© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
New York Times op-ed engages in 'dangerous incitement' against customs and border agents

(Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

New York Times op-ed engages in 'dangerous incitement' against customs and border agents

They say that's not what they are doing. But their own standards say otherwise.

The New York Times, like most liberal publications and TV networks, accepted without debate the assertion by Rep. Ilhan Omar that Rep. Dan Crenshaw and the Fox News Channel were engaging in "dangerous incitement" against her in their criticism of her 9/11 comments. That was despite the fact that they simply commented publicly on a publicly happening debate.

But in an opinion piece published on Saturday, the Times allowed much more direct incitement, with recommendations of specific action to take. First and foremost, that agents at the border facilities where families are sometimes detained or separated should have their private, personal information exposed to the public so they can "face consequences."

In defense of her position, the writer, human rights professor Kate Cronin-Furman, calls border separations a "mass atrocity." She refers to those working for ICE and Border Patrol as "foot soldiers" and invokes the phrase "just following orders" in her argument for taking extra-governmental action. And in defense of her implicit call for retribution, limply offers this: "This is not an argument for doxxing — it's about exposure of their participation in atrocities to audiences whose opinion they care about. "

That's the only nod to any sense of irresponsibility at all. That one line. Otherwise the entire op-ed is dedicated to ensuring maximum "consequences" for these members of American law enforcement.

No wonder Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refused to back off of "concentration camps." She was padding the American sensibility to accept the next step in the progressive agenda: overt violence.

"The debate over whether 'concentration camps' is the right term for migrant detention centers on the southern border has drawn long-overdue attention to the American government's dehumanizing treatment of defenseless children," writes Cronin-Furman. "A pediatrician who visited in June said the centers could be compared to 'torture facilities.' Having studied mass atrocities for over a decade, I agree."

Now it is concentration camps with actual torture, according to the Times.

In this paean to retribution, Cronin-Furman is painstaking about repeating the words "social" and "reputational" consequences. But if simply tweeting about, or talking on Fox about, something Ilhan Omar said is an 'incitement" to violence, how much more so is a full-length New York Times editorial accusing agents of being "directly responsible for torture" of children?

"Those of us who want to stop what's happening need to think about all the different individuals playing a role in the systematic mistreatment of migrant children and how we can get them to stop participating," she says.

And she argues for doxxing while claiming she is not.

The identities of the individual Customs and Border Protection agents who are physically separating children from their families and staffing the detention centers are not undiscoverable. Immigration lawyers have agent names; journalists reporting at the border have names, photos and even videos. These agents' actions should be publicized, particularly in their home communities.

Here are the people torturing children, she wants lawyers and journalists to say. They go to your church. Deal with them.

"Many Americans have been asking each other "But what can we DO?" The answer is that we call these abuses mass atrocities and use the tool kit this label offers us to fight them," she says. "The fastest way to stop it is to make sure everyone who is responsible faces consequences."

If you're not clear on what a leftist like Cronin-Furman means by that, take a look.

On Bill Maher's show last week, there was a discussion about the concentration camp comments, and in defense, as AOC herself has argued, a couple of Maher's guests argued the idea of escalation. You may start at this level, but it leads to the next, the basic premise goes. That, too, can be applied here. It starts with throwing milkshakes or chasing Trump officials out of a restaurant. But at some point it becomes mugging people in Portland and writing an op-ed for the New York Times about seeking retribution against law enforcement.

And next? Good question. What does come next?

Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?
Caleb Howe

Caleb Howe


Caleb Howe is a conservative writer and editor. Follow him on Twitter @CalebHowe and Facebook.