Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for January 13th, 2009

Right to Know, Power Brokering, Criminal? You Decide

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/13

A newspaper breaks the news that the US Government is tracking terrorist locations by cell phone use.

A newspaper breaks the news that the US Government, in cooperation with multiple foreign governments and multiple finance businesses, is tracking down and freezing financial assets of terrorist organizations.

A newspaper breaks the news that the US Government is wire-tapping known terrorist organizations.

A newspaper breaks the news that Israel requested bunker buster bombs to help shut down the Iranian nuclear facilities (those facilities that are needed to make weapons-grade nuclear materials). In the same breaking news, the US denied the request due to US covert activities to shut the facilities in question down.

Did the news people responsible for publishing this information truly act on the basis of “the public has a right to know” or were there other reasons? Were all these breaking stories an effort by the news people to bring down the Republican Party in the US Government? Were their actions purely legal or was criminal activity involved?

The information being released was classified information and likely among the highest of classified information. The person or people giving this information to news outlets was indeed violating oaths by doing so. This released information has adversely affected national security. This released information has also put a great many lives at risk, civilian and government alike.

If one life was lost as a result of this release of classified information, I believe everyone involved, from the reporter to the editor and above within the newspaper, and the leaker or leakers themselves, should be tried and convicted of at the very least Manslaughter in the Second Degree or Murder in the Third Degree. Even without the loss of a single life, this act could well be considered espionage. In fact, I do consider it espionage. I actually consider it treasonous but the burden to prove treason is nearly impossible to meet. Espionage will do to fit the crimes all involved have committed and are committing.

But another major point to consider, aside from these criminal issues, is the question of whether these news organizations will continue their behavior once their man is in the White House.


Posted in crime, politics, terrorists, truth, war | Comments Off on Right to Know, Power Brokering, Criminal? You Decide

Response Attitude Paradigm Change

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/13


If on a form of mass transit that gets hijacked, passively cooperate with the hijackers. You are much more likely to survive the event if you do not resist the hijackers in any way.

If a member of an organization reacting to the hijacking, use as much restraint as possible to prevent any escalation in the situation. Seek to negotiate a resolution without actually negotiating. Wait the hijackers out.

AFTER 9/11

If on a form of mass transit that gets hijacked, act immediately to disable the hijackers, even if such action places you at great risk of injury or death. Your actions may well prevent the deaths of a great many others.

Several attempted hijackings and other similarly threatening events have occurred after 9/11 where the passengers did indeed take matters into their own hands, aggressively bringing the assailants to submission.

If a member of an organization reacting to a hijacking, strongly consider the use of deadly force to end the hijacking as quickly as possible. Even if your actions will cause the deaths of innocents, those actions may well prevent a great many more deaths and a great deal more damage and suffering.

This is the new attitude among a massive number of people since the suicide hijacks, and understandably so. It is this new threat resulting from a hijack which has caused the paradigm change. And yet the change appears to be exceedingly narrow in its definition.

When terrorists hide themselves among one group of civilians and indiscriminately attack a second group of civilians, government agencies are not permitted by public opinion to go in and eradicate those terrorists for fear of collateral damage. And it is that very fear of collateral damage the terrorists depend on. When terrorists fire from schools or religious buildings or homes, government agencies cannot retaliate, even in today’s new paradigm, for fear of “bad press.” When terrorists use schools, homes, religious buildings, hospitals, international government buildings to store their weapons, government agencies are supposed to not do anything about it. Terrorists know this and use this every opportunity they get.

Where is the honor in what the terrorists are doing? Where is the honor in the complicit behavior of the mainstream media? Where is the honor in the complicit outcry against those defending themselves and trying to maintain their right to live? When ignoring the actions of known terrorists to complain about the reactions of a government, TRUTH is rejected and DISHONOR is espoused.

Posted in history, Israel, politically correct, terrorists, truth, war | Comments Off on Response Attitude Paradigm Change

%d bloggers like this: