Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Doc,

I suppose this will be ok, because the Constitution is just a damned piece of paper anyway.

Dr Politico: Get real! This is America, not Nazi Germany.

First, read The One Percent Doctrine. An excellent new book release that details, starting on page 239 I believe, how electronic funds tracking has been touted by the Bush Administration for a couple years now in their war on terrorists.

Second, our intelligence agencies admit al_Queda got hip to the tracking more than a year ago and is now using human couriers. E-tracking of fund transfers has long since reached its point of diminishing returns.

Third, anytime our government tracks wholesale transaction information on Americans, Americans have the right to know that. It is a Constitutional issue in which a balance must be struck. And such a balance being struck requires public awareness.

Fourth, let’s look at past White House announcements: Oct 29, 2001:

The Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence shall ensure, to the maximum extent permitted by law, that the Task Force has access to all available information necessary to perform its mission, and they shall request information from State and local governments, where appropriate.

With the concurrence of the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence, foreign liaison officers from cooperating countries shall be invited to serve as liaisons to the Task Force, where appropriate, to expedite investigation and data sharing.

Does this not indicate that international tracking of funds will be part of the strategy? It does to me.

“We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them against each other, rout them out of their safe hiding places, and bring them to justice.”

President George W. Bush, - September 24, 2001

Now how was the President going to starve terrorists of their funding if he couldn’t track their funding?

Sept 24, 2001 - State Department news release: The President has directed the first strike on the global terror network today by issuing an Executive Order to starve terrorists of their support funds.

The Order expands the Treasury Department’s power to target the support structure of terrorist organizations, freeze the U.S. assets and block the U.S. transactions of terrorists and those that support them, and increases our ability to block U.S. assets of, and deny access to U.S. markets to, foreign banks who refuse to cooperate with U.S. authorities to identify and freeze terrorist assets abroad.

As you can see, the White House telegraphed this E-funds tracking to terrorists in its own news releases since shortly after 9/11. This was pure politics and deception and lying on the part of the White House - YET AGAIN.

By all means repubbies, take the Times to Court. Throw another few hundred million of tax payers hard earned money away. You will lose for one simple reason. You can’t make your strategy known in press releases and the accuse others of leaking secret information. This was no secret as evidenced above.

This is typical of our blab everything they know or hear media. And all the time hiding behind the first amendment. The only problem is the first amendment doesn’t cover classified information.
But the bigger question here is who gave the media classified information? And why?

Rob Brown, NO! The bigger question is, why was this classified at all in light of the White House’s and State Department’s own press releases in 2001? (see my comment above.)

Wow, people are traitors when they publish the news. Unfriggin believeable. I wonder if I am a traitor because I dislike the president and his policies… If so then I better quit the military quick because if I were a traitor I wouldn’t be caught dead supporting America and it’s freedoms. Please the NYT is no more a traitor then any other person on the planet… they got information and the published it… the ‘traitor’ would be the the government offical who was the one that leaked this information. Get the finger pointing right.

-Einghf

“For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America,” Bush said. He said the disclosure of the program “makes it harder to win this war on terror.”

Now he’s just making excuses… if his war doesn’t succeed, now it’s somebody else’s fault.

Maybe, just maybe, all the millions of others who are not terrorists (but whose financial records were scanned, nonetheless) are the ones who need to be told about this, eh?

What a nitwit.

Let me see…

First, it was for international phone calls between foriegners…

Then, it was international calls between US Citizens and Foriegners…

Then, it was domestic calls between Foriegners…

Then, it was domestic calls between US Citizens and Foriegners…

Then, it was all domestic calls…

Now, Its Bank Transactions between Foriegners….

hmmm….

Aldous, what’s your bet that the White House is doing corporate espionage in favor of American corporation’s international merger and acquisitions and other types of “heads up” finanicial information for American corporations who give so generously to the GOP and gave so generously to Bush’s reelection campaign?

I will take 10 to 1 odds. And my chances of getting wealthy I predict are: outstanding. To paraphrase the movie Contact: It would be an awful waste of so much data !!!

So, what every NYT defender is saying is they were only printing the news. Some even claim it to be old news. First, if it is old news why was it on the front page of the NYT? How many of you “terrorist knew it already” libs knew the US was using SWIFT? Finally, if NYT released a list of organized crime informants, would that also just be just the news? How about a top scientist from say China who was planning on defecting to the US? Forgot, ya’ll don’t want him here. He is educated and he can’t walk across the border.

Prosecution is not the answer. Although David posts a release about the Presidents Executive order - that was not part and parcel to the SWIFT program. The knowledge of intellegence work within the banking establishments is nothing new, but nothing that needs worldwide print exposure using couched terms making it appear to be some kind of uncontrolled unconstitutional black op. I am not concerned by the partisan outrage (politics ya know) SWIFT is something known within intelligence agencies but not usually for public consumption. While the outcome of the article will have little impact on tracking issues, it does serve to introduce more demands by those on the left for congressional “oversight”. When in the last 8 years has a Democrat taken any information that could marginally damage a Republican and sat on it? If all these revelations by the Times are truly worrisome, or overreaching, why no hearings? Don’t talk to me about the majority blocking such manuevers - if the allegation is provably true the country would demand it. The Times is just adding more fodder to the hate America fire on the left, and further enforcing the belief that the Democrats are way, way, way out of touch with the security concerns of mainstream Americans. Or perhaps we just need to “change directions” in our efforts to thwart attacks. Maybe?

How ‘bout you take a minute and think about where the info the Times got came from? Do you suppose we ought to punish whoever violated their confidentiality agreement, security clearance guidelines (whatever you want to call it)? I mean the person who LEAKED it. The paper did it’s job, it printed the info it was given. ( Info, IMHO, we should’ve be told in the first place. )
We need more of the truth not less.
P.S. The terrorists aren’t stupid. They can watch american t.v. for a day or two and figure out how we’d track the money. Just watch any legal drama - it’s all there. HEY- Maybe we should not beam our shows to anyone else for fear they might use info that is common knowledge to Americans against us. Maybe we should proscute whatever network makes those CSI shows too. They are giving info to the terrorists about our criminal investigation techniques.
It seems you are assuming that everyone who isn’t conservative or isn’t american just crawled out of the promordial ooze and wouldn’t be able to figure out anything without help.
Don’t get me wrong, I think publishing the computer code that performs these tasks or giving out the password to the DOD computer(so to speak) is wrong but worrying this piddly stuff that anyone with a 4th grade education could guess, well that’s just naive. We the people deserve to know(not guess) that the gov’t is tracking our phone calls, monetary transactions, etc.
Although we don’t agree on most things, I still expect a better argument from you.

It makes me shake my head that most of the posts are against the NYT instead of whoever leaked this info. That should be the obvious problem.

But, this doesn’t seem to be a priority in this administration nor it’s followers.

There is something very wrong, I just haven’t figured it out yet. The game is mind-boggling. I guess only the administration knows the rules.

Illplus2 asked: “First, if it is old news why was it on the front page of the NYT?”

