Second of all, I agree that giving away information about how we are tracking terrorist is not in the best interest of our country, and I agree it is treasonous.

Thank you for that.  Giving away information n how we are tracking terrorists is Precisely what the NYT is and has been doing for the past seven years.

Most articles do not give away our positions and military secrets and the are the exception rather than the norm. The majority of the this country does not believe the war was worth the cost and the msm is conveying this.

Most articles might not give away information, but key articles do so.  Information regarding the Terrorist Surveillance program, financial training programs, and operations regarding surveillance in foreign lands have been "Broken" by the NYT and thus this information has been passed to the enemy.  Thus, the NYT has and is operating in a treasonous manner.

A good example is what I call the tinfoil hat paradigm.  Imagine that the US Army has created a new airborne surveillance program that can read a terrorists mind and geolocate them and it has been very effective against Al Queda in Afghanistan.  The system works as long as a surveillance aircraft equipped with the gear is overhead and the terrorists think about ice cream.  The systems sole limitation is that it cannot read through tin foil hats. 

And as of yet the AQ does not understand what system is zapping large numbers of their terrorist cells.

Now imagine that the New York Times gets word of this new system and decides to publish a front page story on the system and its use in theater.
The Pentagon gets word of the impending article and actually asks the NYT to not publish the article which tells what the system is and what its limitations are.

If the NYT does publish in a deries of 64 front page articles over the course of a year, and thus ruins the system (the bad guys begin wearing tinfoil lined turbans)and limits US effectiveness, is this not treasonous?

Because this is parallels what they have done to the US Intelligence community.

Shawn the NYT's version of opinion, facts and objectivity looks more like propoganda than reputuable news.

If freedom of speech is an "alienable right" no matter what, then how do you explain this?

Axis Sally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Sally

Prosecutors called Gillars' broadcasts subtle attempts to break down the morale of American soldiers. They introduced evidence that Gillars had signed an oath of allegiance to Hitler. They also claimed that she posed as a worker for the International Red Cross in order to record messages from American soldiers that could be converted into propaganda.

Gillars' defense attorneys argued that her broadcasts stated an unpopular opinion but did not rise to the level of treason. They also said that she was under the sway of her former romantic interest, Max Otto Koischwitz, a German national whom she had met at Hunter College in New York City.

The sensational, six-week trial ended on March 8, 1949. After long deliberations, the jury convicted Gillars on only one count of treason, for making the "Vision of Invasion" broadcast.

Robert henry Best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Best

On July 26, 1943, a grand jury in Washington D.C. indicted Best in absentia for treason. After the war ended, he was arrested on January 29, 1946 in Austria and was brought to the U.S. on March 29, 1948 for trial in Boston. Best was accused of "giving aid and comfort" to the Nazis. He acted as his own lawyer in front of judge Francis J.W. Ford. Several people testified at his trial including Princess Sofia zur Lippe-Weissenfeld of Austria. [4]

On April 16, 1948, Best was convicted of 12 counts of treason. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and began his sentence at the federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut. His conviction was appealed to the United States Circuit Court[5] and to the Supreme Court which refused a hearing.[6]. "

Now as American citizens shouldn't thier 2nd amendment rights have been protected and these crimes overlooked? How is what the NYT does from day to day any different? Or are you of the belief as long as you help the enemy from our soil and not thiers it's freedom of expression and not treason?

If giving aid and comfort to the enemy from thier soil is high treason there is a long list of Democrats in congress who should see the gallows.

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

                               " The Cake is a lie."   

does 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' equate to being a traitor?

Support our Troops    

First of all thank you for your service and helping this country defend
its freedom and putting your life on the line, so we at home can feel
safe.

Don't thank me, thank my recruiter. (Inside joke. That is what our Drill Sgt's would say whenever we said, "Thank you". Then we pushed...) But on that point, I didn't just join so that Americans can feel safe. I knew that if I ever went to a "hazardous fire zone", it would not be stateside. I knew before I ever joined that I would be fighting for the rights and freedoms of people other than Americans. That was fine with me. What makes Americans so damn special that I can only fight for them and their freedoms? Aren't we endowed by our Creator? Does our "Creator" love Americans more than, say, Iraqis?

I disagree, you can criticize the President without criticizing the
troops. It was the Presidents choice to invade Iraq, because he thought
we had WMD and not the troops.

Sure, it's possible. Calling the Prez a dookie-head has nothing to do with the troops. However, calling Iraq "unwinnable" IS critical of the troops. That is saying that they can not complete their mission. It's saying that our troops can not win. It's calling them losers.

Next, there WERE WMD's found in Iraq, just not the vast stockpiles the media built us up to expect. You don't hear about them because they were not reported on. Howerver, hearing the WMD drum pounded five years after the fact reminds of a Cox and Forkum editorial cartoon I saw a while back. Troops are investigating a mass grave. Skeletal remains of women and children are scattered all around and some peacenik hippie is standing there screaming "Where are the WMD's?" In other words, WMD's were not the only reason to go to Iraq. Don't believe me? Ask an Iraqi if they thing we shoud leave because fewer than expected WMD's were found. Ask him if his world would be better off if we left him to the local militias to control.  See what those people think before you sacrifice their lives for nothing more than political gain.

Finally, the debate on whether to go into Iraq is over. It has been over for five years. Debating it now is like debating whether or not we need milk when we are on the way home from the store. Liberals are so pissed that lost that debate, they want us to stop the car and walk home. Obviously, that is not the best strategy, at the store or in Iraq. The only debate we should be having now is "Was Iraq better or worse off under Saddam Hussein?" and "What can be done to bring our troops home without throwing away all that so many Americans and Iraqis have died for?"

So debating whether or not we should be in Iraq is a slap in the face of the troops. When you are pulling your second 8-hr guard duty shift (8 on, 8 off) and you see all the good things you and your unit have done by sacrificing your blood sweat and tears, it kinda pisses you off when rather than talk about your successes there (which was better than any other war in history), all the media and Democrats back home can talk about is your failures.

So, yeah, it kinda pisses us off.

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara