New York Times: Guilty Of Treason (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

The New York Times has blown the cover of another successful anti-terror operation despite being asked by the federal government, again, not to do so in the interest of national security. Using the same constitutionally illiterate hysteria about privacy that they used in their last triumph over national security, they have decided foreign terror suspects now also have a right to privacy when it comes to the funds they use to conduct their attacks.

There is no legally acknowledged expectation of privacy when you send money to a bank and have it deposited into another person’s account-especially when that person is linked to Al Queda.

There was nothing even debatably illegal about this program. It was just blatant treason. They revealed, in detail, one of the most successful operations to date.

"The people have a right to know." That's their excuse. To know what? Classified information about how terrorist funds are being tracked? Wrong.

This is about the Times once again siding with the enemy and interfering with investigations in a way that WILL get people killed.

They need to be brought up on treason charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300167.html

 

[hipsterdufus]

How dare a newspaper print the truth! Off with their heads I say.

Treason!!!!

Give me a break...

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Treason is a serious charge.

How does printing what you consider to be questionable constitute siding with the enemy? Im not saying the NYT were right, im just saying you're overreacting.

Like the terrorists didnt know that we monitor finances...

 

[aps]

What I love is how Cheney and Bush (although I am not sure if Bush singled out the NYT--Cheney definitely did) are attacking only the NYT. Are they aware that the Wall Street Journal also published an article on this on the very same day? Why not mention that periodical? Hmmmm. They are so friggen transparent, but I see that the republicans get right on board and call what the NYT did "treason."

What about Valerie Plame? Was that okay? Of course! The White House had to get even with a person who criticized their rationale for war.

Ron Suskind's new book has just come out. He was interviewed on Hardball last night. He's some of the transcript:

MATTHEWS: Well let‘s talk about this with Ron Suskind. I read your book all weekend, a hell of a book. And one of the things in it is this very question: how the United States agencies or intelligence agencies use financial, electronic transfers around the world, people moving money in the Arab world, especially, al Qaeda people. How we check up on what they‘re up to. This is a book—when did you go to publishing on this? When was your pub date?

RON SUSKIND, AUTHOR: June 20th, about a week ago.

MATTHEWS: When did you write this page 279?

SUSKIND: I‘m not sure which date I wrote when.

MATTHEWS: Well let me just tell you what you said. “Eventually not surprisingly,” and we‘re talking about electronic transfer surveillance, “our opponents figured it out. It was a matter really of deduction. Enough people got caught and a view of which activities had in common provides clues as to how they may have been identified and apprehended. We were surprised it took so long,” said one intelligence official.

So in other words, the bad guys figured out how we were catching them.

SUSKIND: Right, it‘s a process of deduction. After a while, you catch enough of them, they‘re not idiots. They say, “Well, we can‘t do the things we were doing.” They‘re not leaving electronic trails like they were.

MATTHEWS: So what‘s Cheney beefing about here?

SUSKIND: The fact is—look, I‘m sure...

MATTHEWS: Or President Bush. That the bad guys found out about it before the “Times” did.

SUSKIND: I‘m sure the program is of some value, but I think the White House ought to be straight with people, that this has been a thing of diminishing return for several years now, this kind of electronic surveillance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13578557/

 

[talloulou]

I think the bigger problem is whose doing all the leaking? But as I understand the situation the administration had talked alot with the NY Times about the damage this story could do in regards to national security. Then the NY Times published the info anyway. I don't think the Times will or should be prosecuted. However I do think the "leaks" are a problem and I do question the NY Times judgement. The program they wrote about is not illegal and so why did they feel the need to disclose it to the public even when they were advised it could harm national security? As to why the New York Times is signaled out.....


`The New York Times has now twice -- two separate occasions -- disclosed programs; both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials," Cheney said. ``They went ahead anyway. The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/27/bush_slams_times_on_storys_release/

Now I think whether or not the Times should have kept the NSA story quiet is debatable since the legality of that program is questionable. However that same excuse doesn't work this time.

 

[Stinger]

What I love is how Cheney and Bush (although I am not sure if Bush singled out the NYT--Cheney definitely did) are attacking only the NYT. Are they aware that the Wall Street Journal also published an article on this on the very same day? :

Because the NYT was going with it so there was no point in trying to hide it. It was the NYT that drove the story in spite of pleas from the White House and BOTH sides of congress. Let's deal with them first and then look at the others.