Perhaps because it may not be just terrorists funds that were being tracked? You think, maybe? That is certainly newsworthy for Americans don’t you think? That their own normal business transactions are being monitored along with terrorists? You see, it wasn’t news when it was just terrorists funds being tracked. The White House announced it was doing that back in 2001, see my lengthy quoted White House news releases above.

Again Illplus2 asked a question: “How many of you “terrorist knew it already†libs knew the US was using SWIFT?”

Well, I am a lib only on some issues. But, that should qualify me, eh? OK. I knew! Which is why I knew to immediately google White House news releases on terrorist funds tracking and was able so quickly to quote the news releases above. I knew they existed because I was alive and awake when the White House released them.

I must confess however, I did not know the top secret acronym for their publicly announced program was “SWIFT”. Now there the NYT was Treasonous because the White House never released the acronym for the Electronic funds tracking, only that they were doing it. :-)

Fat chance any Judge signed off on this Spying.

Personally, I favor using this Data and catching Tax Evaders. We could reduce the deficit easily.

Aldous & David,
You beat me to the punch.

At first blush, this does not look like much of a story. I seem to recall public testimony during the first passage of Patriot Act which included these kinds of provisions. Suddently, in 2006, the NYT, LA Times, & WaPo simultaneously publish this SWIFT story. It does not seem like much of a revelation. Yet Bush sets up a fuss, and Repubicans throw around the word “traitor,” and essentially demand the end of the First Amendment. (We finished off the Fourth earlier this year).

Why is this story “news”? Why does the White House care?

You already called it. Everyone is capable of putting two and two together; the Bush administration did not stop with international transactions.

And so, we take another small step down a one-way path.

Dr. Politico and my beloved NeoCon family. While I am and will be suspicious of the Times motives for releasing the SWIFT article, you need to check out June 23d article. Lets not worry about prosecutions, but definitely hold their feet to the fire when it comes to journalistic restraint. The reasoning behind it’s release may not be traitorous - but that doesn’t do anything about the stench of it.

JR said: “Although David posts a release about the Presidents Executive order - that was not part and parcel to the SWIFT program.”

It appears you did not read the whole quote, JR. I will reiterate it: “The Order expands the Treasury Department’s power to target the support structure of terrorist organizations, freeze the U.S. assets and block the U.S. transactions of terrorists and those that support them, and increases our ability to block U.S. assets of, and deny access to U.S. markets to, foreign banks who refuse to cooperate with U.S. authorities to identify and freeze terrorist assets abroad.”

Now be sure to read the last part of that very long sentence: “and increases our ability to block U.S. assets of, and deny access to U.S. markets to, foreign banks who refuse to cooperate with U.S. authorities to identify and freeze terrorist assets abroad.”

How can our government do what it said it was doing WITHOUT tracking with international assistance and cooperation huge amounts of financial transactions?

No matter how you cut it, the White House announced to the terrorists their funds tracking intentions in their own White House Press Releases in 2001. Ergo, the NYTimes did not print top secret operations. They only alerted the American public that tracking terrorist funds ALSO involved tracking American’s funds. The NEWS is the tracking of American funds. NOT terrorist funds.

That is why this whole posturing thing by Cheney and Bush and Congressman Peter King is pure political election year bull crap. More scare tactics from the White House: a more modern version of McCarthy’s “Red Scare” touting Americans as enemies of the Bush State. I hope this crap comes back and slaps the GOP right square in the ass on Nov. 7.

And what about the temptation of the Bush administration to use those mountains of foreign bank transfer data for American corporation espionage? Seems like an awful waste of data if the White House is not engaging in Corporate espionage for American companies, don’t you think?

JR, your link does not go anywhere.

Welcome to the Machine.

I suppose it was a matter of time. Once the technology for building an atomic bomb was possible, it was only a matter fo time until someone built one.

And now, the technology exists for constructing the database of all time. Total Information Awareness. Indeed.

But it is a crime for you to know about this. Such knowledge could help an enemy avoid capture, and possibly hurt you.

Trust the administration. Support a Unitary Executive. Because if history teaches us anything, it is that politicians are always, always trustworthy, and would never, ever use accumulated power to abuse others, or enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of the public.

Hey, that’s a bitch about Somalia being controlled by an Islamic fundamentalist government, headed by a former compatriot of Osama bin Laden. Too bad the Somalis do not have any oil. C’est la guerre, or the lack thereof.

j2t2, your comment was junked for not being on topic. Please review our Rules for Participation.

JR,

THe link you provided didn’t work.

“It makes me shake my head that most of the posts are against the NYT instead of whoever leaked this info. That should be the obvious problem.”

Actually, it’s so obvious it goes without saying. But since many of you were unable to grasp it let me explain. You prosecute the Times and pressure them into revealing the identity of the leaker. THe leaker gets tried for treason and gets hanged. The Times gets prosecuted under the Espionage Act and most likely gets away with it, but not before learning an important lesson.

Dr. Politico,
Let me get this straight, The Attornry General of the United States must bring charges against the NYT and other papers whether he can successfully prosecute or not, just to scare them into submission! And you call them the traitor.
Did you ever once just stop to think that the reason they dont is the administration is violating the Constitution?

DRR,

thanks for the response to some of the questions. Who else besides you knew? Can you say without a doubt that all terror groups both home and abroad knew the we were tracking funds internationally? What about the other questions?

Aldous,

“Fat chance any Judge signed off on this Spying.

Personally, I favor using this Data and catching Tax Evaders. We could reduce the deficit easily.”

Please send the link to the Dems in congress who have said the president did something illegal. The NTY, itself, said nothing illegal was done and we all know they never miss a chance to slam the president. Are you a tax evader and are now worried about the IRS knocking on your door? Next you are going to say undercover police entrapped those “poor” drug lords.

As far as who leaked it, here is the rule I give my children. Just because some idiot at school says something, doesn’t mean you have to repeat and spread it. Prosecute them both just anyone in a school who is spreading a malicious rumor. Yes, SWIFT isn’t a rumor, but NYT shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind freedom of the press. If an international bank officer gets killed by terrorist and they link back to the NYT story, libs will still deny any wrong doing by the Times.

Illplus2, when the White House makes public announcements, I think it is safe to assume that it is not just I who pays attention. I would also venture to say, that the people with the greatest motivation to read White House press releases, is our enemies. They have the most to be gained and lost by what the White House says, don’t you think?

Ahh, now we have the Dr Politico’s admission of motive. From his own words, he wants to intimidate the free press which our liberties and freedoms depend directly upon for news about when they are being subjugated by our government, so that authoritarian government can have free reign in America.

Thank you for that candor, Dr Politico.

JR, that link don’t work. Check it yourself before republishing it to make sure it does work. Perhaps their server is down.

David Remer,

From his own words, he wants to intimidate the free press which our liberties and freedoms depend directly upon for news about when they are being subjugated by our government, so that authoritarian government can have free reign in America.

That’s total crap. As an independent-minded individual (as you claim to be) I expect more of you. This case most likely cannot be successfully prosecuted due to the politics involved. As for my own words, open your eyes: I wrote the entire post. As I made clear this looks to me (and others) as a clear violation of the espionage act. That’s why we must prosecute: to ensure that the Time’s refrains from publishing CLASSIFIED information again.

