SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum. Treason in the Main Stream Media - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics banner Treason in the Main Stream Media - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics NCMike06 Treason is my word for it, but all too appropriate. I believe the editors of these newspapers and the reporters should be arrested and charged with Treason for this willful attack against this country in an attempt to do it grave harm. At the absolute and very least, they should be jailed until they reveal the government source, so he can be convicted and executed for Treason also. http://article.nationalreview.com/?...DA5YTQ3NzkxZWQ= Quote: Yet again, the New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda. Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda. Once again, members of the American intelligence community had a simple choice: remain faithful to their oath — the solemn promise the nation requires before entrusting them with the secrets on which our safety depends — or violate that oath and place themselves and their subjective notions of propriety above the law. Once again, honor was cast aside. For the second time in seven months, the Times has exposed classified information about a program aimed at protecting the American people against a repeat of the September 11 attacks. On this occasion, it has company in the effort: The Los Angeles Times runs a similar, sensational story. Together, the newspapers disclose the fact that the United States has covertly developed a capability to monitor the nerve center of the international financial network in order to track the movement of funds between terrorists and their facilitators. The effort, which the government calls the “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller (1976) that there is no right to privacy in financial-transaction information maintained by third parties. Here, moreover, the focus is narrowed to suspected international terrorists, not Americans, and the financial transactions implicated are international, not domestic. This is not data mining, and it does not involve fishing expeditions into the financial affairs of American citizens. Indeed, few Americans even have information that is captured by the program — though there would be nothing legally offensive even if they did . And unlike the last vital program the New York Times compromised — the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, which the same reporters, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, exposed last December — there is not even a facially plausible concern that the TFTP violates statutory law. The provisions germane here (mainly, the Right to Financial Privacy Act that Congress enacted in 1978 in reaction to Miller) do not even apply to the nerve center at issue, the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. That’s because SWIFT, as it is better known, is not a financial institution at all. It is a consortium, centered not in the U.S. but in Belgium, which simply — albeit importantly — oversees how funds are routed globally. It is a messenger, not a bank. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the government uses administrative subpoenas — which were expressly provided for by Congress in the aforementioned Financial Privacy Act and the Patriot Act — when it seeks SWIFT information. That’s not just legal; it’s hyper-legal. Nor is there any credible worry that the Bush administration is secretly and dictatorially running roughshod over privacy interests. Prominent members of Congress — including elected officials from both parties who serve on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees — have been briefed on the program since its inception after the 9/11 attacks. The administration, moreover, has worked closely with SWIFT managers, who are led by the National Bank of Belgium and include such other independent financial powerhouses as the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, as well as the U.S. Federal Reserve. The resulting collaboration has both narrowed the information gathered and ensured that its use is limited to counterterrorism purposes — not the prosecution of ordinary crimes. As if that were not enough, the TFTP is regularly subjected to independent auditing as an additional safeguard ensuring that information is accessed only for terrorism-related purposes. No, the most salient thing we learn from today’s compromise of the TFTP is that the program has been highly effective at keeping us safe. According to the government, it has helped identify and locate terrorists and their financial backers; it has been instrumental in charting terrorist networks; and it has been essential in starving these savage organizations of their lifeblood: funding. The TFTP was evidently key to the capture of one of the world’s most formidable terrorists. Riduan bin Isamuddin, better known as “Hambali” — the critical link between al Qaeda and its Indonesian affiliate, Jemaah Islamiya, and thus at the center of the 2002 Bali bombing in which 202 people were slaughtered — is now in U.S. custody rather than wreaking more mayhem. He was apprehended in Thailand in 2003, thanks to the program, which identified a previously unknown financial link to him in Southeast Asia. In another example, the TFTP led to the discovery that Uzair Paracha, in Brooklyn, might be laundering money for al Qaeda in Pakistan. Paracha was ultimately indicted. Last November, a federal jury in Manhattan convicted him for providing material support to a terrorist organization — specifically, trying to help an al Qaeda operative enter the United States to commit a terrorist act. It was in view of the TFTP’s palpable value in protecting American lives, its obvious legal propriety, and the plain fact that it was being responsibly conducted that the administration pleaded with the newspapers not to reveal it after government officials despicably leaked it. Exposing the program would tell the public nothing about official misconduct. It would accomplish only the educating of al Qaeda — the nation’s enemy in an ongoing war; an enemy well-known to be feverishly plotting new, massive attacks — about how better to evade our defenses. About how better to kill us. Appealing to the patriotism of these newspapers proved about as promising as appealing to the humanity of the terrorists they so insouciantly edify — the same monsters who, as we saw again only a few days ago with the torture murder of two American soldiers, continue to define depravity down. The newspapers, of course, said no. Why? What could outweigh the need to protect a valid effort to shield Americans from additional, barbarous attacks? Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, smugly decreed that the Bush administration’s “access to this vast repository of international financial data” was, in his singularly impeccable judgment, “a matter of public interest.” And you probably thought George Bush was the imperious one. And that the public’s principal interest was in remaining alive. Wrong again. The blunt reality here is that there is a war against the war. It is the jihad of privacy fetishists whose self-absorption knows no bounds. Pleas rooted in the well-being of our community hold no sway. The anti-warriors know only the language of self-interest. It is the language that tells them the revelation of the nation’s secrets will result, forthwith, in the demand for the revelation of their secrets — which is to say, their sources in the intelligence community — with incarceration the price of resistance. It is the language admonishing that even journalists themselves may be prosecuted when their publication of national secrets violates the law. Bluntly, officials who leak the classified information with which they have been entrusted can be prosecuted for theft of government property. If the information is especially sensitive, they can be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act. In either event, the press has no legal right to protect such lawlessness. That is our simple choice: Strong medicine we will either take or persist in declining … while resigning ourselves to more of the same. This is where Bush hatred has taken the left...treason. Stickman The National Review? Do you read anything else? G-Spot The National Review is as credible as Michael Moore. patcracker Again the Bush Administration wants to spy on everyone EXCEPT the terrorists. :omfg: BeerPal Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Treason is my word for it, but all too appropriate. I consider you a traitor for supporting the greatest enemy to freedom this country has ever seen. NC-Stern-Mark Mike, we live in an open society and this is in the public interest. Obviously the Government *asked* that the story not be leaked but it wasn't illegal to do so. I happen to support these programs because it's a vital form of intelligence gathering. Democrats as well Republicans were aware of the program/programs the government is using to find those who plot terror and destruction here in the US. One of the problems I have with the Democrats is the wink and nod support they give to those that rail against these programs when they willingly went along for the ride. Are we supposed to operate blind or use every resource to find those who plot and conspire to mass murder of innocents? It's also a two-way street. You should have equal outrage about the Valerie Plame issue, NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by BeerPal I consider you a traitor for supporting the greatest enemy to freedom this country has ever seen. That would have to be the entire US Government as Democrats were briefed on this program as well. Are you against any sort of data mining by the Government in an attempt to thwart terror cells in this country? Do you really propose that the Government operate blindly while financial transactions and communications to those who would slaughter innocents, fly to and fro across our borders? Do you propose we close our eyes? NC-Stern-Mark Here's a more balanced article on the issue By JUSTIN BACHMAN AP Business Writer NEW YORK The Bush administration and The New York Times are again at odds over national security, this time with new reports of a broad government effort to track global financial transfers. The newspaper, which in December broke news of an effort by the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' telephone calls and e- mails, declined a White House request not to publish a story about the government's inspection of monies flowing in and out of the country. The Los Angeles Times also reported on the issue Thursday night on its Web site, against the Bush administration's wishes. The Wall Street Journal said it received no request to hold its report of the surveillance. Administration officials were concerned that news reports of the program would diminish its effectiveness and could harm overall national security. "It's a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly," said Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau chief. "The key issue here is whether the government has shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected." Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview. "They were quite vigorous, they were quite energetic. They made a very strong case," he said. In its story, The New York Times said it carefully weighed the administration's arguments for withholding the information and gave them "the most serious and respectful consideration." "We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use it may be, is a matter of public interest," said Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor. In December, Bush used part of his weekly radio address to criticize The New York Times' initial eavesdropping story as helping to inform enemies, saying "the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." McManus said the other factor that tipped the paper's decision to publish was the novel approach government was using to gather data in another realm without warrant or subpoena. "Police agencies and prosecutors get warrants all the time to search suspects' houses, and we don't write stories about that," he said. "This is different. This is new. And this is a process that has been developed that does not involve getting a specific warrant. It's a new and unfamiliar process." Billyfromsphily Spying on everbody has been the hallmark of every regime and dictatorship we have ever fought. So nowe are we setting ourselves up for our