What about Valerie Plame?

Here comes the deflect and change the subject parts.

What about let's stay on topic.

The Times itself said in the story that the program was successful and that it was helping us catch terrorist and stop attacks on this country. Suskind can spin all he wants to, it was a successful program, it worked. The Time itself stated that the program was perfectly legal. There was no need whatsoever for the Times or anyone else to leak it or discuss it in a public forum or make any noise about AT ALL. Now the program will be less effective and makes the mission the terrorist are on that much easier for them.

Time to take this a little more seriously don't you think?

 

[Captain America]

Haven't we always known about chasing the money trail to root out terrorists? Frozen accounts? Hell, they bragged about it.

Is there some big secret I am missing here?

But I do think newspapers should report responsibly. But I have no doubt that terrorists and their supporters already realized their money was being tracked and made all arrangements to avoid it long before this was ever written.

But even if it was a big secret, I do think the NY Times would report it regardless of the harm it would have caused. They have no scruples but to sell papers and ads. I don't doubt that at all.

However, if this was Clinton or the democrats that was doing this, the same defenders of this policy would be going ape-shat. Does anybody deny that?

This is just another rally the base battle cry. Much adoo over nothing.

It's ok to out Plume because everybody already knew she worked for the FBI? But it's not ok to report on a policy that everyone knew was taking place anyways?

More partisan BS. You can tell it's gonna be election time soon.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Now the terrorists now that we may tap their phones and that we may monitor their money transfers.
Thank NYT. Until you printed this terrorist were taking all willy-nilly on the phone and transfering money all care-free and carelessly.

 

[jamesrage]

The New York Times has blown the cover of another successful anti-terror operation despite being asked by the federal government, again, not to do so in the interest of national security. Using the same constitutionally illiterate hysteria about privacy that they used in their last triumph over national security, they have decided foreign terror suspects now also have a right to privacy when it comes to the funds they use to conduct their attacks.

There is no legally acknowledged expectation of privacy when you send money to a bank and have it deposited into another person’s account-especially when that person is linked to Al Queda.

There was nothing even debatably illegal about this program. It was just blatant treason. They revealed, in detail, one of the most successful operations to date.

"The people have a right to know." That's their excuse. To know what? Classified information about how terrorist funds are being tracked? Wrong.

This is about the Times once again siding with the enemy and interfering with investigations in a way that WILL get people killed.

They need to be brought up on treason charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300167.html

They should be brought up on treason charges before a military tribunal and then shot.

 

[jamesrage]

How dare a newspaper print the truth! Off with their heads I say.

Treason!!!!

Give me a break...

If the information is classified they have no business printing or airing it.

 

[jamesrage]

Haven't we always known about chasing the money trail to root out terrorists? Frozen accounts? Hell, they bragged about it.

Is there some big secret I am missing here?

how they are doing it,and perhaps where they are doing their tracking.

But I do think newspapers should report responsibly. But I have no doubt that terrorists and their supporters already realized their money was being tracked and made all arrangements to avoid it long before this was ever written.

But even if it was a big secret, I do think the NY Times would report it regardless of the harm it would have caused. They have no scruples but to sell papers and ads. I don't doubt that at all.

The NYT is a bunch of traitors to this country they should be jailed.

However, if this was Clinton or the democrats that was doing this, the same defenders of this policy would be going ape-shat. Does anybody deny that?

I think some would I wouldn't.

This is just another rally the base battle cry. Much adoo over nothing.

It's ok to out Plume because everybody already knew she worked for the FBI? But it's not ok to report on a policy that everyone knew was taking place anyways?

The newspapers who aired and or printed her name should also be jailed and tried for treaosn as well,if information reguarding her was classified.

More partisan BS. You can tell it's gonna be election time soon.

You can tell election time is coming up with all the lets pretend to kiss voter issues like gay marriage and flag burning amendments and the illegal immigration debate.

 

[aps]

The NYT is a bunch of traitors to this country they should be jailed.

Do you feel the Wall Street Journal should be jailed too, as they published the story as well.

 

[Stinger]

Now the terrorists now that we may tap their phones and that we may monitor their money transfers.
Thank NYT. Until you printed this terrorist were taking all willy-nilly on the phone and transfering money all care-free and carelessly.

Even the NYT stated in the article the program worked.