Seriously, David, I thought that level of ridiculous spin was beneath you. Perhaps you should read the post again so you understand my position.

Still no answers to the questions I asked. New question. Does freedom of speech protect you from treason? Is anyone allowed to tell anyone else in the world all of our secrets and still be protected by the first amendment? I am sure the ACLU will fight for whoever the leak turns out to be because it is their “right” to talk about whatever.

Dr P and David

Can’t figure why the link fails. The sight is counterterrorismblog.org They have an article on June 23d about the SWIFT program. Not warm and fuzzy about the Times reasons for release and am still suspicious, but the article unwinds my watch a bit. If either of you can get the link to work please post it, I feel it is insightful and worth a read, for both sides.

This is worth a look. This administration will classify anything they don’t approve of.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/justice_redaction.htm

Aldous

Please feel free to walk down the streets of the Netherlands with a tee shirt mocking the “prophet” mohammed. Did you sleep through 9/11? What about the USS Cole? Khobar Towers? Tanzanian Embassy? First World Trade Center bombing? How about the UK on 7/7? Spain? Bali perhaps? Death is a moment away in the eyes of those that hate you because you breathe. Please feel free to debate, but don’t make light of the thousands of US and other deaths caused by a group of inhuman thugs anxious to kill us all in the name of a false god named allah.

all these words about killing.
who among you are now on active duty?
who among you are in iraq as we speak?
if you are, please speak, so we may listen.

DR Politico, all that and you did not respond to the quote of yours I quoted.

Nice dodge. When no rational reply is forthcoming, change the subject. Not a tactic that works on me. Reply to my comment about the quote of yours I quoted.

And don’t think for one minute my political opinions here are in anyway dependent upon your expectations of what you think they should be. It doesn’t phase me a bit if you are disappointed by my counter reply. Just respond to what I wrote and leave your expectations of my comments at home.

Illplus2,
To answer your question, ask yourself questions. Do you exist to serve the government, and does the government grant you your rights?

Sounds like Bush should propose a law for the United States similar to the one detailed here…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601242.html?nav=rss_world

Illplus2, define treason! It has a very clear legal definition. It does not include printing information which has value to the American people. It does not necessarily include printing classified information. Look up the legal definition of treason and you will see what I mean. The definition includes something about one must knowingly be aiding and abetting the enemy in the overthrow or invasion of our country to act in a treasonous manner. That is not verbatim, nor exact, but, off the top of my head from law classes decades ago.

Check it out. It is a worthy definition to know before throwing the word treason about like so many uneducated folks are want to do.

“DR Politico, all that and you did not respond to the quote of yours I quoted.

Nice dodge. When no rational reply is forthcoming, change the subject. Not a tactic that works on me. Reply to my comment about the quote of yours I quoted.

What are you talking about?

The original quote in response to the claim that no one was addressing the leaker:

“You prosecute the Times and pressure them into revealing the identity of the leaker. THe leaker gets tried for treason and gets hanged. The Times gets prosecuted under the Espionage Act and most likely gets away with it, but not before learning an important lesson.

You then claimed that my words proved that I wanted to intimidate the free press on which ourliberties depend, to which I replied:

This case most likely cannot be successfully prosecuted due to the politics involved … As I made clear this looks to me (and others) as a clear violation of the espionage act. That’s why we must prosecute: to ensure that the Time’s refrains from publishing CLASSIFIED information again.

I’m pretty sure that addressed my quote unless I’m misunderstanding you. Allow me to elaborate. Your claim that I want to prosecute the Times in order to supress press freedom is ridiculous. I want to supress irresponsibility on the part of the press, vis-a-vis the publication of classified material. That’s the “valuable lesson” that I wrote of in the initial post.

I’m not sure what else you’re looking for. My position is clear, both here, in my previous response, and in my post. If you still feel that I’m avoiding your point, you’ll need to clarify it. Otherwise, I’ll just assume you never had a point and were instead going for a cheap shot. And by cheap shot I mean the intentional misrepresentation that you offered of what I believe and wrote.

The wrong wing is all over the NYT like a cheap suit, but not one word about the CONSERVATIVE Wall Street Journal. Talk about hypocricy!

One more reason not to vote Republican. They do not believe in a free press. They do not believe in balance of power. They believe their constituency is too stupid to discern the politics of this garbage.
Their only political power lies behind fear. They are almost making me believe they orchestrated 911. I really do wonder why they stopped pursuing Osama.

gergle,

They are almost making me believe they orchestrated 911. I really do wonder why they stopped pursuing Osama.

And there’s the uncommon sense that Republicans depend on to win elections. You Dems make it too easy.

DRR,

You accuse others of dodging questions and admit to dodging all in the same statement. You have taken one word out of two post full of questions and not answered any other questions.

Lefties, while you are trying to spread islam remember this. Your sacred cow, abortion, will be outlaw the moment they come into power. Free press will be free to print what they tell you or print nothing. Women’s rights? Property doesn’t have rights.

If you want to start winning some elections again, you better start using some common sense. I know, you think you are smarter than all the people who voted repub and we are sheep who believe everything we hear. Actually, we have beliefs and vote for those whose beliefs don’t seem to change with every new poll that comes out. Mrs. Clinton, a staunch supporter of abortion, is moving away from the left to try and get right votes. Don’t count on it, we are smarter than that.

coonyjay
” the Christian Left,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
oxymoron”

Exactly. That is why Kerry lost the Catholic vote. What works in NY and Mass. doesn’t fly in the rest of the country.

LLLPLUS2

Dr Politico, thanks for the reply, we are losing each other’s train of thought.

The dodge I referred to is the proof I provided that this information published by the NYTimes is not secret. The Bush adminstration has classified huge amounts of stuff that is not secret at all, including stuff they put on their own website. It was a hot topic here two years ago as stuff that was posted on the White House web site, got deleted and and as a journalist inquired about the disappearing information, the response was, that is classified.

The stuff of use to terrorists in the NYTimes was already published in White House press releases back in 2001, everything except the acronym, (what’s in a name?). What then is the reason for going after the NYTimes? To intimidate the press against publishing anything negative about the government such as the monitoring of American financial transactions?

That is not useful to terrorists. That is only useful information for American voters.

You see the monitoring of terrorist transactions may have been classified but it had already been made public by the White House. The fact that all American transactions over $10,000 were being monitored is what the White House wanted to hide as classified. And you support this government that would prosecute the press for writing about the one aspect of the surveillance that was a secret, that Americans having no ties to terrorists were having their financial transactions monitored by our government?

It amazes me that Republicans who believe in our Constitution and its checks and balances allow themselves to be backed into supporting their Party’s politician’s actions which undermine the Constitution. The first amendment is crucial to those checks and balances. And as I have already pointed out, nothing the NYT reported helped the terrorists one iota more than the White House already did in their press releases announcing they would be tracking terrorist finanicial transactions.

But you allow yourself to be backed into defending Bush’s and Cheney’s et.al prima facia false claims that what was printed helped our enemies, despite the proof you already read that shows nothing of secret and value to our enemies was revealed.

I find this remarkable.

Illplus2 said: “Lefties, while you are trying to spread islam remember this.”

