a bird (cage-lining material)
3. Prefer Charmin (much softer)
_________________
Mission Accomplished!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coldwarvet
Admiral
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Minnetonka, MN
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can these same statutes be applied to Michael Moore’s treasonous trash that was sold as a documentary? Come on you legal minds lets get after Michael Moore and sink him along with CBS. Just build the case against Moore and I along with thousands of others will send you all the money you need to prosecute it. “Lets role on this” However it must go to court and their must be a ruling. We need to define the words treason and libel. And while were at it perhaps some day we will even be able to reclaim the word gay, and thanks to Michael Moore the word documentary is now threatened.
_________________
Defender of the honor of those in harms way keeping us out of harms way.
"Peace is our Profession"
Strategic Air Command - Motto
USAF 75-79 Security Police |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