own dictatorship? Seeems like the Bushies are setting the precedent for some new moron to do it in the future. iatebethO Hey Mike, seeing you know what is treason and what isn't - Is exposing the identity of a covert CIA weapons expert, working on Iran's nuclear program, for political purposes treason? NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily Spying on everbody has been the hallmark of every regime and dictatorship we have ever fought. So nowe are we setting ourselves up for our own dictatorship? Seeems like the Bushies are setting the precedent for some new moron to do it in the future. Oh pleaaaaase. The US and every other western nation has had intelligence apparatus. How the hell do you think we won WW2. If that is truly your view, you're a real pollyanna. patcracker We are becoming what Orwell warned us against. The Sears tower "plot" looks real fishy too. We NEED a good intelligence apparatus but they are looking for clams in a horses ass. How about spying on "Bad guys". Not John Q Taxpayer. NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by patcracker We are becoming what Orwell warned us against. The Sears tower "plot" looks real fishy too. We NEED a good intelligence apparatus but they are looking for clams in a horses ass. How about spying on "Bad guys". Not John Q Taxpayer. Of course it's "fishy" but what were they supposed to with those guys, ignore them? Eventually, they may have tried to excecute some type of attack. That activity can't be ignored. BTW, how do you suppose they find the bad guys in this country if not through domestic spying? Billyfromsphily Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark Oh pleaaaaase. The US and every other western nation has had intelligence apparatus. How the hell do you think we won WW2. If that is truly your view, you're a real pollyanna. I am refering to the misuse of it!!! The mining of data in general is not what this country stands for. They can find the records of the principles involved and use legal means to access them. Remember how Y2K was going to be a terrorist fiesta??? Well plans were discovered and attempts foiled by the lawful use of warrants. Not the wholesale checking like is being done now. Use the checks and balances that are in place !!! kid993 Honestly, is there a soul alive that didnt think this was going on? It started years ago when they were looking for drug cartels laundering money. Any transaction where $5000 or more in cash is moved requires an FBI report. This is hardly news, much less treason NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily I am refering to the misuse of it!!! The mining of data in general is not what this country stands for. They can find the records of the principles involved and use legal means to access them. Remember how Y2K was going to be a terrorist fiesta??? Well plans were discovered and attempts foiled by the lawful use of warrants. Not the wholesale checking like is being done now. Use the checks and balances that are in place !!! It is legal. How do you think that the CIA is going to find these people? What do you want the intelligence service to do, close their eyes and hope the bad guys are not here? shocktheballs Unlike the spying on phone calls, they actually asked for a warrant to do this. I have read what this program does and they have to ask an organization that tracks banking transactions for specific information. I don't have a problem with this since they did it the right way to create it and it doesn't look at every transaction everyone makes. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Stickman The National Review? Do you read anything else? If you bother to read (or pay attention at all) you will notice that the story first appeared in the NYT ans Wash Post. This is simply a story about the negative effects of that story on national security Billyfromsphily Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark It is legal. How do you think that the CIA is going to find these people? What do you want the intelligence service to do, close their eyes and hope the bad guys are not here? When did the wholesale checking of records become legal? NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by iatebethO Hey Mike, seeing you know what is treason and what isn't - Is exposing the identity of a covert CIA weapons expert, working on Iran's nuclear program, for political purposes treason? Well a 2+ year investigation by a honest and diligent prosecutor has been unable to determinine that a crime has been committed. THat's good enough for me. However, are you willing to accept the findings of the Special Prosecutor? Billyfromsphily Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Well a 2+ year investigation by a honest and diligent prosecutor has been unable to determinine that a crime has been committed. THat's good enough for me. However, are you willing to accept the findings of the Special Prosecutor? Like Ken Starr who had to hang around until Clinto goofed up? Kill Van Kull The New York Times is not aiding al-Qaeda – nor is any American supporting the idea of hampering eavesdropping on terrorists – that is a ridiculous notion served up by the right-wing and chugged down by their ego-damaged devotees in order to make their soft, sedentary white asses feel more manly. It makes them feel heroic as vast majority of them have never done anything brave in their entire lives. IMO, there is an underlying issue that most are not admitting or not realizing – our President and his administration are not trustworthy. They have earned this reputation by their past actions. Who knows what they’re really doing by prying into peoples private lives? - Getting information on business transactions that will make them even richer? - Finding out democratic strategies to start their propaganda and untruthful campaigns to once again fool the dumb half of America with their bullshit? - etc., etc... The possibilities are endless – bottom line is – everyone wants to head off another terrorist attack but Bushco can’t be trusted. Billyfromsphily Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily When did the wholesale checking of records become legal? Read the 4th Amendment. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark Here's a more balanced article on the issue By JUSTIN BACHMAN AP Business Writer NEW YORK The Bush administration and The New York Times are again at odds over national security, this time with new reports of a broad government effort to track global financial transfers. The newspaper, which in December broke news of an effort by the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' telephone calls and e- mails, declined a White House request not to publish a story about the government's inspection of monies flowing in and out of the country. The Los Angeles Times also reported on the issue Thursday night on its Web site, against the Bush administration's wishes. The Wall Street Journal said it received no request to hold its report of the surveillance. Administration officials were concerned that news reports of the program would diminish its effectiveness and could harm overall national security. "It's a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly," said Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau chief. "The key issue here is whether the government has shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected." Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview. "They were quite vigorous, they were quite energetic. They made a very strong case," he said. In its story, The New York Times said it carefully weighed the administration's arguments for withholding the information and gave them "the most serious and respectful consideration." "We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use it may be, is a matter of public interest," said Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor. In December, Bush used part of his weekly radio address to criticize The New York Times' initial eavesdropping story as helping to inform enemies, saying "the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." McManus said the other factor that tipped the paper's decision to publish was the novel approach government was using to gather data in another realm without warrant or subpoena. "Police agencies and prosecutors get warrants all the time to search suspects' houses, and we don't write stories about that," he said. "This is different. This is new. And this is a process that has been developed that does not involve getting a specific warrant. It's a new and unfamiliar process." Quote: "It's a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly," said Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau chief. "The key issue here is whether the government has shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected." And who elected these people...this is arrogance to the worst degree. The government somehow has to prove to the media now that classified programs has suffidienct safeguards?? You have got to be kidding. Meanwhile, they yell and scream about the sanctitiy of sources, yet continually give up the sources the US uses in the war on terror. In my opinion, it is beyond hypocritical, it is treason. If and when we are attacked again, and thousands (or any) Americans die, much of the responsibility for these deaths will be at the hands of the NYT and Wash Post. As well as the bastard who leaked this information. Those responsible in the media should be jailed immediately until they give the source up. If this same group had been at the helm on say May 1, 1944...and the D-Day plans somehow fell into their laps, I am certain that it would have been front page news, down to the last landing craft. patcracker The whole question is Who we are spying on. Are we spying on John Q Taxpayer or someone from Saudi Arabia who is here on a work visa? When you have a database of over 1 million people a large part of them US citizens there should be a very good reason why they (the 1 million) have drawn this suspicion.I went to Canada this Month and Aruba back in Feburary and spent money in both Countries. Am I now under Federal scrutiny? :mad: Kill Van Kull "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" - Benjamin Franklin (variation of a quote from Benjamin Franklin and also cited to Thomas Jefferson) Billyfromsphily The World War 2 analogy is cute? If you had done any homework you would know more about the actual relationship between the press and the Military in WW2 instead of your speculation . The case is they didn't reveal any secrets and we won!!!! So stop obfuscating. NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily When did the wholesale checking of records become legal? I don't know if it was ever illegal. iatebethO Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Well a 2+ year investigation by a honest and diligent prosecutor has been unable to determinine that a crime has been committed. THat's good enough for me. However, are you willing to accept the findings of the Special Prosecutor? Isn't Libby indicted for obstruction of justice? Just because Libby lied to the Special Prosecuter doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. And you never answered my previous question - Next year will you change your name to NCMoron07? Crazytree first off... anyone who uses the word treason these days and isn't referring to Benedict Arnold or Julius Rosenberg is a moron. secondly... remember the analogy about the frog in the pot? now that we're ok with this, it's on to the next level of gov't surveillance. walt zink Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 If you bother to read (or pay attention at all) you will notice that the story first appeared in the NYT ans Wash Post. This is simply a story about the negative effects of that story on national security but your article was, in essence, an op-ed piece. we need to make that clear. also, since the second article posted by mark stated, they met with reporterS (plural), which meant they openly discussed it with the media, so that's an invite to publish such things! common sense would tell me that if i felt strongly about the security issue, i wouldn't call a meeting with the media, then say "by the way, don't put this in your newspaper". and unfortunately, at attack again is inevitable. it will happen, be it 4 days or 40 years from now. what people really should be worried about is how little the different intelligence departments transmit information amongst one another. we have dozens of IAs collecting