 

[Stinger]

Do you feel the Wall Street Journal should be jailed too, as they published the story as well.

The NYT drove the story and declared they would print it. The others were not going to until the NYT busted it.

 

[Captain America]

Now the terrorists now that we may tap their phones and that we may monitor their money transfers.
Thank NYT. Until you printed this terrorist were taking all willy-nilly on the phone and transfering money all care-free and carelessly.

Since the terrorists have always known that they were subject to phone taps and finance monitoring, from the git-go, before the NYT article, I assume you were going for humor. Right?

We really do need a [/sarcasm] [sarcasm] option.:mrgreen:

 

[Deegan]

Now the terrorists now that we may tap their phones and that we may monitor their money transfers.
Thank NYT. Until you printed this terrorist were taking all willy-nilly on the phone and transfering money all care-free and carelessly.

So why the stories then, if everyone already knows, and this is common knowledge, why the story?

It's playing politics with National security, I have read and watched many Intelligence experts, and former agents, heads, and even at the lower levels, say that this has serious effects on their ability to do the job. Even if they knew this, here is what was not known to our friends and allies, that we can't keep a secret!

They will not want to help us when we can't keep them out of our constant leaks. It's really this simple, there is a need for secrets, not everything should be known, and some crazy folks don't believe that.:roll:

 

[oldreliable67]

Not that it will do any good, but Sen. Pat Roberts, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has written the following letter to DNI Negroponte:

June 27, 2006 The Honorable John D. Negroponte Director of National Intelligence Washington, D.C. 20511

Dear Mr. Director:

Unauthorized disclosures of classified information continue to threaten our national security – exposing our sensitive intelligence sources and methods to our enemies. Numerous, recent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence programs have directly threatened important efforts in the war against terrorism. Whether the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program or the Department of Treasury’s effort to track terrorist financing, we have been unable to persuade the media to act responsibly and protect the means by which we protect this nation.

To gain a better understanding of the damage caused by unauthorized disclosures of this type, I ask that you perform an assessment of the damage caused by the unauthorized disclosure of some of our most sensitive intelligence programs. While your assessment may range beyond the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program and Treasury’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, I am particularly interested in the damage attributable to these two unauthorized disclosures.

Sincerely,
Pat Roberts
Chairman

Source.

Blogger Ed Morrissey feels that Robert's letter is completely inadequate:

If Pat Roberts really wanted something done about these leaks, he wouldn't have written Negroponte at all. He would have written to Alberto Gonzalez demanding an investigation into the violation of laws pertaining to classified data. Roberts would have demanded that Gonzalez empanel a grand jury and subpoena everyone involved in the leaks, including Lichtblau, Risen, Keller, the reporters and editors at the Los Angeles Times, and all of the relevant personnel at the CIA and Pentagon with access to this information.

We don't need a report from Negroponte. We need our elected representatives to start taking national-security leaks seriously. This isn't even a good start towards that end.

He has a point.

BTW, one more bit of NYT hypocrisy: the 'expose' story of the program to track terrorist financing follows the NYT advocacy of just such a program immediately following 9/11. On 9/24/2001, the NYT opined:

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies……………..

The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws……………

Source.

 

[oldreliable67]

Now the terrorists now that we may tap their phones and that we may monitor their money transfers.
Thank NYT. Until you printed this terrorist were taking all willy-nilly on the phone and transfering money all care-free and carelessly.

No doubt you are being sarcastic, but in reality, some bad guys do continue to talk on their cell phones and some bad guys continue to transfer funds in ways open to monitoring. Perhaps not the leadership, they got wise long ago (e.g., when OBL read in the press that his sat phone calls were monitored, he quit using his sat phone, which helped our efforts a lot. Not.), but some of the less sophisticated but nonetheless dangerous types. Just because some of them aren't too smart doesn't mean they are any less dangerous.

 

[aquapub]

How dare a newspaper print the truth! Off with their heads I say.

Treason!!!!

Give me a break...

They exposed the inner-workings of a classified, totally legal program that wasn't even controversial. It served no public good. It merely put more of us at risk...frivolously.

If that isn't treason, nothing is.

Give me a break? Are you freaking brain damaged?

There are all sorts of things the media isn't allowed to report on just because it's "the truth."

This reaction is completely mindless. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

I just love how liberals care so much about who leaked something only when it is about Valerie Plame or something that shows the NYT to be the treasonous left-wingers they are.

