The Treasonous Times Must Be Prosecuted!

The New York Times has once again escalated its Journalistic Jihad against the American people, proving beyond all doubt that the Times’ personal interests violently clash with America’s public interest.

On Friday, the NY Times broke the story of Ameica's SWIFT program that has helped to protect the American people against terrorist attacks both at home and abroad. On Saturday, the Times revealed US plans to reduce the number of American combat brigades in Iraq from 14 to 5 or 6. Both stories were based on classified information that the Times was not at liberty to divulge. More importantly, the publication of either story could have severe repercussions for the American people as well as our troops abroad, including the loss of life.

Speaking earlier today, President Bush assailed the press for publishing the story against the recommendations of high ranking government officials:

"The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

Days earlier, Vice President Cheney expressed similar outrage:

"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people."

Still, the harshest response to the mainstream media (MSM) -- and the Times specifically -- was delivered by Representative Peter King (R-NY). King is urging Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez to bring crimninal charges against the Times and other news organizations that chose to publish the classified information.

King said he will write [the Attorney General] . . . urging the nation's chief law enforcer [to] "begin an investigation and prosecution of the New York Times -- the reporters, the editors and the publisher. . . . We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King said.

While those on the left -- and a few on the right -- will surely argue that prosecuting the Times would be an unwarranted response, the charges must be levied nevertheless. In fact, if President Bush fails to pressure AG Gonzalez into filing the charges, then he too bears a significant portion of the responsibility.

America today is engaged in a War on Terror, which is being constantly undermined by the MSM. The Times in particular has published classified materials on three separate occasions in as many months, and they have done so with impunity. President Bush has no right to protest if he is unwilling to take the necessary steps to prevent further violations against the American people. If exposing the SWIFT program does, in fact, pose a security risk, as President Bush suggests, then he has a duty to act. Otherwise, he too is complicit in the endangerment of Americans lives.

The crime that the MSM is guilty of is clearly expressed in Section 798 of the Espionage Act:

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.

AG Gonzalez must bring charges against the Times and other media outlets, whether he can successfully prosecute them or not. After all, even a failed prosecution will yield a successful result: the MSM will definitely think twice before publishing classified information in the future.

When members of the Bush Administration and other government officials urged the Times to bury the story, they did so with legal precedence. While the First Amendment protects press freedom, it is not a blanket freedom absent of limitations. The constitutional rights of all people and organizations end where that of another person or organization begins.

The media's role as a government watchdog was conceived in order to protect the American people, not to endanger them. The editor of the Times, Bill Keller, recognizes that America's national security cannot be violated, absent of strong extenuating circumstances -- such as criminal activity. No such criminal activity was implied in the Times piece.

Moreover, both republican and democratic officials warned Keller that publishing the story did, in fact, violate national security. His decision to publish the piece in spite of those warnings effects a dangerous precedent: it allows newspapers to decide what does and does not constitute a national security risk.

The Washington bureau chief of the LA Times, Doyle McManus, made a similar decision to expose the SWIFT operation against strong warnings. He too must be prosecuted.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an article on SWIFT as well, but like many other organizations in the MSM, the WSJ did so after the story already broke and, therefore, without warnings from government officials. If there's a law against stupidity and carelessness, then the decisionmaker at the WSJ and other media outlets should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Innovative programs like the SWIFT operation are vital to America's War on Terrorism and the anti-Bush sentiment that pervades the media cannot obscure that fact. A war has been levied against the American people in general, and the Bush Administration in specific, by a MSM that seeks to constantly undermine our efforts both at home and abroad. In this particular case, Jihad Journalists have crossed legal boundaries. Again, if President Bush refuses to take action, then he too is criminally liable and completely unfit to run our country.

Related Article: National Security Be Damned! Says NY And LA Times

Updates available at PartisanTimes.com.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 26, 2006 9:00 PM
Comments
Comment #162039

Doc,

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

Posted by: Rocky at June 26, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #162041

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.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #162043

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?

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 26, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #162045

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.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #162047

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

Posted by: Einghf at June 26, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #162059

“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.

Posted by: myles at June 26, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #162060

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
Comment #162066

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 !!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #162068

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.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 26, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #162072

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?

Posted by: JR at June 26, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #162073

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.

Posted by: kp at June 26, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #162077

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.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 26, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #162079

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. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #162080

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.

Posted by: Aldous at June 26, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #162083

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.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #162085

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.

