New York Times: Guilty Of Treason

[jamesrage]

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.

These media outlets should be bound to the same laws that you and I are expected to obey.JUst because you think the terrorist know the goverment is monitoring out going calls,banking transactions and so on does not mean we should tell them how we are doing it or how thourogh we are doing it.

 

[aps]

These media outlets should be bound to the same laws that you and I are expected to obey.JUst because you think the terrorist know the goverment is monitoring out going calls,banking transactions and so on does not mean we should tell them how we are doing it or how thourogh we are doing it.

What do you have to say about what George Bush, Paul O'Neill, and Colin Powell said on September 24, 2001? Should they be held to the same standard?

Seriously, james, do you think that they don't know what we are up to?

George Bush announced in April 2004 that we were conducting roving wiretaps on the terrorists, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html (where Bush stated the following, verbatim: "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.")

But then when the NYT published an article about the NSA wiretapping, the White House went nuts. I just don't get it.

 

[aquapub]

SOUTHERN DEMOCRAT, MAJOR BAKER:

You two have repeatedly got on my back for this portrayal of liberals:

"They are treason-prone hysterics who don't think or read, and who base their views on conspiracy theories instead of any kind of facts, evidence, or substance."


Well, fortunately, Hipsterdufus is here to show you that I'm not just making this stuff up. Here is a perfect example of what I am taking about...


I call a newspaper treasonous for needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy. This fits the official definition of treason (NOTICE HOW CONSERVATIVES USE FACTS AND EVIDENCE?). Here is the brilliant liberal response:

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

Treason!!!!

Give me a break...

So, needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy is ok because it's true? By that logic, broadcasting our troop movements to the enemy is also ok. Anything goes.

Notice how he acted like it was ridiculous to call something that literally, provably IS treason, treason? (LIBERALS DON'T OPERATE ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE).

Notice how he is attacking me and defending the people who committed treason? (LIBERALS ARE TREASON-PRONE)


Starting to get why I portray liberals this way? Because it's TRUE!!! :roll:

 

[aps]

SOUTHERN DEMOCRAT, MAJOR BAKER:

You two have repeatedly got on my back for this portrayal of liberals:

"They are treason-prone hysterics who don't think or read, and who base their views on conspiracy theories instead of any kind of facts, evidence, or substance."


Well, fortunately, Hipsterdufus is here to show you that I'm not just making this stuff up. Here is a perfect example of what I am taking about...


I call a newspaper treasonous for needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy. This fits the official definition of treason (NOTICE HOW CONSERVATIVES USE FACTS AND EVIDENCE?). Here is the brilliant liberal response:




So, needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy is ok because it's true? By that logic, broadcasting our troop movements to the enemy is also ok. Anything goes.

Notice how he acted like it was ridiculous to call something that literally, provably IS treason, treason? (LIBERALS DON'T OPERATE ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE).

Notice how he is attacking me and defending the people who committed treason? (LIBERALS ARE TREASON-PRONE)


Starting to get why I portray liberals this way? Because it's TRUE!!! :roll:

Please address my posts above so I can see your brilliant conservative response.

 

[Captain America]

Please address my posts above so I can see your brilliant conservative response.

I think aquapub has decided to cut and run aps....hehehehehehe:mrgreen:

 

[aquapub]

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...

Good question. I'm glad you brought this up.

The problem with the NYT needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy THIS TIME is this:

Now terrorists know...

1) which banks to avoid,

2) how to reroute their money for safer transfers,

3) how much money to send to stay under the radar,

4) not to use Western Union,

5) exactly how their cells disguised as charities here in the U.S. have been caught,

6) Exactly how one of the top Al Queda terrorists was caught in S.E. Asia.



And all this damage to a stunningly successful anti-terror program had to happen because the NYT decided that people suddenly have privacy rights when they transfer funds.

Last time I checked, this arrogant, elitist, left-wing paper doesn't get to legislate new rights into being.

 

[PeteEU]

http://www.defensetech.org/

But if the Times’ revelation about a program to monitor international exchanges is so damaging, why has the administration been chattering about efforts to monitor domestic transactions for nearly five years?

so anyone else you want to label as a traitor........

 

[aps]

I think aquapub has decided to cut and run aps....hehehehehehe:mrgreen:

Maybe he has realized he is no match for the apster. :lol:

 

[oldreliable67]

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

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.

The Rose Garden statement for which you provided a cite said nothing at all the specific techniques that would be used to track terrorist financing. Instead, it discussed freezing bank accounts and assets, but did not identify specific banking or banking service organizations that would be used to implement the program. Big difference between the specifics of the program outlined in the NYT and the generalities of the Rose Garden statements. Its rather like outlining a strategy publicly but then having someone else divulge the specific tactics that you will use to acheive the goals of your strategy.

You conveniently left out any reference to another important part of that statement. From your cite:

But make no mistake about it, we intend to, and we will, disrupt terrorist networks. I want to assure the American people that in taking this action and publishing this list, we're acting based on clear evidence, much of which is classified, so it will not be disclosed. It's important as this war progresses that the American people understand we make decisions based upon classified information, and we will not jeopardize the sources; we will not make the war more difficult to win by publicly disclosing classified information.

[emphasis added]

Are you not concerned that any media outlet can with relative impunity, disclose classified information that might be of benefit to those who kill us? Are you not concerned that any media outlet can become the arbiter of what is in our best interest, even though they were not elected to do so, and thus far, have been immune from accountability?

Note also the date of the Rose Garden statement that you have cited: 9/24/2001. The same day the NYT editorialized about the need for a program such as that announced by Bush in the Rose Garden statement.

As for the WSJ publishing the same story: one, clearly once another media outlet has published it, there is no point in others not doing so as well; two, if the WSJ publishes classified info, they and any other outlet doing so are, or should be, subject to the same penalties under the law as any other publisher of classified information.

There are many bloggers, commentators, pundits, and yes, DP posters, who are interpreting the NYT publishing of various stories in a strictly partisan vein. Both sides point to this, that or the other aspect and seem to be able to see nothing but partisan implications, either Dem or Repub this or conservative or liberal that. Respectfully, you are missing the forest for the trees.

Permit me to suggest that gaining partisan advantage and moaning and groaning about cons and libs is, in this instance, the least of our concerns? Should we not be more concerned about the ability of a media outlet to publish information that has been carefully guarded and considered important by our government thereby diminishing the utility and value of our possession and knowledge of that information? It may well be in this case that there have been diminishing returns from this program, but that should not take away from the fact there the returns from the do not yet equal zero (here I am making an assumption that if the value of the program equalled zero, we would halt the program and expend our time and efforts elsewhere).

Here is a key part of the "story" that we should be focusing on...Dean Baquet, editor of the LA Times, which also ran the story, published a letter much like Bill Keller's of the NYT, responding to criticisim, and wrote:

in the end, we felt that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the potential cost to counterterrorism efforts.

Well, the public is interested in all kinds of things, including autopsy pictures. I am very concerned that Baquet feel that he and his lawyers are the arbiter of which of those interests is 'legitimate'. They are not accountable. They were not elected. They are, at bottom, motivated by what sells papers, not national security.

Winds of Change has a very thoughtful post on the topic. Please read the whole thing.

 

[talloulou]

Well was it classified or not? Did everyone know our government had complete access to all the financial files available through Swift the Brussels, Belgium-based system which captures information on money moved in more than 200 countries? That's the question. So if you can prove that specific detail was "known" then the NYT didn't release classified information. However if that was unknown than surely they did. That is much more specific than just knowing the US tracks terrorist money, isn't it?

 

[aps]

The Rose Garden statement for which you provided a cite said nothing at all the specific techniques that would be used to track terrorist financing. Instead, it discussed freezing bank accounts and assets, but did not identify specific banking or banking service organizations that would be used to implement the program. Big difference between the specifics of the program outlined in the NYT and the generalities of the Rose Garden statements. Its rather like outlining a strategy publicly but then having someone else divulge the specific tactics that you will use to acheive the goals of your strategy.

You conveniently left out any reference to another important part of that statement. From your cite:

[emphasis added]

Are you not concerned that any media outlet can with relative impunity, disclose classified information that might be of benefit to those who kill us? Are you not concerned that any media outlet can become the arbiter of what is in our best interest, even though they were not elected to do so, and thus far, have been immune from accountability?