info. communication is low, only because we spend 90% of the monies for intel on collecting and only about 10% on analyzing it. more money should be spent on the latter, and better avenues of communication will follow. the NYTimes or Washington Post won't be why we get attacked again. it's such a broad-based collection of information, and these people that are plotting against us KNOW that we'd be spying on them. they're not so dimwitted that they become reckless and careless about how they plan such things. they do everything they can to avoid suspicion, and part of that is by studying from those that worked FOR the CIA 25+ years ago, when the CIA TAUGHT them how we gained intel on our enemies and taught them how to apply this towards the mujahideen! placing a blanket statement on two papers and finger pointing and name-calling won't make the bad man go away. we're civilians for a reason, and that includes those on the far right that seemingly know who is and isn't a traitor (and it aso applies to those such as michael moore, so don't get me wrong here). NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree first off... anyone who uses the word treason these days and isn't referring to Benedict Arnold or Julius Rosenberg is a moron. secondly... remember the analogy about the frog in the pot? now that we're ok with this, it's on to the next level of gov't surveillance. Quote: Definitions of treason on the Web: a crime that undermines the offender's government disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=treason Guilty on all counts. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by walt zink but your article was, in essence, an op-ed piece. we need to make that clear. But it contained many more facts than it did opinion. If yours was the standard, the NYT front page would be renamed the Op-Ed page. Quote: Originally posted by walt zink also, since the second article posted by mark stated, they met with reporterS (plural), which meant they openly discussed it with the media, so that's an invite to publish such things! common sense would tell me that if i felt strongly about the security issue, i wouldn't call a meeting with the media, then say "by the way, don't put this in your newspaper". They openly discussed it after they found out someone leaked intimate details of the program to the times. They, and many others, on both sides of the aisle, attempted to convince the Times to NOT run the story out of concern for national security. Even the Times admits the program is legal. The only plausible reason the Times ran with the story is to hurt Bush and the Administration, which, injures the national security of this country. Quote: Originally posted by walt zink and unfortunately, at attack again is inevitable. it will happen, be it 4 days or 40 years from now. what people really should be worried about is how little the different intelligence departments transmit information amongst one another. we have dozens of IAs collecting info. communication is low, only because we spend 90% of the monies for intel on collecting and only about 10% on analyzing it. more money should be spent on the latter, and better avenues of communication will follow. By all accounts this was a VERY successful program that helped us track, and capture in some instances, known terrorists. Any attack is much more likely to be sooner, rather than later now that this program has been exposed. Quote: Originally posted by walt zink the NYTimes or Washington Post won't be why we get attacked again. it's such a broad-based collection of information, and these people that are plotting against us KNOW that we'd be spying on them. they're not so dimwitted that they become reckless and careless about how they plan such things. they do everything they can to avoid suspicion, and part of that is by studying from those that worked FOR the CIA 25+ years ago, when the CIA TAUGHT them how we gained intel on our enemies and taught them how to apply this towards the mujahideen! Of course they know we have been and are spying on them. That doesn't mean that they know how ! And it is not a good argument for telling them how. THat's ludicrous. The facts are that this program has helped catch and track terrorists. Now it is much less likely to do so. SO yes the people responsible for outing this program will have blood on their hands should we be attacked again. Quote: Originally posted by walt zink placing a blanket statement on two papers and finger pointing and name-calling won't make the bad man go away. we're civilians for a reason, and that includes those on the far right that seemingly know who is and isn't a traitor (and it aso applies to those such as michael moore, so don't get me wrong here). No, intelligence programs like this will help keep the bad man at bay. Exposing lawful, classified programs with the intent to injure the administration and ultimately the country in its war on terror fits the definition of treason. walt zink unfortunately, anyone who feels we're completely safe from future attacks, and is willingly pinning the blame on a couple of newspapers that don't fit their own moral standards, is being naive. and they certainly do know how we spy on them. even right wing pundits like o'reilly, etc talk about the methods we use. our "color coded system" blared on all mainstream media (right and left) helps give them a vague idea if they should lay low. many signals that any intelligent person can use (and yes, these ARE intelligent people we're dealing with - not in every case, but in some) i don't want to get in some namecalling match with you like the rest. you and i can agree to disagree. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by walt zink unfortunately, anyone who feels we're completely safe from future attacks, and is willingly pinning the blame on a couple of newspapers that don't fit their own moral standards, is being naive. and they certainly do know how we spy on them. even right wing pundits like o'reilly, etc talk about the methods we use. our "color coded system" blared on all mainstream media (right and left) helps give them a vague idea if they should lay low. many signals that any intelligent person can use (and yes, these ARE intelligent people we're dealing with - not in every case, but in some) i don't want to get in some namecalling match with you like the rest. you and i can agree to disagree. Agreed on the name calling...its a nice respite. I would just say that we will NEVER be completely safe, (and I never said we were) but we are less safe today, than a few days ago. And as a general rule, I think telling our enemies how we are tracking them is a bad thing, even if they know we are trying, they don't necessarily know all the ways we are doing it. NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Agreed on the name calling...its a nice respite. I would just say that we will NEVER be completely safe, (and I never said we were) but we are less safe today, than a few days ago. And as a general rule, I think telling our enemies how we are tracking them is a bad thing, even if they know we are trying, they don't necessarily know all the ways we are doing it. The NY Times ran the article because in was in the interest of the public. In the best tradition of disinterested journalism, it was presented to the American people for their edification. I see nothing wrong with that Mike. Ours is supposed to be an open society. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark The NY Times ran the article because in was in the interest of the public. In the best tradition of disinterested journalism, it was presented to the American people for their edification. I see nothing wrong with that Mike. Ours is supposed to be an open society. I don't understand how endangering the lives of the citizens is in the best interest of the public. And under that rational, there is no secret that the government can keep in regards to national defense. One could argue that the full knowledge of the DDay plans would have been in the interest of the public, but it wouldn't have been a good idea to slap those plans on the front pages of the major newspapers of this country. I am probably one of if not the most anti government person you will meet, but this is ridiculous. There are some things that the public just doesn't need to know. This, in my opinion, is clearly one of them. How does this knowledge help the public in any way? chicagoirishtim Do u think these terrorists read the NYT, you guysd shit your pants and thats how they hear about this Abba Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Agreed on the name calling...its a nice respite. I would just say that we will NEVER be completely safe, (and I never said we were) but we are less safe today, than a few days ago. And as a general rule, I think telling our enemies how we are tracking them is a bad thing, even if they know we are trying, they don't necessarily know all the ways we are doing it. I'm afraid that your argument is completely pointless, and the article that damns the MSM is yet another tool used by the wacked-out right to sway their sheeple into action. Here's a little something for you to chew on. Tradecraft in the intelligence business superceeds anything you'll find in the NYT. Any intelligence officer worth his salt is 30 steps ahead of anything the public knows. Operational security takes paranoia to a whole new level. Blind drops, code words, and couriers make data mining obsolete. Although you might believe that the people who carried out 9/11 were cowards and idiots, they still managed to bring down 2 massive symbols of American power and destroy 4 of our airliners. In the wake of that they also managed to shut down our financial markets for a week afterward, cripple our economy for months afterward, and threw us into a recession we haven't really recovered from. They also managed to erode our civil liberties to the point that if our Founding Fathers came back from the grave, they would not recognise the nation they created. Meanwhile, while the clandestine community has been well aware of all of our meathods for far longer than we have been, the public remains clueless. The fact of the matter is that there are so many MORE affronts to our way of life perpetrated by our government EVERY DAY that we simply don't know about. Remember that story about bin Laden's sattelite phone? The retarded right tried to fabricate a story that we were tracking UBL by his sat. phone until he got wind of it through the NYT. The sheeple ate it up. Meanwhile, if we were indeed tracking him, why didn't we pick him up? Because the story was bullshit. Bin Laden was TRAINED by the CIA in clandestine procedures, and the first thing he would have not done was use a cell phone. It's public knowledge that the NSA can listen to any form of electronic communication. Do you seriously think a terrorist mastermind would be so stupid? The answer is no. Do you think a wide swath of Americans are stupid? The answer to that is yes. Just wait a couple of months for the color coded terrorist alert system to go active. Maybe that will finally convince you that you're being played. Ass Boil Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Well a 2+ year investigation by a honest and diligent prosecutor has been unable to determinine that a crime has been committed. THat's good enough for me. However, are you willing to accept the findings of the Special Prosecutor? Leave it to a Bush apologist to not think obstruction of justice is a "crime".... Ironpirate Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil Leave it to a Bush apologist to not think obstruction of justice is a "crime".... Again there are NO BUSH APOLOGIST HERE...keep making that up so you can feel better about yourself. You're a loser just like Gore/Kerry and whover is next. Billyfromsphily Why so worried Ironbutt???? Afraid you might lose in 08? It sure seems that way with all the negativity and illusionism? What has Bush done that is successful ? The truth will over come and stand the test of time GWB is a loser .......Like you. Ironpirate Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily Why so worried Ironbutt???? Afraid you might lose in 08? It sure seems that way with all the negativity and illusionism? What has Bush done that is successful ? The truth will over come and stand the test of time GWB is a loser .......Like you. Im not worried at all, best thing dems have is Hiliary, lol. You want to talk about negativity and illusionism? Do you see what you and assboil write all the time? GWB