Posted by: JR at June 26, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #162087

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?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #162089

JR, your link does not go anywhere.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #162090

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.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #162091

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

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at June 26, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #162092

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.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 26, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #162095

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?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #162096

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.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 26, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #162100

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?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #162103

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.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #162104

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

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #162105

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.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 26, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #162106

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.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 26, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #162107

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.

Posted by: JR at June 27, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #162113

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

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

Posted by: 037 at June 27, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #162114

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.

Posted by: JR at June 27, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #162116

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.

Posted by: Joe at June 27, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #162117

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.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #162118

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

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #162119

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

Posted by: Allen at June 27, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #162123

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.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #162125
“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.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 27, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #162128

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!

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 27, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #162129

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.

Posted by: gergle at June 27, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #162131

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.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 27, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #162143

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

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 27, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #162144

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.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 3:26 AM
Comment #162145

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.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 3:32 AM
Comment #162147

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.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 27, 2006 3:55 AM
Comment #162149

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.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 27, 2006 5:01 AM
Comment #162154

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…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 27, 2006 5:51 AM
Comment #162158

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.

Posted by: Aldous at June 27, 2006 6:54 AM
Comment #162164

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.

Posted by: Rocky at June 27, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #162165

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…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 27, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #162167

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.

Posted by: nick at June 27, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #162172

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.

Posted by: norm at June 27, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #162173

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?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #162174

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.

Posted by: pige at June 27, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #162175

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.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 27, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #162177

“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.

Posted by: nikkolai at June 27, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #162178

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?

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 27, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #162182

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.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 27, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #162184

“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!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #162187

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!

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #162193

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.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 27, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #162196

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.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 27, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #162197

“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?

Posted by: DavidL at June 27, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #162198

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.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 27, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #162202

“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.


Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #162205
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.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #162207

Dave1:

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

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 27, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #162208

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.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 27, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #162209
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.
And this doesn’t apply to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove because…? And freedom of the press (remember that First Amendment thing?) doesn’t apply to the Times because…?

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).

Posted by: Gerry at June 27, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #162210

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #162211

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #162217
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.
If one were to penalty price shop, treason violations cost much less than showing a nipple on prime time tv. Just something to think about while you are forming your lynch mob. Posted by: europheus at June 27, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #162228


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.

Posted by: jlw at June 27, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #162230

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.

Posted by: jblym at June 27, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #162231

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.

Posted by: gergle at June 27, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #162237

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.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 27, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #162246

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.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at June 27, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #162247

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

Posted by: chantico at June 27, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #162248

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.

Posted by: tomh at June 27, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #162251

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.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 27, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #162255

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.

Posted by: nick at June 27, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #162256

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.

Posted by: max at June 27, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #162258

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.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 27, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #162260

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.


Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #162262

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.

Posted by: jblym at June 27, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #162263

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.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 27, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #162268

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #162269

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?

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at June 27, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #162272

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

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #162273
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.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #162274

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

Posted by: walja at June 27, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #162279

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?

Posted by: Rocky at June 27, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #162282

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!


Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #162283

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.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #162285

“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?!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #162286

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…

Posted by: tony at June 27, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #162287

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.

Posted by: Rocky at June 27, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #162288

rahdigly -

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

Posted by: tony at June 27, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #162290


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?

Posted by: jlw at June 27, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #162292


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.

Posted by: jlw at June 27, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #162294

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.

Posted by: tony at June 27, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #162313


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

Posted by: jlw at June 27, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #162336

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?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 27, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #162344

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?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 27, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #162345
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?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 27, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #162348

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.

Posted by: nikkolai at June 27, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #162352

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?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #162355

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.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at June 27, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #162358

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

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #162361

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.

Posted by: tomh at June 27, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #162366

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.

Posted by: Lead by Example at June 27, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #162369

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #162371

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

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #162373

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.

Posted by: Rocky at June 27, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #162393

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”.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #162394

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.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #162404

I vote to prosecute the NYT for sedition. It is time to stop this. The appropriate members of Congress were informed about the details of this program. The only purpose the NYT could have had in publishing this info was to harm the U.S. strategy to defend itself against terrorists. (And, of course, to make money.)

Posted by: Don at June 27, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #162405
They don’t wait for people to come to them, they’re allowed to go to them.

rahdigly,

Ok, but I asked you if you had a source that confirms that did or did not happen.

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?
Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 27, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #162419

Jayjay, they’re lawers; lawyers don’t have to wait for someone come to them. Besides, to answer your question, the ACLU doesn’t say they have to wait to defend someone.