What lefties are trying to spread Islam? Would that be American citizen Muslims who happen to be Democrats? I think your comment has a real bigoted tinge to it there, Illplus2. I am a Buddhist who voted for Ralph Nader, does that make me worse or better than a Muslim who voted for Kerry? I have been known to share my Buddhist religion and beliefs with others. Is that unAmerican in your view? Or just undesireable? Unpatriotic perhaps? Just curious.

I am against any who would try to force their beliefs on anyone else. We are at war against people like that. I share my Christian beliefs with others, however, I am sure you don’t and neither do I think convert to my beliefs or die. My comment is meant to mean remember who our soldiers are fighting against and if what is report might, even slightest little bit help our enemies don’t report it or you will look like traitors trying to make money selling info.

this is LLLplus2’s wife.

yes that is LLLplus2.

he is not bigotted at all. in fact he is the least judgemental person i know. a dumbass sometimes, a shit head sometimes, but not a bigot. trust me i am his worst enemy and best friend. neither one of us supported this war when it started, but we didn’t have a choice. when we voted we had a choice between bad and worse. we voted our concience.

now that we are in this war we would like make sure that the least amount of damage is done. we support not disclosing information that might in any way harm our efforts as hopeless as they may seem. if it were up to me i would bring all our people home and let all the people over there fight out their own problems. the rest of the repubs probably won’t appreciate that i say this, but it is how i feel.

we know they are all crooked, but he is our president and he is not lying about everything under the sun. at least he is consistantly an idiot. which is more than i can say for most dems. my husband is not concerned with better or worse people. he is concerned with people who instead of trying to help just run their mouths or fingers and just want to disagree with everything repubs say and do because it isn’t popular.

he also is concerned with protecting our people. the ones in this country. and the ones fighting in the name of our country. what is unpatriotic is people sitting up and criticizing and not just giving your support, and feasible solutions.

when people’s lives are on the line you can’t be too carefull, so don’t go reporting things the government asks you not to. it is that simple. i would love to know why everyone is so worried if they aren’t doing anything wrong. yes, yes i know, the information will be used against people politically. well if they don’t have anything to hide nothing can be used against them. what are they going to use against people their club membership with columbia house where they bought some john tesh and barry manilow? maybe their like for a little too much chocolate? maybe their patronage of denny’s? you either get your skivies in a bunch over nothing or you argue just to argue(i.e. just to be contrary to repubs). so you tell me which is it? don’t insult my husband again, that is my job.

Is you, Senator McCarthy?!?
So, does all commies are in hell or what?

Sorry Dr Politico if I mistake you for him but your post sounds so like him. Very 50s. I almost could see you talking in front of a huge mic in the center of a rounded black and white TV screen in my mind…

lllplus2’s Wife:

The Government has a very well documented History of abusing Power. Those who study history understand this.

Blind Obedience has always been a weakness, not a strength. May I ask what safeguards you propose we have for this spying? Take note neither Congress or the Courts have access or Authority to do anything.

Doc,

“Your claim that I want to prosecute the Times in order to supress press freedom is ridiculous. I want to supress irresponsibility on the part of the press, vis-a-vis the publication of classified material. That’s the “valuable lesson†that I wrote of in the initial post.”

So, let me get this straight…..

You don’t want to suppress the “freedom of the press”, but you want to suppress irresponsibility?

David is right. This information has been available for years, but to make a point, you are willing to “send a message” to the press?

I, a mere common citizen, knew that a person couldn’t transfer large sums of money out of the country as part of the “war on drugs”, and only a complete dolt would think the money wasn’t “tracked”.

The right seems to think that we are dealing with complete idiots in this undeclared war.

lllplus2,

you will look like traitors trying to make money selling info

Oh, so does it means that if they were not trying to make money, you would not name them “traitors”?
Something along “They try to sell war” vs “They try to make money selling war” difference? Oh, now I see why you’re angry then…

The ones that need to be tried for treason is the ones who leaked this information to the the media, and that would be the current executive administration.

The media was only doing their duty. We NEVER want a government controlled media. That would make us like China, North Korea, or the old Iraq or Soviet Union.

I thank the Times for doing their patriotic duty, and cannot understand how the extreme right would want the media to be controlled. The terrorists have won the by making these right-wing extremists quiver with fear, give up all their rights and liberties, and turn our country against itself.

Also, who didn’t know that international financial transactions were monitored. I knew this already, I thought is was common knowledge. If it was “classified”, why wasn’t it protected better. The ones who were in charge of protecting this “classified” data should be identified and punished.

Whoever “leaked” the information should be prosecuted. As unscrupulous the NY Times is, they are not the true culprits. And by the way, for you Bush bashers, President Bush HAS the authority to “release” information to the public. That is not considered leaking.

I don’t want classified information let out, but under this president secrecy has been seriously abused. Doubts and qualifications about the WMDs were among the things kept secret from us.

Now the subversion of our rights as Americans is part of what’s being kept from us, under the guise of protecting us. Sure it might begin like that, but power entitles itself to itself. One day, somebody would decide that defeating their political enemies comes under the heading of protecting this country.

Oh no, wait, somebody already has. That was Watergate. Already somebody has stooped to invading private citizen’s homes and business in the name of protecting them from voting for their political rivals.

Others might take these powers and do the same. Who knows, it could be a Democrat. Without the checks and balances, it would be a temptation to all who set foot in the office of president. And if these are only the beginning? Then we have lost control over our country and don’t even know it. And for what? Safety from the terrorists? What will safety from them matter, if we destroy ourselves like this?

It’s during times of crisis like this that tyrants rise, preying on the insecurities of the people. While I do not condone the release of Classified information, I must balance that antipathy against the need for our nation to remain free and true to our principles.

If this government will not restrain itself, will not obey the law, how can it call on anybody else to do so?

We should not be gnashing our teeth over the NYT or who ‘leaked’ this information. The left wingers have a rich history of selling out this country at every turn pre WWII to present. This should come as no surprise. Partisanship before National Security has been their method since the days of Lenin.

The ones who need to be tried for treason are the people in the White House right now. They lied to the American people to start a war. They have failed miserably in the prosecution of the war. They have profitted from the war, both financially and politically. They have violated the bill of rights. They have destroyed our reputation with our allies. They have divided our nation for their own gain. They are responsible for the uneccesary deaths of more than 100,000 people, including 2500+ of our solidiers. They are responsible for the maiming of untold more people including 18000+ of our soldiers. They are responsible for the legitimization of every evil empire who tortures by making us one of them.
They must be held accountable in a trial before the people and decided by the people. Will we be goosesteppers or will we rediscover the American ideal? Hopefully the idealists will reign. But I’m afraid it isn’t turkeys who are gullible, but sheep.

“Loose lips sink ships.” Wisdom that is much lacking in today’s climate. The people that rush to defend this egregious leaking and publication of intelligence—well, I hope the voters remember. These are far too dangerous times. We need to vote out those not fit to govern—Murtha, Pelosi, Durbin, et al.

Let’s see how this plays out in the public. I am betting on folks with common sense.

