O reason not the need!

Hey, if I were given $2 million for being locked up for a few months, I wouldn't be complaining. (Take me to Gitmo, please!)

The New York Times seems to think that any mistake in enforcing the law or prosecuting a war is a good reason to abandon either one. When has that ever been true? Every war has its atrocities because of the pressure soldiers are under and because in a guerrilla war it's not easy to tell who the enemy is. And there is no way to totally eliminated the sadsacks who populate some of the lower pay grades of any organization. Why, I'd even bet that some employees of the New York Times have violated laws, such as those against revealing classified information. Now that we've been 5 years without a successful follow up to the 9/11 attacks, the Times seems to think that none of the measures we've taken to prevent one aren't needed. If that's true, maybe we ought to rescind the funds we were going to spend on New York for Homeland Security projects.

Until we have a new watchdog to watch the self-appointed watchdogs in the press when they attack people without cause, I guess we'll just have to rely on shunning..