The fact is, Jay, the ACLU had a tremendous opportunity to defend the rights of people (our troops) who defend our rights with their lives. Yet, they didn’t represent them. Any lawyer can defend anyone they want (quid pro quo and all); the fact that the ACLU didn’t represent them, yet they represent criminals and terrorists (on a routine basis), instead of our troops. Nice. They’re ridiculous and a detriment to America. And, when they start representing people like our soldiers (instead of criminals, illegals, and terrorists), on a routine basis, then I’ll change my position on the ACLU. Until then, I’ll call it like I see them.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #162432

rah,

We gave you dozens of examples of the ACLU representing churches. Do you consider them in the same league as “criminals, illegals, and terrorists”? Or do you just want to hate the ACLU no matter what the facts show?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #162436

Don said: “The appropriate members of Congress were informed about the details of this program.”

So was the entire world by the White House itself back in 2001. There was no secret here. The UN published about this some time ago for the whole world to read about. You can’t reveal a secret and then hope to prosecute others for talking about it. The White House AND State Department revealed tracking of international funds of terrorists years ago. And Bush has made references to it in his speeches.

I know, I apologize for throwing facts in here. They are so confusing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #162441

DRR:

Announcing that we’re going after terrorists by tracking their funds is one thing…

Reporting the details of how we’re actually accomplishing it is quite another.

FDR and Churchill… and probably Stalin as well… told the world we would fight the German army… but, they didn’t let the media tell the Germans where, with what weapons and on which dates.

If you really can’t see the difference, then you need to visit a Sears Optical shop. :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #162444

DRR:

Following your logic…

If everyone who attended swanky Georgetown cocktail parties… or anyone who ever met her hubby, “Lying” Joe Wilson… knew Valerie Plame worked at the CIA…

Then where is the crime in telling a reporter about it?

Or in the reporter’s newspaper publishing it?

Let’s not create a lib double standard here.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #162450

I think even though there are so many here who can not stand the other’s party, we do at least love our country enough to keep watch. Presidents come and go, and Bush will too. (I like President Bush) then what else will we have to hate each other about? We need to stand united against terrorists, stop passing the blame and together try to build American pride. Home first and then abroad. Great minds with ideas like Kennedy’s Peace Corps that improved American image with other countries. We are all so busy arguing with ourselves we have forgotten how to stand side by side and look toward the good of the nation instead of the good of the party.

Posted by: Christina at June 27, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #162453

Right-of-way, right on! That is a very credible analogy of WWII and “telling the world we’re going to fight the enemy and need everyone’s help” without “outing” our country. The fact is that the Treasonous Times issue is a no win for them; yet, they will not concede the fact that they broke the law and they have to face the music. Remember, some of the bloggers, defending the crimes, are the same people that say “were a nation of laws”. These are facts that they can’t come to grip with. Yet, we know exactly who they are and what they believe.

If the NY “Treasonous Crimes” would have done that in WWII; I (truly) believe, that we would be speaking German right now. The left in this country are destructive and this newspaper story (“outing”) is yet another example of that.

Lawnboy, I’ve said that until I see them (actually) defend someone like the troops (instead of terrorists), then I’ll change my mind. They didn’t and so my mind will not change. The ACLU are a detriment(IMO) to this (great) country and that’s the way they molded themselves in many of our fellow Americans’ eyes. Period!

Christina, good post. I concur! The problem is hatred and, people with hate, don’t see that fact that we are (indeed) a country and that, whether you like the leaders or not, they are defending our country. Sometimes, we are fighting the enemy within, as well as the real enemy…

Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #162455

Christina,

That’s why I asked our lib posters:

Our troops are in Iraq fighting and dying… Why can’t you just agree to win this thing and bring them home?

But they’d rather rant about things already done and past.

I can’t explain it… And, I haven’t received an answer yet.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #162463

Right of Way asked: “Then where is the crime in telling a reporter about it?”

Did I say there was a crime in this off topic subject. Stay on topic and don’t attribute to others what they have not said.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #162464

Right of Way. The WHITE HOUSE SAID THEY WERE TRACKING THE FUNDS. There was no secret and the NYT did not reveal anything the White House had not already revealed save for the acronym SWIFT which absolutely did no harm to America. SWIFT is world wide public knowledge, the UN makes frequent references to it.

My glasses are fine. It’s funky thinking I try to address.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #162466

Hate mongers: people who spread aversion and disturbance. I have gotten caught up in this negative waste of time. I have a love it or leave it kind of love for America but they will twist and argue, just for that sake. I have to just agree to disagree with so many. If only we took this much energy into researching the candidate in elections politics and start making informed voting choices. Then we can rise above the mud slinging, and know without any doubt about who closely votes the way we want them to; the way we would vote for the good of the country instead of good of party. Unquestionably we can all learn to raise above all the hate.

Posted by: Christina at June 27, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #162477

The bottom line is that the Treasonus times and the LA “slimes” helped the terrorists and hurt the US. There was no reason to run this story and yet, they did it anyway in the guise of “America’s right to know”. They don’t know better than our elected officials; there was no reason to run this story whatsoever.


And, I’m tired of bloggers ingnoring the fact that these two newpapers broke the law.

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information… concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States… shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added].”


Dispute that fact (of law)!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #162494

Soldiers fall ill, decontaminate after finding sarin nerve agent
Knight Ridder Newspapers | April 7, 2003 | Tom Lasseter

ALBU MUHAWISH, Iraq - U.S. soldiers evacuated an Iraqi military compound early Monday after tests by a mobile laboratory detected the presence of sarin, a powerful nerve agent.


Tom Lasseter


US Marines backtrack on chemical arms report
Monday, April 14 2003 11:01 Hrs (IST)

Officers with the Marine’s 1st Battalion, 5th Regiment, said the canisters were found on April 12 in a Baghdad schoolyard among large stocks of ammunition.

But battalion officers backed off an earlier claim that they had found likely blister agents in 278 artillery shells.


If you click the following link you must scroll down and click the link again.
My apologies

Last Update: Monday, April 14, 2003. 9:29am (AEST)
US forces test canisters for chemical weapons

Marines in Baghdad initially claimed to have found nearly 300 artillery shells which had tested positive to chemical agents. That claim was later revised to five canisters.

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
Monday, May 17, 2004

The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found

Fox News’ Wendell Goler, Steve Harrigan, Ian McCaleb, Liza Porteus, James Rosen and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Democrats Criticize Claim on Iraqi Arms
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Friday 23 June 2006

At issue is a classified overview of chemical munitions found in Iraq since 2003 that was completed in April by the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center. One of the report’s key findings was that since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, coalition forces have recovered about 500 shells, canisters or other munitions that contain degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent.


“Why We Know Iraq is Lying”
By Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq’s concealment activities.


Why is this coming out now? Why the big deal about a gross of shells that were found buried in the desert? Why do the media and the holderoners have to question this now, when they didn’t question it in 2003 or 2004?

Because the unaccounted-for munitions have now been accounted for. Because now that they are all accounted for the leak to the press would be harmless. The enemy can’t go looking for these bombs because there are no more.

Thank you who are responsible, for holding your tongue while these unaccounted-for munitions were found.

Posted by: pfclarue at June 27, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #162505
Any lawyer can defend anyone they want (quid pro quo and all); the fact that the ACLU didn’t represent them, yet they represent criminals and terrorists (on a routine basis), instead of our troops. Nice.

rahdigly,

So, what you are saying is that if I get accused of a crime, just any old lawyer that wants to represent me can without my consent? That is a new one.

Sure any lawyer may offer to represent me in a legal case, but if I turn their offer down, they have no right to be involved in my defense.

You are making accusations about the ACLU without knowing the facts. Did the ACLU offer to represent these troops and their offer refused? I don’t know and apparently neither do you since you cannot give me a straight answer. Do you know for sure, and can you cite sources, that the ACLU did not offer their services to these troops? Yes or no?

And, I’m tired of bloggers ingnoring the fact that these two newpapers broke the law.

If prosecutors believe that the NYT broke the law and they think that a prosecution will be upheld, then by all means let them test the law and see if the courts, including the SCOTUS, will uphold that law as Constitutional. I have a feeling that prosecutors and even the President do not have enough confidence in the Constitutionality of such a prosecution that they will not even pursue it beyond their rhetoric.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 27, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #162513

Jay,
“So, what you are saying is that if I get accused of a crime, just any old lawyer that wants to represent me can without my consent? That is a new one.”


That’s not even close to what I said. Try again.

“Sure any lawyer may offer to represent me in a legal case, but if I turn their offer down, they have no right to be involved in my defense.”


Where’s your proof that the soldiers turned them down; or that the ACLU even attempted to defend them?!