Note also the date of the Rose Garden statement that you have cited: 9/24/2001. The same day the NYT editorialized about the need for a program such as that announced by Bush in the Rose Garden statement.

As for the WSJ publishing the same story: one, clearly once another media outlet has published it, there is no point in others not doing so as well; two, if the WSJ publishes classified info, they and any other outlet doing so are, or should be, subject to the same penalties under the law as any other publisher of classified information.

There are many bloggers, commentators, pundits, and yes, DP posters, who are interpreting the NYT publishing of various stories in a strictly partisan vein. Both sides point to this, that or the other aspect and seem to be able to see nothing but partisan implications, either Dem or Repub this or conservative or liberal that. Respectfully, you are missing the forest for the trees.

Permit me to suggest that gaining partisan advantage and moaning and groaning about cons and libs is, in this instance, the least of our concerns? Should we not be more concerned about the ability of a media outlet to publish information that has been carefully guarded and considered important by our government thereby diminishing the utility and value of our possession and knowledge of that information? It may well be in this case that there have been diminishing returns from this program, but that should not take away from the fact there the returns from the do not yet equal zero (here I am making an assumption that if the value of the program equalled zero, we would halt the program and expend our time and efforts elsewhere).

Here is a key part of the "story" that we should be focusing on...Dean Baquet, editor of the LA Times, which also ran the story, published a letter much like Bill Keller's of the NYT, responding to criticisim, and wrote:



Well, the public is interested in all kinds of things, including autopsy pictures. I am very concerned that Baquet feel that he and his lawyers are the arbiter of which of those interests is 'legitimate'. They are not accountable. They were not elected. They are, at bottom, motivated by what sells papers, not national security.

Winds of Change has a very thoughtful post on the topic. Please read the whole thing.

Personally for me, this is about credibility. The New York Times does not have the reputation that it does because it publishes articles on classified information. I don't buy that this was classified information. I think the White House is trying to create a distraction, IMO.

I like Evan Thomas, who is the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, and I trust his judgment. He is a straight shooter. This is what he said on Hardball on Monday:

EVAN THOMAS, ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR, NEWSWEEK: “The New York Times” is pretty careful about these things. You know, we don‘t know whether there has been some harm to our national security. But the record from the past is there rarely is in these cases and both the “Times” and the “Post” have been really pretty careful in this area historically. So I‘m inclined to believe that they‘ve been careful this time too.

MATTHEWS: What were their standards do you believe?

THOMAS: I think the standard always is whether they really think that there‘s going to be harm, whether the government is able to demonstrate to them, if they print this, it really is going to cost lives, it‘s going to put our national security at risk. And I believe that the government didn‘t do that, otherwise the “Times” wouldn‘t have printed it.

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

Until the White House is able to prove that the information was classified or that the release of this information has caused us harm, I don't care. I just get sick and tired fo people blaming the media for providing us the information we need to decide whether the executive branch is overstepping its bounds.

 

[aquapub]

1) 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.

2) They are so friggen transparent, but I see that the republicans get right on board and call what the NYT did "treason."

3) 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.

4) 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.

1) Wrong. Here is a quote from the NYT on Bush's condemnation of their treason:

"...the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America.''

The New York Times, followed by The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times, began publishing accounts of the program on Thursday evening."

http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.li...z-zSkVb&_md5=b3c309cf320998797d77697a73b40486

2) Needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy IS treason. Look it up.

3) I love this. For Valerie Plame and this story (and ONLY these stories) it is ok to get upset about leaks. But when you leak classified information about interrogation sites in Europe or phone surveillance, you get patted on the head by the liberal elite, called brave, and given a Pulitzer.

And for the record, the reason this NOT COVERT agent's identity was revealed is because the bogus charges being leveled at the president couldn't be confronted without revealing details about how the "information" was gathered.

4) Post # 31 discusses some of the things that were revealed by the NYT that the terrorists DIDN'T know prior to.

 

[aquapub]

Maybe he has realized he is no match for the apster. :lol:

How's that foot tasting?

I have a life and my time is limited. It takes time for me to respond sometimes, but, as my last post demonstrates, I am fully capable of disproving your bunk points.

Good day. :mrgreen:

 

[aps]

1) Wrong. Here is a quote from the NYT on Bush's condemnation of their treason:

"...the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America.''