Philippe Houdoin

The point I am tring to make is to refute the liberal bull that the NYT is about informing the American people. I have said in other posts that ALL NETWORKS AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS ARE ABOUT MAKING MONEY, PERIOD. Wanting to make money isn’t traitorous. Risking people’s lives for the sake of “news” is evil and unethical. Printing “secrets” that your government ask you not to during a time of war is traitorous.

Some have mentioned the war on drugs. If the NYT posted a list of informants or undercover agents or stated the use of spy planes and their routes are you saying that is o.k.

If any lives are lost because of the stir the article has caused is the NYT responsible? Your assumed absolutes are going to get people killed. “Absolutely all terror groups knew about SWIFT because it posted by the white house four years ago.” Can any you guarantee it? Would you back up your guarantee with your life?

nikolai,

The fascists in the White House are far more dangerous than some raghead sociopath martyr wannabes. It took Al Queda 3+ years to plan and execute 9/11, taking 3000 lives. It took BushCo 3 months to start a war that has killed 30 times that in the same period. The terrorists have succeeded in destroying our freedoms, but they did it by getting chickenshit chickenhawks to bow before der Fhurer Bushs’ putsch. Meanwhile I hope and prey that Pelosi and Kennedy and Murtha and the rest of the true patriots hold their ground against the false messiah.

“Let me see…First, it was for international phone calls between foriegners…Then, it was international calls between US Citizens and Foriegners…Then, it was domestic calls between Foriegners…Then, it was domestic calls between US Citizens and Foriegners…Then, it was all domestic calls…Now, Its Bank Transactions between Foriegners…hmmm…
Posted by: Aldous at June 26, 2006 10:14 PM

And yet, not one time do you see that “outing” a secret program to fight terrorists as treasonous or even wrong! You’re still attacking Bush; he’s fighting a war on terror! The NY “Treasonous” Times isn’t!! Outing the NSA program was wrong, now outing bank records (of TERRORISTS) is just flat-out Treasonous.

The left “claims” that they are patriotic; yet, where is the proof? They’ve proven that they are reckless and irresponsible in trying to take down our President. It’s wrong and they’re only exposing themselves to who they truly are; unAmerican!!!

Rahdigly’s right. The only way to be a true American is to disregard the Constitution, the free press, the judicial branch, and the principle of checks and balances. Anything short of unquestioning acceptance of the Republican (of course) President is unAmerican!

What I find most interesting about the NYT is that they have not concluded any wrongdoing in the SWIFT banking situation. They’ve alluded to the potential for wrongdoing, but they admit its just potential. Their base argument has been that the terror networks certainly wouldn’t try to use international banking to move their money—that would be stupid.

If that’s the argument, then they should be saying that the SWIFT effort has not worked. Their argument should be on the merit of the program, rather than the secrecy. But the reality is they don’t know if it has worked or not. The admin says they have caught people (ie the Bali nightclub bomber) while the NYT simply says that terrorists wouldnt be so dumb as to use the international banking program.

Juan Williams (PBS?) even tried to claim that now the banking program has been taken away as a resource from the terrorists since they know we are looking at it. Crazy logic, that. His argument goes against the NYT, because Williams assumes the terrorists were in fact using SWIFT. But it also assumes that simply taking away one resource is helpful.

It would be akin to police setting up a roadblock on a major highway, with the media alerting the criminals that the highway was blocked, and then assuming there were no other roads to travel by.

There are many things that we want covert. In WWII, Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed so that the Germans would not know their codes had been broken. He faced a terrible choice—saving the citizens of Coventry from bombing, or preventing far more damage by keeping the broken code secret. In the long view, he made the right choice, even though there were short term costs.

The NYT made the wrong choice.

In WWII, Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed so that the Germans would not know their codes had been broken

And in 2002 Bush decided to start a war in Iraq. Why again? Was it Saddam giving help to Al Queda? Was it WMD? Was it to make Democracy in the Mid East? Was it to kill a bunch a freaking Iraqi “insurgents” so they wouldn’t come to kill 72 virgins in Iowa? Flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop.

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates … transmits … or publishes … any classified information … concerning the … intelligence activities of the United States … Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

So, um…when does Karl Rove, the VP, and the rest of the gang do time for the Plame leak?

If Bush administration went after the NYT for publishing the story, they would be recognized as First Amendment martyrs all over the world. Every (EVERY) authoritarian government in the world would say, “If the Americans can do it, why not us?” It ain’t gonna happen.

As a technical point, I don’t think WSJ would be off the hook either.

“The only way to be a true American is to disregard the Constitution, the free press, the judicial branch, and the principle of checks and balances. Anything short of unquestioning acceptance of the Republican (of course) President is unAmerican!”

No, to be unAmerican, all you have to do is “leak” covert programs, that aid us in the war on terror, while breaking the law and then “hiding” behind the 1rst amendment.

What’s even better is that the “partisans” (on the left) won’t even step up and get on the correct side (that’s the American side) on this one. Nope. It’s Bush’s fault; it’s Bush fault. Blah…Blah…(freakin) Blah.

get on the correct side (that’s the American side) on this one.

Can I play this game? I want to label my side as the American side in order to squash debate and imply that people who disagree with me are unpatriotic? Oh, it sounds like such a fun game, and I’m sure it’s so much easier than supporting my points with logic, understanding the basic rules of logic, or having any respect whatsoever for people that don’t agree with me.

It looks like such a fun game.

Dave1:

Your comments to my post were a complete and utter non-sequitor. Enough said.

No all you have to do to be unAmerican is allow the violations of our civil rights to keep occuring. Just stand by and watch as our rights go down the drain. Just argue for the totalitarian blame the media crap.
The terrorist want you to do exactly that. When you allow that to happen you are the problem, the terrorist have won the war. You are conspiring with the terrorist to undermine this Countries long battle for the rights of the person. You in short become the real traitors.

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates … transmits … or publishes … any classified information … concerning the … intelligence activities of the United States … Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The Times was reporting old news, news that anyone who reads the papers (the real ones) or the blogs (the accurate ones) already knew. They were just trying to remind us and inform those who don’t follow the actual news (like GWB).

If the Bush administration has no respect for the law, where does it get its authority to hold others to it? We are a nation at war, but we are a nation ruled by law, and this president has seen fit to approach or exceed the limits of the law in order to do things his way.

The Administration is only reaping what it sows. It cannot ask Americans to respect the laws on secrecy if it uses them as cover to violate our laws and our constitution. Much as I hate things being leaked to the enemy, The New York Times is right in letting the people know the shaky ground this administration is on.

We need the rule of law, and the separation of powers more than we need these programs. America does not need to become a police state out of fear of the terrorists.

Dr. Politico
As for that quotation of the espionage law, I’d just as soon that you quote it in full. Laws are only meaningful as a whole. That’s why Rove is not already sharing an iron-barred room with his new love interest.

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates … transmits … or publishes … any classified information … concerning the … intelligence activities of the United States … Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

We should prosecute the NYT to the fullest extent of the law. They have infringed on the administrations right to decide what classified information should be leaked to the public. The NYT should be punished for this infringment.

What is all this crap about saving the free press. As long as fair and balanced Fox News is on the air, free speech will not be infringed upon.

In other news, republican rep. Souder of Indiana has called on the White House to recall 30’000 troops from Iraq to help himself and other republicans get reelected in the fall. A noble cause.