“If prosecutors believe that the NYT broke the law and they think that a prosecution will be upheld, then by all means let them test the law and see if the courts, including the SCOTUS, will uphold that law as Constitutional. I have a feeling that prosecutors and even the President do not have enough confidence in the Constitutionality of such a prosecution that they will not even pursue it beyond their rhetoric.”


The only reason (that I see) the Bush admin won’t prosecute is b/c they wouldn’t want to expose secret operations during the process of a trial.

The fact is that you (certainly) didn’t respond to the actual law. I posted it and even gave you the quote. I said the “bloggers” aren’t responding to this fact; not prosecuters. Are you arguing (with the facts) that this isn’t a violation of the US Criminal Code? Because it’s a law and the newspapers (and the leakers) certainly broke that law. Do you agree that we are a nation of laws? If so, do you think it’s ok for the press to break those laws and (then) hide behind the first amendment?!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 27, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #162519

rahdigly,

“And, I’m tired of bloggers ingnoring the fact that these two newpapers broke the law”

Actually, rahdigly, I posted that law in the article. Not all bloggers are ignoring it.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 27, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #162527

jbod,

Again, how is Churchill deciding to sacrifice Coventry equivalent to revealing probably illegal activities by the gov’t? Since you deny my relating threat to the issue, there is no “what higher purpose” in your argument, only what I’ve repeatedly said was an invalid analogy.

BTW, the only people claiming any benefit from any of this are the executive branch. If there was any third party oversight of these programs I might be inclined to give some benefit of the doubt. But given the absolute disregard for the rule of law by this administration, I give them 0 benefit. To keep om believing the BushCo mantra of “trust us” is simply mind numbing to me.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 27, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #162528
Where’s your proof that the soldiers turned them down; or that the ACLU even attempted to defend them?!

Rah, you’re the one making the claim; the burden of proof is on you. You think you’ve debunked our statements from the past (when you have just ignored the evidence you don’t like), so the burden is on you to show that your current claims about the ACLU are correct, and that they disprove our previous statements.

The burden of proof is on you.

I know you think that you’re always right. Unfortunately for you, that’s not enough for either logic or debate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #162531

Dr.Politico-
No, from the looks of it you posted bits and pieces. Do us all a favor and present us with the full text.

Rahdigly-
The President is breaking the law by applying the surveillance he is. The people who leaked this information are breaking the law. They likely broke the law because they felt that the secrecy surrounding these programs hid serious ethical and legal infractions.

If the president the president can break the law to save America, why can’t the New York Times. If the president can reveal top secret information to back his agenda, why can’t the New York times reveal the same to sell papers? The New York Times is only following Bush’s example. If they go down for revealing secret information, then it should only be fair for the New Democrat Majority to take Bush down for all of his little excesses. It’s only fair, rule of law and all.

As for this?

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.

This is why you people are going to lose more and more as each election comes. To put it quite simply, these are things you keep hidden from Americans because Americans, looking at these things, don’t like what they see. Americans are a moral people, brought up to believe that we are civilized, humane, and that we are a free society. Now Bush’s policies have us looking like a bunch of paranoid hypocrites.

Have you ever considered that it is our reaction to all these fiascos that are adding up to our feelings on Bush? That he is not as indispensable to America’s destiny as he thinks he is? America has survived good presidents and bad, World Wars and great depressions, and you think that only by the efforts of one man can it be saved? That is the sheer arrogance of the Bush Apologists. To quote the venerable Tina Turner, “We don’t need another hero.” We got enough of them in our armed forces, among our police and our firefighters. We do not need the second coming of George Bush to see our way out of this crisis in our nation’s history. Given all the things he’s screwed up, leaving him behind on the ash heap of history might do the country a favor in those terms.

We needed somebody who actually had a decent idea of how to run a government, to assemble a policy apparatus, and not just a political one. We need somebody who could stay in Washington, put his nose to grindstone, and use the facts, not his preconceptions, to shape policy.

Right Of Way-
It’s not much of a defense, but when asked by his father who he would prefer to see get killed in a confrontation between an American Soldier and A North Vietnamese soldier, the explanation was explained by him saying that it was their country. Still, if what you wanted to do was demonstrate his unrepentant liberalism, you will have to explain why he backed Judith Miller in both the War in Iraq, and in keeping Scooter Libby’s secrets. Why would he essentially back the president’s position and back Judith Miller in keeping her mouth shut?

On the subject of Vanity Fair, let me lay it out for you in unequivocal terms: she was already outed by the time of that pictorial. Additionally, the most Cocktail party attendees probably heard about Valerie Wilson was that she worked in energy. She wasn’t so deep cover that he couldn’t admit she existed. Patrick Fitzgerald, known for his thoroughness, found no previous revelation by them or anybody else to the public.

