What The Leakers and NYTimes Have Accomplished: Insularity

[Redhots]

The NYT may have printed the truth but they also compromised the the security of this nation.

You mean the security of this administration, right?

The reason why the story was published in the first place was because of how this administration was conducting the searches. They were pulling everyone's bank records, they were not simply cherry picking suspected terrorists records like has been done before in the past.

This is a repeating pattern of breaking down barriers to the government’s access to private information about Americans.

The potential for abuse is enormous and to see conservitives of all people cheerleading for the White House at every occurence is dumbfounding.

 

[Annie]

You mean the security of this administration, right?

The reason why the story was published in the first place was because of how this administration was conducting the searches. They were pulling everyone's bank records, they were not simply cherry picking suspected terrorists records like has been done before in the past.

This is a repeating pattern of breaking down barriers to the government’s access to private information about Americans.

The potential for abuse is enormous and to see conservitives of all people cheerleading for the White House at every occurence is dumbfounding.

You've got ?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bully hit the nail directly on the head. This program shouldn't need to be secret. The govt. can get a subpeona to view anyones financial records already. The only thing that i can figure out the program does is streamline the process. The President is pissed that the thing was supposed to be secret and reporters found out about and did their job. I'm all for the press acting responsibly, but since when does the govt. have a say in what the press reports. My copy of the Constitution says it can't.

The President is pissed because the unpatriotic seditious idiots at the NYT just helped the enemy.
The program should have remained unexposed.

You liberals think this is just "Bush's war". Wrongo. The terrorists are out to get YOU too.
This is war. Helping the terrorists is plain anti-American.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The President is pissed because the unpatriotic seditious idiots at the NYT just helped the enemy.
The program should have remained unexposed.

You liberals think this is just "Bush's war". Wrongo. The terrorists are out to get YOU too.
This is war. Helping the terrorists is plain anti-American.

You are right and wrong. If the program was to remain unexposed, then it should have been protected better. You cannot fault the NYT, even as much as I dislike them, for doing their job and reporting something that they deemed newsworthy. The NYT is protected by the First Amendment here. Irresponsible? Yes, but on the part of the govt. as well as the NYT.

I guess believing in the Constitution makes me a liberal, whatever. As for this being "Bush's War," It's just as much my war as his. If not more. You speak of terrorists as if they are about to jump out of a closet and say "GOTCHA!" How is reporting the news, "helping the terrorists?" I would say selling arms around the world would be more damaging.

International arms sales also put U.S. troops based around the world at growing risk. In discussing this so-called "boomerang effect," the CIA's Nonproliferation Center noted in 1995 that "the acquisition of advanced convention al weapons and technologies by hostile countries could result in significant casualties being inflicted on U.S. forces or regional allies." In fact, the last five times that the United States has sent troops into conflict-in Panama, Iraq Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia-American forces faced adversaries that had previously received U.S. weapons, military technology or training.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/Guns_R_Us.html

Guess the US Govt. can be a little Anti-American sometimes too.

 

[Hobbit]

You are right and wrong. If the program was to remain unexposed, then it should have been protected better. You cannot fault the NYT, even as much as I dislike them, for doing their job and reporting something that they deemed newsworthy. The NYT is protected by the First Amendment here. Irresponsible? Yes, but on the part of the govt. as well as the NYT.

You most certainly can blame the NYT. It's illegal to disclose classified information, even if you're weren't supposed to know about it in the first place.

I guess believing in the Constitution makes me a liberal, whatever. As for this being "Bush's War," It's just as much my war as his. If not more. You speak of terrorists as if they are about to jump out of a closet and say "GOTCHA!" How is reporting the news, "helping the terrorists?" I would say selling arms around the world would be more damaging.

The right to free speech does not allow people to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. The right to free practice of religion does not allow Muslims to kill infidels. The right to peacefully assemble does not allow one to block traffic. The right to petition does not allow you to harrass people in their homes for signatures without their permission. And the right to the free press does not allow disclosure of knowingly classified information that can cripple a vital tool of war.

Tell me this. If Roosevelt had failed to keep Operation Overlord a total secret, would you object to the NYT printing an article about how the allies were actually going to land in Normandy, despite false intelligence given to the contrary? It's certainly a public interest, and as you said, he should have done a better job of protecting it. Doesn't the loss of life resulting for this kind of treason enter into account at all?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You most certainly can blame the NYT. It's illegal to disclose classified information, even if you're weren't supposed to know about it in the first place.



The right to free speech does not allow people to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. The right to free practice of religion does not allow Muslims to kill infidels. The right to peacefully assemble does not allow one to block traffic. The right to petition does not allow you to harrass people in their homes for signatures without their permission. And the right to the free press does not allow disclosure of knowingly classified information that can cripple a vital tool of war.

Tell me this. If Roosevelt had failed to keep Operation Overlord a total secret, would you object to the NYT printing an article about how the allies were actually going to land in Normandy, despite false intelligence given to the contrary? It's certainly a public interest, and as you said, he should have done a better job of protecting it. Doesn't the loss of life resulting for this kind of treason enter into account at all?