All-
Has everyone gone mad? The fourth estate,which the Times is a proud member of,has an OBLIGATION to print what is relevant and life altering. Have we all forgotten Watergate? IF elected officials are working a backdoor method of spying,for whatever reason,I know I want to know of it.
It is an unfortunate reality today that the Republicans seem to think that since they are in power,they don’t have to answer to anyone but themselves. We are all Americans. I am so sick of the constant rant of 9-11,BUSHCO is using to justify every underhanded,devious thing thats done.

I applaud the TIMES and all news orginazations that are strong and brave enough to stand up to the tyrannical powers that be in D.C.

David- I’m sorry you have so little faith in our ilustrious politicians.I will take that bet at 10-1. NOt because I think they would never do it,but that they are scared to get caught.

Dr. Politico,

Can you explain why they abandoned the attack on Osama? Can you explain why many in the CIA quit because of this?

I can. Because it was not in their political agenda to defeat their biggest political ally. Without Osama to kick around the Republicans would have lost in 04. Sad part is in 06 they think the Americans aren’t on to this game. Osama is a real threat. Iraq was a self fulfilling prophecy.

It’s pathetic what a little oxycontin and viagra does to old geezers with arthereosclerosis.

Braaack!!! Braaack!!! Cock a doodle doo!!!

Rummy done kilt ya.

jbod,

What does Enigma have to do with 9/11? Nothing.
How does 9/11 justify in the President ignoring the Constitution? It doesn’t.
How does the NYT article impact our so-called-war on terror? It doesn’t.
Why are we in Iraq? No good reason.

There is no “sequitor” in your post to this thread. This whole topic comes down to you starting with a false assumption by thinking Bush is a great President and me observing empirically that he’s done 10 times more harm than any imaginary good.

Dave1 who would you have at the helm now: Algore, Liberalman, Lurch or the Breck Girl? Those are your choices because that was all you lefties had to offer during the last 2 elections.

My god, can you imagine if one of those had been in control on 9/11, or were in control now for that matter? Arabic would be our official language and Osama would be our Prime Minister.

note to people outraged by this: Terrorists know we’re spying on them. They wont be surprised by this.

In the 60’s I gathered information on a number of subversive organizations for our government. Had the NYT or any other paper published my name during that time because “they have a right to”, then I would have been killed. That brings this whole situation down to my lowest common denominator. Tell and kill.
After the program I worked in was halted, my name was published and I had to make severe adjustments in the life of my family. This trail followed my for more than twenty years before it tapered off to nothing. I was fortunate. In other cases people may not be as fortunate as I.
My point is when you publish information that could be damaging to people and their lives, consideration for that decision should not be left in the hands of not professionals in the security area. They can write and print as professionals but are absoulutly ignorant as a professional in the security areas of society and should leave areas of non-expertise to the experts.

David Remer,

I see we were talking about two completely different things. That explains the misunderstanding.

The information was in fact classified, but the Administration’s intentions to track monies was well known.

The former LA Times columnist, Jane Hall, said it best on O’Reilly a couple days ago. She was doing her best to defend the publications, but when asked if she would have printed the story, she replied that she would have done so with far less detail. That’s the point. We know the Administration has long had plans to track monies, and apparently they had been doing so. However, their methods were withheld for obvious reasons.

THere’s a reason why the Administration, the head of the 9/11 commission, and even Jack Murtha urged the Times not to publish this story: because doing so was against the national interest.

The program according to several government officials is worthless at this point. The consequences of reporting on SWIFT are real.

I’m hoping they drag Keller before the Senate to testify, so more information becomes available (in addition to his condescending defense that the Times published the other day). Until then I will continue to hold my current position.

It’s also worth noting that Keller and McManus (LA Times) have both conceded that the information was classified. That’s not even being debated. They’re arguing that they had the right to publish because it was in the public interest to do so. I don’t feel that the public interest was served in this case. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems fairly clear that you disagree me on that point. Yours is a perfectly reasonable position to take on this matter, but I feel that mine is as well.

The solution is simple.

All truly patriotic US citizens need to volunteer to be locked up in cage. We need to contain them for the war on terror, they’ll understand, if they are patriotic and law-abiding citizens, they won’t mind helping the war on terror.

Now anyone not locked up in a cage must be a terrorist. Gas them all. Exterminate Them!

Is that solution final enough for you guys?

This is not reality, it is political nonsense.

Plame was doing this - leaks and memos - for years and was not indicted. Why should they indict the NYT?

Most of the employees were operations officers of other countries anyway. At least NYT did’nt kill ‘em.

Dave1:

jbod,

What does Enigma have to do with 9/11? Nothing.
How does 9/11 justify in the President ignoring the Constitution? It doesn’t.
How does the NYT article impact our so-called-war on terror? It doesn’t.
Why are we in Iraq? No good reason.

There is no “sequitor†in your post to this thread. This whole topic comes down to you starting with a false assumption by thinking Bush is a great President and me observing empirically that he’s done 10 times more harm than any imaginary good.

Wow, it doesn’t appear that you even read the thread at all. The whole topic is about revealing secrets that can hurt our country’s efforts…that’s why my Enigma reference made sense. You see, revealing that we had broken Enigma would have hurt allowed Germany to alter their communications, thereby hurting our operations. Similarly, revealing that we have tracked terrorists via the SWIFT network allows them to alter their transactions, thereby hurting our operations. You see how neatly the two correspond to each other—-I’m surprised I had to explain that to you.

As far as 9-11, why we are in Iraq, or what kind of President George Bush is—-well, I didn’t comment on any of those things, so those are just additional non-sequitors from you. We could discuss those issues, but they would still have nothing to do with what I wrote earlier, and what you responded to. If you have anything ON TOPIC to discuss, lets do that.

You guys are in some serious denial out there. You won’t even side with the President on this issue; even when he is completely correct and the NY “Crimes” is absolutely wrong (wrong, wrong!). If this wasn’t such a solemn issue, I would laugh at you guys for your pathetic hatred for the President.

The NY “Crimes” broke the law and they must be punished. If the clowns out there, that “pretend” to uphold the constituiton, truly believe in the “Nation of Laws” then, they would admit that the NY “Treasonous” Times should be tried for sedition. What that paper did is put an effective program, against the terrorists, in jeopardy (yet again). And you guys blame everybody (and anybody) but them. Nice.

Seminole6-
If Al Gore had become president,we would have had a real attempt at halting global warming,a real consensus on participation in the illegal war in Iraq,and probably Osama bin Laden in GITMO.

I always thought that Gore was smart,but a little bit of a stiff. When I saw him,tie off, drinking a Heiniken and dancing,I was pleasantly surprized. This was in the N.Y. papers right after Bush stole the election of course.

Would I vote for Gore again? Frankly yes, I see him as perhaps a little intellectual for joe 6 pack to warm up to,but a intelligent and thoughtful person who would bring honor back to the White HOuse.