As for this “swarm forms to the left?” You bet it does. And right now, the facts give our hives the better stings. You can tell because of all the hyperventilating some of you folks do on the right when we make our points!

Don-
The trouble is, only eight people in the entire legislature are being told about these things, not even the entire intelligence committees! No wonder policy’s getting screwed up. it’s the blind leading the blind out here. If these people are being asked to represent us in making the decisions that matter, they, like us, should be better informed of things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #162538

rahdigly,

As Lawnboy said you are the accuser. The burden of proof is in your corner, not mine.

Maybe I missed it in the above comments but exactly which civil liberties of the troops have been violated? I thought that case was a criminal case. The ACLU does not take criminal cases that I am aware of, no matter who you are. As far as I know, they only handle cases where someone’s civil liberties have been violated. If there is some sort of violation in their civil liberties during a criminal trial then I am sure they would be more than happy to step in.

As for your other point, yes we are nation of laws, whose laws are dictated by the U.S. Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution then it is not a law at all. Again, if prosecutors believe that a law was broken then by all means they should prosecute if they believe it would not be overturned by the court system as unconstitutional.

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.” ~Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 27, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #162542

That makes me wonder what kind of country this would be if our founding fathers felt the way today’s Cons do. Certainly no free press.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 27, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #162554

If the the would have done their job in fall of 02 and ? the administration false statemant about Sadams ties to Osam bin Ladin And thert of nucluar weapons We might not been in this mess.If quetionable secret gathering of information is not brought to light we will begoing down a slipery slope It reminds me of Left Behind series of book where the mining of people private lives was gatherd and Stored in super Computer and later used against them in the rise of the anti Christ.

Posted by: Earl at June 27, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #162558

Oh my god! I can’t believe the NY Times printed the SWIFT info! I’m sure it came as a BIG surprise to terrorists that the U.S. was tracking their money. Fancy that!

Posted by: pianofan at June 27, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #162571

Rahdigly said: “And, I’m tired of bloggers ingnoring the fact that these two newpapers broke the law.”

What law? The Espionage Act? Tell me, what foreign nation did they sell secret information too? The White House ASKED them not to publish the story. If the White House was that concerned, why did the AG not acquire a court ordered injunction against publishing the story? Answer! Because they couldn’t. The White House had already gone on record for years in announcements and public speeches that we were tracking terrorists banking activities.

DUH! The White House did this to rally their base. Fact is, they have no legal standing. And if they did, then you should be hopping mad that your President did not seek an injunction to protect our nation. The White House was in talks with the NYT on this story for a month before they printed it.

Yes, you should be directing your disappointment at the President and Attorney General if you believe they had legal standing to gag the NYT. Just another example of their incompetence at the helm of American government. All that power and no competence to wield it. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Can’t have it both ways, Rah. Well, not logically anyway.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #162598

Stephen,

“No, from the looks of it you posted bits and pieces. Do us all a favor and present us with the full text.”

Give me a break. Show me how I distorted the meaning. I presented the part of the law that deals with publication. Also, the link was available, so don’t think for one minute that I was hiding something. THere are a lot of alternatives that the law speaks to, you know, or this or that. I presented the “or” that fits.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 28, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #162610

As we argue over the intent of the law and OED versus Merriam Webster , the administration is achieving its goal: To marginalise the entire press; especially print media. After all, everyone loves to hate the NYT and WP…Elitist disseminators of the liberal and morally bankrupt agenda. So we now have the Supremes that have made whistle blowers think twice, an administration bent on establishing the imperial Presidency ascendant, and a judicial that has succeeded in locking up journalist and tearing down the curtain of protected sources.

Never mind that every international and domestic organization engaged in illegal criminal activity is going duhhhh …. Why of course all financial transactions and telecommunications are watched by the US Treasury and the Fed – US Central Bank. Big surprise !! ( That’s why they use dummy corps, sinks and hire forensic accountants to cover up their money trail. ) And anyone that has ever seen a SWIFT message field knows that tonnes of information can be gleamed from. Enough information that is sure to bring down OBL and his network of bourgeois zealots any day now.

So what is treasonous: Reporting the existence of an organization with it’s HQ in Belgium and offices worldwide and that every major international bank in the world is member. Or that any criminal entity worth a salt has always known that, even before 11 Sept. , all international and domestic financial transactions are monitored ?? Just ask Ivan Boesky .