Where was all this concern for leaks when it was leaked that we had interrogation centers in Europe or that we were tapping the phones of terror-suspects?

Selective principles-the motto of the Left.

 

[aquapub]

"According to the newspapers' reports, the program obtains information from the world's biggest financial communication network to monitor international bank transfers. That network is operated by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, and carries up to 12.7 million messages a day that typically include names and account numbers of bank customers."


http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.li...z-zSkVA&_md5=3f30208d144daf7e098713c5c716ae6e


The terrorists were NOT aware of this program or how to hide from it...until now. This release of CLASSIFIED info. DOES constitute treason and it should be taken to a criminal court.

 

[aps]

They exposed the inner-workings of a classified, totally legal program that wasn't even controversial. It served no public good. It merely put more of us at risk...frivolously.

If that isn't treason, nothing is.

Give me a break? Are you freaking brain damaged?

There are all sorts of things the media isn't allowed to report on just because it's "the truth."

This reaction is completely mindless. :roll:

I'm a little confused. On September 24, 2001, this is what Bush himself said:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. At 12:01 a.m. this morning, a major thrust of our war on terrorism began with the stroke of a pen. Today, we have launched a strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network. . .

I've signed an executive order that immediately freezes United States financial assets of and prohibits United States transactions with 27 different entities. They include terrorist organizations, individual terrorist leaders, a corporation that serves as a front for terrorism, and several nonprofit organizations.

Just to show you how insidious these terrorists are, they oftentimes use nice-sounding, non-governmental organizations as fronts for their activities. We have targeted three such NGOs. We intend to deal with them, just like we intend to deal with others who aid and abet terrorist organizations. This executive order means that United States banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts. And United States citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them.

We know that many of these individuals and groups operate primarily overseas, and they don't have much money in the United States. So we've developed a strategy to deal with that. We're putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice, we will work with their governments, ask them to freeze or block terrorist's ability to access funds in foreign accounts. If they fail to help us by sharing information or freezing accounts, the Department of the Treasury now has the authority to freeze their bank's assets and transactions in the United States.

We have developed the international financial equivalent of law enforcement's "Most Wanted" list. And it puts the financial world on notice. If you do business with terrorists, if you support or sponsor them, you will not do business with the United States of America. . . .

http://www.fas.org/terrorism/at/docs/2001/Bush-9-24-01.htm

Read through the transcript because both Paul O'Neill and Colin Powell speak afterwards. Here's something Powell said:

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, Mr. President and Secretary O'Neill. As the President said, the campaign has begun. We're going after al Qaeda. We're going after terrorism. And this is an indication of how we're going to use all the elements of our national and international power to do it. Terrorists require a financial infrastructure. They require safe-havens. They require places that will get them succor and comfort. We're going after all of them in every way that we can.

And we're focusing this morning on the financial infrastructure of terrorism. We're going to take this initiative into the United Nations and try to get additional resolutions that will serve similar purposes. We're working with the European Union. We're working with the G-7 and G-8, as Secretary O'Neill and the President have mentioned. We're going to be working with Congress, as the President has mentioned, to get these two U.N. conventions ratified, and the implementing legislation in place. . . .

So how is this any different than the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times's publishing articles on what we are doing?

I would be curious as to how you all who are condemning the New York Times are going to explain this. And I see that NONE of you has the balls to attack the Wall Street Journal, which also published an article on this topic. What hypocrites.

 

[Captain America]

Good post aps. Like I said, sometimes back. This big secret is no secret at all.


Well then. That settles it. Maybe we should just try the NYT, WSJ, Powell, O'Neil AND the President for treason all at once and save some money on court costs.:mrgreen:

 

[aps]

Good post aps. Like I said, sometimes back. This big secret is no secret at all.


Well then. That settles it. Maybe we should just try the NYT, WSJ, Powell, O'Neil AND the President for treason all at once and save some money on court costs.:mrgreen:

Captain, it's called the "Let's attack the New York Times so that people will think we are tough on terrorism and we take attention away from the war in Iraq that continues to kill our troops" plan.

 

[Captain America]

Captain, it's called the "Let's attack the New York Times so that people will think we are tough on terrorism and we take attention away from the war in Iraq that continues to kill our troops" plan.

Isn't it always? Or, you could replace the words "New York Times" with homosexuals, flag burners, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Michael Jackson, or Aruba.