is a loser, think your talking about Gore/Kerry... NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 I don't understand how endangering the lives of the citizens is in the best interest of the public. And under that rational, there is no secret that the government can keep in regards to national defense. One could argue that the full knowledge of the DDay plans would have been in the interest of the public, but it wouldn't have been a good idea to slap those plans on the front pages of the major newspapers of this country. I am probably one of if not the most anti government person you will meet, but this is ridiculous. There are some things that the public just doesn't need to know. This, in my opinion, is clearly one of them. How does this knowledge help the public in any way? The knowledge is in the public interest because our government is doing something to us that is not in their general elected mandate to do. It's not common practice for the government to attain subpoenas for financial transaction information from a foreign entity. The public needs to know when the government is sticking it's nose in their business. The reason may be noble or malicious but thats why the Times ran the article. The people have a right to know and decide for themselves the intent of the Government. Not everyone is like you and is content to cede all authority to the Government and never question their intent. Understand now? Crazytree does anyone else here think that NCMike would have made an excellent concentration camp guard? "uh... Mike maybe we shouldn't be gassing all these Jews..." "TREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!" patcracker This is for Ironpirate and NCMike06. This is not an insult or a joke. This is what we are concrened about , not as "Liberals" but as "Americans". Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the bill of rights which has been totally disregarded by the Bush administration.If one Amendment goes then they will all go. ihatecabbie You mofos really love to throw the word "treason" around. :rolleyes: Billyfromsphily Patcracker, Thanks for explaining the 4 th amendment to NCMORON06, he has not been ablre to find it or quote it. Now can he do some more research into the facts behind his blanket statements. Crazytree ncmike would like us to install gov't censors at every media outlet USSR-style. tell this moron to go look up the legal concept of "prior restraint". patcracker Bill of Rights For any who care what the Bill of Rights are as US Citizens, there is a link. Dont just listen to some Babble from a radio or read it in a newspaper, always go to the source. This activity is illegal and will be stopped one day. Remember Iran Contra? walt zink ncmike> well, we can disagree about the terrorists and i ceratinly think the level of safety is the same as a few days ago. the article the NYTimes ran is of no consequence. we're at about the same level of safety as we were 8 years ago, before the 9/11 attacks. if someone wants to do something bad enough, they can, and they certainly won't go into hiding because of a NYTimes article that "reveals" what they are doing. they are very much covert, and smart enough to avoid a good portion of american intelligence. the terrorist groups like al qaeda hire people to photograph and videotape monuments like the golden gate bridge for a reason - to avert suspicion from other areas. as said, if i were you, i'd study more about the different intel collection agencies. also find out how little these groups communicate with each other. it isn't the paper - it's the pride these intel divisions have. they would certainly like the glory (not in all cases - in many cases the lack of sharing intel is more due to nat'l security). the gov't is feeding information to the media outlets that it selects. the first gulf war, for instance, is a prime example. they selected certain information that they KNEW would be watched. the enemy at that time fell for quite a bit of it. what is incredibly sad is that before 9/11, 99 out of 100 lunatics that proclaimed they would bomb certain areas were looked upon as crazies. hindsight tells us we should've taken many more precautions, and we're doing too much of that, now. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by walt zink ncmike> well, we can disagree about the terrorists and i ceratinly think the level of safety is the same as a few days ago. the article the NYTimes ran is of no consequence. we're at about the same level of safety as we were 8 years ago, before the 9/11 attacks. if someone wants to do something bad enough, they can, and they certainly won't go into hiding because of a NYTimes article that "reveals" what they are doing. they are very much covert, and smart enough to avoid a good portion of american intelligence. the terrorist groups like al qaeda hire people to photograph and videotape monuments like the golden gate bridge for a reason - to avert suspicion from other areas. as said, if i were you, i'd study more about the different intel collection agencies. also find out how little these groups communicate with each other. it isn't the paper - it's the pride these intel divisions have. they would certainly like the glory (not in all cases - in many cases the lack of sharing intel is more due to nat'l security). the gov't is feeding information to the media outlets that it selects. the first gulf war, for instance, is a prime example. they selected certain information that they KNEW would be watched. the enemy at that time fell for quite a bit of it. what is incredibly sad is that before 9/11, 99 out of 100 lunatics that proclaimed they would bomb certain areas were looked upon as crazies. hindsight tells us we should've taken many more precautions, and we're doing too much of that, now. The article the Times ran makes it more difficult to track and catch terrorists. Its hard to argue against that. I firmly believe that the reason the Times ran this article is hatred of the Bush admin. Everything and anything they see as harming the administration is fair game to them, no matter the consequences. This is not a 4th amendment issue. Even the Times had to admit that the program is legal, and Congress was briefed. There is a reason that the administration, the 9/11 commission leaders, and