Posted by: Eisai at June 28, 2006 2:48 AM
Comment #162613

Aldous

how does my opposition to the printing of classified material equal blind obedience?

the government’s history of abusing power is long and glorious ain’t it. do you really think anyone can do anything about it? we don’t even know half the things our government has done over the years those who study history understand this. so don’t talk down to me like i am a child and you are so superior. (something you have done to many a person on this sight many times, even with nothing more to say and no more point to make) i am not under some impression that we can stop every bad thing the government does. the word lies should be in the dictionary definition of politician. we the people pick. it’s bad or worse.

the minds behind the constitution made the checks and balances. presidents get prosecuted and impeached or at least they find someone to prosecute in their stead. everyone is always looking for any little misstep the government makes. besides i thought spying on the government was currently the dems job.

the wife

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 28, 2006 2:55 AM
Comment #162664
Lawnboy, I’ve said that until I see them (actually) defend someone like the troops (instead of terrorists), then I’ll change my mind.

Yes, and I asked if you considered churches to be terrorists. You didn’t respond.

So, I’m curious how you’ll respond to this new information:

The ACLU supports members of the military in their voting rights, in their family rights, and supports the JAG.

Will you now acknowledge that we’ve met your requirements, or will you make up a lame excuse for moving the goalposts once again?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 28, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #162687

Jayjay,
“As Lawnboy said you are the accuser. The burden of proof is in your corner, not mine.”

Oh my goodness, Jay. When I saw that from lawnboy, I paid it no mine b/c that’s exactly the comments I’ve come to expect from him. But, you?! Needless to say, I was (indeed) suprised to see your name at the bottom of that comment. Oh well.


What’s this “Burden of Proof” nonsense; you are the one that said: “Sure any lawyer may offer to represent me in a legal case, but if I turn their offer down, they have no right to be involved in my defense… Did the ACLU offer to represent these troops and their offer refused? I don’t know and apparently neither do you since you cannot give me a straight answer.”


So, you have no clue as to whether these soldiers asked for the ACLU to represent them or not and, in the same statement, you give an example of “turning down a lawyer if they want to represent you, they have no right to represent you”. What the heck is that?! That’s absurd lawn…(I mean) Jay. :o)


Even though you accused me of not knowing that I checked or not, not to mention you answered your own question, I’ve checked and there’s no record of “our” troops asking for representation from the ACLU and there’s no (none, zilch, nada) record of the ACLU offering to represent them either; therefore, there’s no record of the troops turning them down.


So, going back to my original comment, the ACLU missed (yet) another opportunity to defend Americans. This was a perfect opportunity for them; remember, these troops were held in shackles w/out being charged, that’s an ACLU’ers’ wet dream right there. Instead, it was the military families, conservatives and talk radio that made them take those shackles off and (finally) charge them. Now, they’re being represented by non-ACLU lawyers and you guys are trying to brainwash us (like others have been) about the “Patriotism” of the ACLU. Ha! That’s a good one.


Some of you argue that they’ve helped churches and military families; we’ll they’ve also represent terrorist, criminals and illegals more times than the churches and military families (that’s for sure). And, Lawnboy, before you waste text space, I’ve given examples of the people they’ve represented and the stances they took against America; so, we could go tit for tat on that one. There’s no way they represent American values and rights to me; no (freakin) way! So, you believe what you want about the ACLU; just don’t bother me with it, cause I ain’t buying it. Believe that!


Posted by: rahdigly at June 28, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #162704

One breaking of the law doesn’t justify another. If the law was broken by “outing” the non-covert operative (Valerie Plame) then the law breakers should be punished. Before you claim she was a covert agent you will want to do your research and not just take the word of newspapers. Read the information and decide for yourself who you think is lying.

When a news source write in the article that they are reporting on a “secret” operation of the United States, they are admitting they are knowingly revealing secrets of the United States. People have had their heads sawed off in response to the revealing of misdeeds of a handful of military people, even though those military people were already being charged with crimes.

Those who knowingly BREAK THE LAW in revealing classified information should be prosecuted. Even if they unknowingly break the law they should be prosecuted if they aren’t loyal to the United States. In other words, people who think it’s legal to share secrets with our enemies should still be prosecuted for sharing those secrets.

It’s the job of the government to decide what is classified. If a news outlet decides to break the law then they need to be prosecuted. If their breaking of law is considered noble by the people of the United States then the jury may decide to find them innocent.