Semenole 6;

I see you drank the KKKarl koolaide. But you ask: Who would I rather have at the helm? Anyone you listed would be better than the stupid Chimp and his evil puppetmaster Dr. Zell.
Al Gore, and Kerry, are both excellent patriotic Americans. Even Lieberman and I don’t know who Breck girl is (Pelosi?) would be better. In fact, I’d rather have Al Shartpton or the Gong Show guy at the helm.

jbod,
I see quite clearly. I see you don’t see that I view the analogy as irrelevent. Comparing the Nazi threat with what used to be a small group of marginalized terrorists is invalid. You also refuse to see that I view the Bush administration as not deserving of our trust and that their constant denials and lies and abuse of authority need to be revealed at the minor cost of exposure and doubtful benefit of their nefarious activities.

Rahdigly-
Tried for Sedition? That’s defined as “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority”.

Wikipedia goes farther than that in defining Sedition:

Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

I don’t know, but it sounds like what Bush and the Republicans have been doing for the last few years!

Good heavens! If you’re going accuses us of being traitors, don’t get your legal terms confused.

Dave1:

I didn’t compare the Nazi threat to the Islamo-terrorist threat. I compared two examples of an opportunity to reveal secrets. You missed the logical part of the example that fit, instead focusing on the part that wasn’t in comparison.

If I compared your wife to mine, and said they both have brown hair, that might be correct. You could still say, though, that our wives are nothing alike, and that could be correct too. I am not qualified as a teacher of logic, so perhaps you might have to learn about comparisons from someone more capable of teaching you than I am.

I recognize that you don’t trust the Bush administration. That’s your right and I’m sure you have some valid reasons for your mindset. But lets focus on the SWIFT thing specifically. What abuse of authority is there in this? What part of it is “nefarious”? You seem to think it has “doubtful benefit”, but if I’m not mistaken, its resulted in the tracking and capture of terrorists. Now, we know that operations like this never trumpet their successes, since that would give away the operation, so we don’t really know how effective its been. But you seem to be saying it has been ineffective. Is that your intent, or have I misstated your opinion?

In case you’re wondering, the lawful authority is the constitution.

even when he is completely correct and the NY “Crimes” is absolutely wrong (wrong, wrong!).

Oh! It’s a new game! Before it was labelling my side as American to avoid actual debate (after all, if I’m American, the other side is unpatriotic). This time, it’s repetition. Apparently, all I have to do to win a debate is call people I disagree with names and say that they’re wrong three times.

Does it have to be three times? Would two or four times work? Let’s see what the Bible says:

And the Lord spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the namecalling. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy protestation of correctness towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

I guess three it is!

Wow. This is so much easier than thinking or debating.

The only people who think the NY Times deserves to be prosecuted are those who feel the Presidency should have Imperial power and not be answerable to anyone for anything. The BUSH administration has time and again lied and deceived the American Republic about its motives and actions and the corporate owned press has failed America in not making sure BUSH was held accountable for his actions.

The NY Times should win a Pulitzer Prize for these stories, not be attacked by rabid ideological zealots. The most important freedom for democracies is freedom of the press. But the GOP is so totally intolerant of dissent these days that they define opposition to GOP policies as anti-Americanism, which is hogwash.

The reason the GOP is squealing like a stuck pig is they do not believe they should ever be held accountable for thier actions and mistakes.

Katrina, Iraq, Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, dishonest elections, domestic spying, lying to start needless wars, changing House rules to protect criminals like Tom DeLAY, ignoring global warming, failing to renew the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc.

An unbroken track record of avoiding responsibilty and not being honest with the American public.

When the GOP attacks the press they are attacking the very foundation of our Democracy. Shame on them, foul false patriots!

walja

Earth to rahdigly,

“The NY “Crimes†broke the law and they must be punished. If the clowns out there, that “pretend†to uphold the constituiton, truly believe in the “Nation of Laws†then, they would admit that the NY “Treasonous†Times should be tried for sedition. What that paper did is put an effective program, against the terrorists, in jeopardy (yet again). And you guys blame everybody (and anybody) but them. Nice.”

What part of the First Amendment don’t you understand?

That aside, do you understand this information was available from the White House in October 2001?
You just can’t release a statement and then make reporting the details of it nearly 5 years later a crime.

Besides, even if this was an actual “crime”, why aren’t you placing the blame where it actually belongs?
That would be whoever “leaked” it to the Times.
Could it be, that person might be a Republican?

That would put you in a hell of a mess now, wouldn’t it?

Stephen,
“Tried for Sedition? That’s defined as “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority”

Yes, that’s correct, they were resistant towards effective programs that helped this country hunt down and beat the enemy. In fact, the NY “Treasonous” Times was more like Al Jazeer than an American paper; the “Crimes” did a better job helping the enemy than Al Jazeer could. Ridiculous! And, so are the people that can’t figure out (or have the moral courage to admit) that what that paper did is “unAmerican”!!!!!!

Lawnboy, you don’t know how to debate. Besides, you’ve been debunked (bigtime!) with the marines that were being held in shackles at Camp Pendelton without being charged. They’ve finally taken off the shackles b/c of the protests of the families and fellow conservatives (talk radio in particular); and nowhere was the ACLU to be found, nowhere!! Your buddies didn’t even bother to help their fellow countrymen!

rah,

huh? How was I debunked? How on earth does the presence or absence of shackles at Camp Pendleton address the issue that I addressed: your stubborn inability to raise a valid argument, and your vain reliance on bad tricks instead of logic?

So sad.

“What part of the First Amendment don’t you understand?”

I understand the Constitution just fine. In fact, I want to know where (in the Constitution) did the President break the Law with this program? Hmmm?!! Where?!

I imagine that the NY Times takes great pride in the kind of people that they really piss of, I know I respect them more for that very same reason.

Usually, the ones who represent the most danger to a country are the ones who drape themselves with the most PATRIOTIC garb. I’ve not seen any calls for criminal indictments against Novak…

rahdigly,

“In fact, I want to know where (in the Constitution) did the President break the Law with this program? Hmmm?!! Where?!”

So typical.

Don’t have an answer for being shown wrong?
Just change the subject.

rahdigly -

When did this argument become about the President breaking the law?

The president tells the people we are doing everything we can to interupt the flow of finances to the terrorists. The NYT tells the people the name of the presidents program is SWIFT.The NYT are traitors?

The president isn’t a traitor for warning the terrorists but the media is. Can you say doublespeak?

One organization that was funding the terrorists was Dubai Ports World. The president wanted to give them a contract to run our ports. Another and probably the greatest funder of the terrorists is Saudi Arabia. The president sure has punished them. There is something awfully wrong going on here.

I know what Bush is thinking about the terrorist issues & Saudi…

It’s a problem that has to be addressed, it needs immediate attention… but when the Saudi Royal Prince holds your hand, well …. things get all dreamy and confused.

Ok, liberals have been debunked. Now if we can just debunk George and Carl. This one will probably be adios for me again.

I’ll bet I can already guess what the next leak will be about, the Government has been going through your medical records. What else is left? Oh, it makes me wonder, does the Government go through and read our mail that goes to and from overseas? Why not, a terrorst may be sending someone in America a greeting card! Heck, maybe they should read all mail, how do they know that domestic terrorists are not coresponding through the mail? I demand that the U.S. Government open all mail to stop the boogyman!

rahdigly,

Did any of the troops contact the ACLU for representation?

rahdigly,

It is only a crime if the law that says it’s a crime is Constitutional. The Constitution clearly stipulates a free press. It also clearly stipulates a need for search warrants. Who actually committed the crime here?