others in the government asked the Times not to publish this story. Because it was working. Unfortunately today, that might not be the case. DUDE-HERE I love when people say " they already knew about the program. this is not news " my only wonder is, if the story is no big deal then why would it be front page news worthy and why would some get pulitzer prizes. Do they give those away for average stories everyone already knows about ..hmmmm just weird Turbo_Nerd_Eric I think the administration should be more worried about why people are leaking then to get mad at the press. After all if the press found out I am sure that foriegn spies already knew of this program. I am glad that the press keeps us as up to date as forigen embassies are. Plus I agree that there is so much disinformation out there that the gov't does want "leaked" that who can tell the difference anymore. And just because they found a legal way of worming out of taking responsability for outting a CIA agent does not make them innocent. Was anyone ever held accountable. Oh wait this administration is not inot accountability unless you are a enlisted soldier. Crazytree calling the NYT a terrorist collaborator only makes you look like a fucking moron. NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree calling the NYT a terrorist collaborator only makes you look like a fucking moron. Well that's his fucking problem but he thinks he's fighting the good fight against the evil-doers. Bill Keller himself said the Government's arguments against the Times printing the story were lukewarm at best. IOW, they wanted to the times to print it so GWB could stamp his feet and get tools like NCMike revved up... It's so stupid. patcracker According to the book "The one percent doctrine" which talks about the Anti Terror finance program too ( along with many other books before the NYT article) The most successful programs are the ones that DONT involve US Citizens. But the NSA still wants to keep this huge database on US Citizens for some reason. Thats why papers like the NYT and the L A Times will continue and MUST continue to run these stories. Lets catch the terrorists. If you think the CIA isnt 20 steps ahead of the NYT then you need to put the Kool aid down. This was a well placed leak for politcal purposes. armyofbees Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 The article the Times ran makes it more difficult to track and catch terrorists. Its hard to argue against that. George Bush, September 24, 2001 "We have developed the international financial equivalent of law enforcement’s “Most Wanted” list. And it puts the financial world on notice. . . . We’ve established a foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks. It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions." ------------ dumbya himself makes it more difficult to track and catch terrorists. Its hard to argue against that. FatesWebb Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate Again there are NO BUSH APOLOGIST HERE...keep making that up so you can feel better about yourself. You're a loser just like Gore/Kerry and whover is next. when you say there is no bush apologist here, do you mean your not one? or there are none at all? apologist n : a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; Bush: A dictator ruling over ther New World Order during 2000 - 2006 Bush apologist: a person who argues to defend or justify Bushes actions. I do believe there are Bush Apologists here. Scroll up for proof. FatesWebb Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate Im not worried at all, best thing dems have is Hiliary, lol. You want to talk about negativity and illusionism? Do you see what you and assboil write all the time? GWB is a loser, think your talking about Gore/Kerry... DUDE NOOOOO!!!! DONT ELECT HILLARY!!! SHE WILL TAKE AWAY VIDEO GAMES!! http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/0...ws_6129040.html too bad she is investigating how some R rated shots got into the hot coffee mod, instead of investigating how her husbands cock got into... Er I mean instead of investigating REAL THINGS THAT MATTER.... this bitch is ALMOST as evil as GWB, I kid you not, please dont put here out there in 2008. She is NOT for your rights, she is damn near republican anyways... NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark Well that's his fucking problem but he thinks he's fighting the good fight against the evil-doers. Bill Keller himself said the Government's arguments against the Times printing the story were lukewarm at best. IOW, they wanted to the times to print it so GWB could stamp his feet and get tools like NCMike revved up... It's so stupid. Who exactly elected Bill Keller to make national security decisions? NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by armyofbees George Bush, September 24, 2001 "We have developed the international financial equivalent of law enforcement’s “Most Wanted” list. And it puts the financial world on notice. . . . We’ve established a foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks. It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions." ------------ dumbya himself makes it more difficult to track and catch terrorists. Its hard to argue against that. Sorry, but the article gave intimate details of the program. It's a huge difference. But then the question needs to be asked, if it was so well known as you and the treasonists at the Times say, why was it front page news. Can't have it both ways. NC-Stern-Mark Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Who exactly elected Bill Keller to make national security decisions? No one elected Bill Keller but he's a successful capitalist and lots of people buy his paper. See the Freedom of Information Act for some background on how and why the NY Times can inform us what the Government is up to. Sorry Mike, we all aren't ready to make ole George an Almighty King...

Your Ad Here

Powered by: Search Engine Indexer and vBulletin v2.3.0
Copyright © 2000 - 2002, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
All code and concepts property of iMonkey Inc.

This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans.
We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.

All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.