The New York Times and others should help our nation and not harm it, even if it were legal to deliberately help the enemies of the United States fight against the United States.

Posted by: Steve at June 28, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #162745

Steve,

Watergate was a “secret operation” of the government. Do you suppose it was treason to report on it? Do you think that was harmful to our nation? How about publishing the Pentagon Papers?

Posted by: Dave1 at June 28, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #162751

Dave,
“Watergate was a “secret operation” of the government. Do you suppose it was treason to report on it? Do you think that was harmful to our nation?”

That was catching gov’t officials of wrong doing; the Treasonous times exposed our countries’ secret (financial) tracking of terrorists’ money. And, for what?! How did they help us?! How much did it help the terrorists?! The fact is that the Times got caught playing to people’s fears and now they have to face the music.

Big (BIG) difference between the two; sorry that difference has to be explained to you. :o(

Posted by: rahdigly at June 28, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #162770

Rah,

“wrongdoing”? As in violating the bill of rights and treaties on torture?

Posted by: Dave1 at June 28, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #162787
When I saw that from lawnboy, I paid it no mine b/c that’s exactly the comments I’ve come to expect from him.

I’m not sorry if I’ve developed a reputation of expecting people to support their claims with logic and evidence. I am sorry if that bar is too high for you.

And, Lawnboy, before you waste text space

Oh brother. You asked for proof of something. I provided the requested proof. You change you mind and require something else. It’s a never ending circle of nonsense with you, isn’t it?

I’ve given examples of the people they’ve represented and the stances they took against America; so, we could go tit for tat on that one.

Your claim is that they’re always against America. I don’t need to match your examples tit for tat (although I could). I just need to supply a few counter-examples. We’ve done that in spades. You just don’t want to accept it.

So, you believe what you want about the ACLU; just don’t bother me with it, cause I ain’t buying it. Believe that!

I believe it. I believe that no level of evidence, proof, or logic that will ever penetrate your pre-conceived notions. You’ve made up your mind, and nothing anyone shows or says will ever matter to you. The frightening thing is that you seem to think that stubborn ignorance is something to be proud of.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 28, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #162798
Your claim is that they’re always against America.

Actually, I should have said that your claim is that they’re always against your narrow definition of what you want America to be, not against America. I do not want to be misinterpreted as saying that defending the constitutional rights of Americans (even unpopular Americans) is somehow being against America.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 28, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #162814

Sorry you poor conservative fools…SWIFT was reported to the United Nations Security Council in 2002, in a written report, and can still be found on the UN website. Your “righteous indignation” doesn’t hold water.

Posted by: DyedintheWoolDem at June 28, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #162839

DyedintheWool:

If the SWIFT activity was reported previously, then why did the NY Times feel it was front page news in 2006? If its old news, it doesn’t belong on the headlines, unless there is some particular agenda or reason for it being there.

What makes it newsworthy at this point, if it was already well known several years ago?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 28, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #162840

JBOD, sorry, DyedintheWool, won’t be responding. His reference to conservatives here as fools has lost him his comment privileges.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at June 28, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #162901

After the NYT sat on the NSA domestic spying story for over a year (a story that could have been reported before the ‘04 elections), and it’s hysterical and totally inaccurate reportage via Judith Miller of Iraq’s WMD non-program, I don’t think it was going to sit still and not report this SWIFT nonsense and get another black eye.

There is either freedom of the press or there isn’t. The stone-walling, secrecy, the cloaking of vast stores of presidential and governmental documents for no other reason than paranoid partisanship makes a free press absolutely crucial. Threatening prosecution of whistleblowers and journalists, spying on anti-war activists and other American citizens without judicial oversight—how far does this administration have to go before alarm bells go off for the Right?

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 28, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #162997

Tim,

The answer is obvious, there is no limit. To a real wingnut, a GOPer is infallible and a Dem is irredeemable.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 28, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #162999

joe-
Whether or not the NYT felt it was frontpage news is irrelevant. It was still out there in published form. John Trevisani, on the blue column, has the scoop on this.

Essentially, activities concernings SWIFT, along these lines, were discussed in a 2002 UN Security Council Report, and were recommended as measures to emulate. This report does exist, and Trevisani’s column has the link to the blogger or other person who’s got the article.

This is the problem in having your stories developed for you by pundits and provocateurs like Rove: if they don’t do their homework, you’re likely to get left in a pinch.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #163860

The editors of the New York Times and the LA Times explained their decision to publish the article in question in an op-ed piece today.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 1, 2006 9:39 AM
Post a comment