The ACLU dropped the ball on this one; these soldiers have rights under the constitution (especially when they defend the constitution for a living) and the ACLU didn’t defend them. Why?!

I may be wrong here, but can’t the ACLU only get involed in a case if they have a defendant willing to accept their services? Before you can say that the ACLU wouldn’t represent these troops, you need to show that the troops asked the ACLU for representation and the ACLU turned them down. How do you know that the ACLU did not offer their services and the troops turned the ACLU down? Do you have a source that says either of these things did or did not happened?

Strang that we have seen no polls on how the public feels about this act of espionage. I think you libs are going to be quite shocked at the real folks feel about this issue. Malkin has a great letter from a U.S. colonel in Baghdad—he is none too pleased.

I’m guessing that almost no democrat politician is backing these actions. The overlooked tragedy here is te real cost in American lives—both military and civilian.

The ultimate villain is the leaker. Probably a holdover from the Clinton era.

Rahdigly-
First, Sedition is not that common of a charge anymore because it really got abused by people, people who were looking to silence the discussions amongst the populace grumbling against the leaders.

It’s also a covert act. Those newspapers publishing this would not qualify, as it is a public act to publish. Sooooo, you’re just wrong, according to the more complete definition given on Wikipedia.

As for the spiel that follows, I think you excite a lot of disagreement, but you don’t encourage a lot of conversion to your side.

Time and again, we get these articles and comments suggesting that somehow the Republicans have scored another great victory in their fight against the liberals. It gets tiring after a while.

Can’t you folks discuss things without the name-calling? It seems to replace those nice little things like arguments, facts, examples and anecdotes that tend to make up civil discourse. You expect us to react as if everything has been settle aside from our submission to your revealed truth. One tiny hitch: you folks often fail to make the necessary arguments first, and you duck issues like whether Bush’s program is even legal to begin with.

Having our CINC breaking the laws he is supposed to uphold (up to and including the constitution) is a bad idea, not the least because his job is to uphold them. He has one of the most compliant rubber-stamp congresses of all time that has been very reticent to refuse him on matters of national security. How is it, then, that he cannot be bothered to found the programs ensuring our safey and security on solid stone of the law? Isn’t that the conservative thing to do? Isn’t that his duty as president?

So long as he believe he can break any law, flout any civil liberty he wants to under the color of law, there will be people believe that taking actions which can justifiably be called illegal are necessary to rein his excesses in. If Bush submits to the law, then nobody has any excuses whatsoever to break it themselves. Bush cannot act like the first hypocrite, breaking the law to save the country, while consigning others who believe they are doing the same to jail.

So tell me, Rahdigly, how does the president have authority to enforce these laws when he breaks the laws himself in his allegedly heroic actions? Hmmm?

I have junked a number of comments that were entirely off topic and devolved into personal critiques instead of critiques of what is written about the article posted above.

My next step is to start removing access to comment here at all from those who will not comply with our Rules for Participation.

I apologize, WatchBlog Managing Editor. Thanks for the shove back on the right path.

I am going to start two classes for liberals. ACLU history 100 (you got to take 100 before 101) and elementary reading beginning at the second class elementary level.

What goes around comes around. Isn’t it funny how Cheney wants to start an investigation now, but when he orchestrated the leaking of Valerie Plane’s name, he did and has done everything in his power to hold the investigation? Oh well, I say: lead by example.

Well, Rahdigly, et al, you can stop hyperventilating now.

Information that the Bush administration has been watching SWIFT transactions goes back to 2002 on a UN site. John has just published an entry on it on the Blue column.

According to that report from the UN(I’m quoting the item in the blog completely):

The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.[emphasis mine]

So not only is this open knowledge, it’s also been recommended as standard practice. Y’all are telling us to hide the light under the Bush-el basket, I suppose.

tomh-
Read the post before you, for your own sake.

The intent was announced;

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 20, 2001

Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

“Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

“We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world.”

The President himself announced this in a joint session of Congress.

Notice the date.

Stephen,
“First, Sedition is not that common of a charge anymore because it really got abused by people, people who were looking to silence the discussions amongst the populace grumbling against the leaders.”

Well, it (certainly) needs to be “abused” (again and again) on the NY Treasonous Times, that’s for sure. They violated the U.S. criminal code and they, and the people who leaked it, are guilty and need to be punished (severely).

People this is (exactly) why you can’t be against the war and still “claim” to support the troops. It doesn’t work. Abu Gharib, Gitmo, Haditha, NSA surveillance program and (now) this financial records are all (perfect) examples of why you have to support the mission in order to support our troops (and America). If you’re anti-war/Bush, it’s knee-jerk reaction to everything and they want to see our politicians lose (which means America loses) in order to show their distatse for our (elected!) officials. That’s not right and it’s extremely dangerous b/c we have good Americans (and America) in the middle of your hatred. So, chew on that for awhile.

Jayjay,
“I may be wrong here, but can’t the ACLU only get involed in a case if they have a defendant willing to accept their services?”

That’s not correct. They don’t wait for people to come to them, they’re allowed to go to them. The argument (for them) is that they defend all Americans (they defended Schivo’s husband, death row criminals, terrorists, etc.), yet not the marines, you’d think they would go out of there way to defend them (that is if they were truly for Americans).

Rock, your argument, that Bush called on all nations to help in this war, is absurd; there’s no way that “outing” a (successful) covert program against the enemy (hint: that’s the islamofacists) is considered “all nation’s helping out”. The Treasonous times got caught (bigtime) and there’s no argument that can (reasonably and logically) defend them. They’re busted and now they must face the music; regardless of whether you want to “change the tune”.

As I’ve said elsewhere, the NYT couldn’t care less about national security.

Their publisher, Pinch Sulzberger, was self-quoted saying he prefered American soldier deaths to Viet Cong deaths.

So much for the “support the troops, not the mission” concept.

His statement was more likely sedition than treason, but, whatever it was legally, it’s definitely anti-American.

He has now decided that the NYT is the final arbiter of what is and isn’t to be secret.

The 9-11 Commission called on the US government to do more to find the terrorists before they strike.

Now that we are… and even NYT editor Bill (?) Weller told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “We don’t quarrel that the program has been successful”… the NYT finds the idea of tracing terror funding somehow undemocratic and illegal.

Yes, we need to find the leaker(s) of this information… My suspicion is that Dem congressmen are involved, including Rep. Jack Murtha… and possibly government bureaucrats… and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

That message needs to be sent loudly and clearly.

If I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby can be prosecuted for lying to a grand jury about telling a reporter Valerie Plame worked for the CIA… which any reader of Vanity Fair and attendees of swank Georgetown cocktail parties already knew… then the person(s) exposing this legal and covert operation to defeat terrorism should be prosecuted as well.

Then maybe the supply of informants to the NYT would dry up and Pinch wouldn’t have any more Americans he wanted to see dead.

Swarm forms to the left.

I vote to prosecute the NYT for sedition. It is time to stop this. The appropriate members of Congress were informed about the details