Good points and I agree. I am of the opinion that the press should act responsibly in reporting sensitive information. If something is classified as Top Secret, then it should not be reported. The press also should not even have the information. The question is how do you punish the NYT for not acting responsibly. Their actions are protected by the Constitution. Sedition legislation has beed tried and failed, more than once. You cannot fault the NYT for the administration's failure to protect sensitive material.

 

[Annie]

Good points and I agree. I am of the opinion that the press should act responsibly in reporting sensitive information. If something is classified as Top Secret, then it should not be reported. The press also should not even have the information. The question is how do you punish the NYT for not acting responsibly. Their actions are protected by the Constitution. Sedition legislation has beed tried and failed, more than once. You cannot fault the NYT for the administration's failure to protect sensitive material.

Actually, they may well be able to be punished. Keller admits that both the administration and members of Congress met and explained the classification and why they did not want this published:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=448537&postcount=36

 

[rtwngAvngr]

On the fence, free speech and freedom of the press don't legalize treason.

 

[Redhots]

On the fence, free speech and freedom of the press don't legalize treason.

Be loyal to your country always, and to the government only when it deserves it. ~Mark Twain

 

[Redhots]

You've got ?

Its right out of the original story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The President is pissed because the unpatriotic seditious idiots at the NYT just helped the enemy.
The program should have remained unexposed.

You liberals think this is just "Bush's war". Wrongo. The terrorists are out to get YOU too.
This is war. Helping the terrorists is plain anti-American.

And you're honked off at having to, once again, defend the indefensible. But you forget that Chimpy has alreadt exposed the program...repeatedly.

And yes, the war in Iraq is "Bush's war". You've simply bought, wholesale, the Administration talking points linking Iraq to the "war on terror".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Be loyal to your country always, and to the government only when it deserves it. ~Mark Twain

I believe the COUNTRY is served by keeping top secret info regarding anti terror operations a secret, don't you? If not, why not?

 

[CSM]

And you're honked off at having to, once again, defend the indefensible. But you forget that Chimpy has alreadt exposed the program...repeatedly.

No, it is more about having to explain reality and truth to the willfully ignorant. As for Chimpy (whoever that is), if he leaked classified information, the President has a right to be pissed at him. Again, you keep skirting the issue and I might point out that telling the terrorists we tracking the money is a whole lot different than telling them HOW we are tracking the money....but you can't acknowledge that becuase then your whole argument falls apart doesn't it!

And yes, the war in Iraq is "Bush's war". You've simply bought, wholesale, the Administration talking points linking Iraq to the "war on terror".

Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true...despite what you think. You have apparently bought, wholesale, (and even embraced) the lies, hypocricy, arrogance and downright wrong philosophy of the left.

Someday, Bully, you will have something new to say....maybe....

 

[Bullypulpit]

I believe the COUNTRY is served by keeping top secret info regarding anti terror operations a secret, don't you? If not, why not?

And what if those operations violate federal law? What if those operations are conducted against US citizens with no oversight? And don't spout that "If you're innocent..." crap. It doesn't wash, and has been thoroughly discredited.

 

[Hobbit]

And what if those operations violate federal law? What if those operations are conducted against US citizens with no oversight? And don't spout that "If you're innocent..." crap. It doesn't wash, and has been thoroughly discredited.

Well, we'll find out when that happens.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Someday, Bully, you will have something new to say....maybe....

Before the US invasion, there were no terrorist operation in those parts of Iraq controlled by Saddam. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11 as the Administration tried to assert. I'm simply belabouring the obvious because you refuse to see it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, we'll find out when that happens.

Already has...Chimpy's and the NSA's domestic spying operation.

 

[CSM]

Before the US invasion, there were no terrorist operation in those parts of Iraq controlled by Saddam. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11 as the Administration tried to assert. I'm simply belabouring the obvious because you refuse to see it.

Yeah you are right...the terrorist activities were occuring on US soil...guess what, if terrorism has to occur, I much prefer it be over there...besides according to your own criteria which you apply to our own government...Saddam MAY have been complicit in terrorism, MAY have had weapons of mass destruction, etc....if its good enough for our own government, seems to me that it is good enough for Iraq.

Hmmm...in fact, by the criteria that you hold as the epitome of common sense and rationality, we did the right thing in invading Iraq! after all, the American people had a right to know if Saddam was violating any international law, right?

 

[CSM]

Before the US invasion, there were no terrorist operation in those parts of Iraq controlled by Saddam. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11 as the Administration tried to assert. I'm simply belabouring the obvious because you refuse to see it.

One more thing...I bet the Kurds that Saddam gassed were pretty terrified!

 

[OCA]

Already has...Chimpy's and the NSA's domestic spying operation.

Bully, if you wish to continue as a member in good standing here please refrain from spreading lies on the board and please correctly define issues.

We all know the term "domestic spying" is a misleading term used by Demo pollsters and leadership meant to irk the public, actually the spying program is only used domestically to monitor calls to and from KNOWN terrorist suspects and organizations from within the U.S. so your call down to the your methadone clinic is not being monitored.

Please refrain fom spreading misleading information here on the board.