The New York Times, followed by The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times, began publishing accounts of the program on Thursday evening."

http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.li...z-zSkVb&_md5=b3c309cf320998797d77697a73b40486

Here's what I would say to Bush: Tough. Get over it.

2) Needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy IS treason. Look it up.

I don't buy that this was classified information....at all.

3) I love this. For Valerie Plame and this story (and ONLY these stories) it is ok to get upset about leaks. But when you leak classified information about interrogation sites in Europe or phone surveillance, you get patted on the head by the liberal elite, called brave, and given a Pulitzer.

And for the record, the reason this NOT COVERT agent's identity was revealed is because the bogus charges being leveled at the president couldn't be confronted without revealing details about how the "information" was gathered.

I have never said she was covert in making my point. Her status was classified, as stated by Fitzgerald.

If the charges were so bogus, why wouldn't they be bogus on their own? Why bring in Wilson's wife? And do you have information to substantiate that Saddam Hussein attempted to obtain yellow cake from N iger? I'd love to see it.

4) Post # 31 discusses some of the things that were revealed by the NYT that the terrorists DIDN'T know prior to.

See answer to (2).

 

[aps]

How's that foot tasting?

Better than your lips taste.

I have a life and my time is limited. It takes time for me to respond sometimes, but, as my last post demonstrates, I am fully capable of disproving your bunk points.

Good day. :mrgreen:

LOL Okay.

 

[talloulou]

Personally for me, this is about credibility. The New York Times does not have the reputation that it does because it publishes articles on classified information. I don't buy that this was classified information. I think the White House is trying to create a distraction, IMO.

Really? Then why does the New York Times admit they sat on the story for "weeks" while in talks with the administration about how it could hurt national security before they decided they didn't give a flying ***** and went with it anyway?????

"The co-author of the Times' piece, Eric Lichtblau, told E&P last week that the article was basically done weeks ago, but extensive discussions with Bush administration officials delayed publication, allowing others to "catch up."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002763460

Sounds to me like they were unsure about whether or not they should actually give the finger to the white house which means there must have been some reason they were hesitant and sat around for "weeks." But when it finally came down to it and it was possible some other paper might print the story first they just said to hell with it and threw it out there.

 

[aps]

Really? Then why does the New York Times admit they sat on the story for "weeks" while in talks with the administration about how it could hurt national security before they decided they didn't give a flying ***** and went with it anyway?????

"The co-author of the Times' piece, Eric Lichtblau, told E&P last week that the article was basically done weeks ago, but extensive discussions with Bush administration officials delayed publication, allowing others to "catch up."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002763460

Sounds to me like they were unsure about whether or not they should actually give the finger to the white house which means there must have been some reason they were hesitant and sat around for "weeks." But when it finally came down to it and it was possible some other paper might print the story first they just said to hell with it and threw it out there.

I disagree. They met with the Bush Administration and weighed the facts and made a determination to publish the story. So what if they were hesitant? That shows that they cared enough to think before they published. talloulou, you can attack the NYT all you want. I love that newspaper, and I would give it the benefit of the doubt any day of the week.

They waited a year before they published the story of NSA spying. That's not a newspaper that doesn't care about its own credibility and reputation.

 

[Stinger]

Personally for me, this is about credibility. The New York Times does not have the reputation that it does because it publishes articles on classified information. I don't buy that this was classified information. I think the White House is trying to create a distraction, IMO.

Actually it's lost much of it's crediblilty and has created a distain for itself across this country. It is inexcusable what they are doing with regard to our intelligence operations against the Islmofacist who want to kill us.

I like Evan Thomas, who is the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, and I trust his judgment. He is a straight shooter. This is what he said on Hardball on Monday:

Until the White House is able to prove that the information was classified or that the release of this information has caused us harm, I don't care. I just get sick and tired fo people blaming the media for providing us the information we need to decide whether the executive branch is overstepping its bounds.

The Times itself said in the article that the program had produced good results and that it was legal and that it was a secret intelligence operation. His stament cited above flys in the face of what they said. And WE don't make those decission, we do not conduct our intelligence operations or planning in the public domain. His statement is absurd.

Should we have discussed Enigma so we all could have decided if we should be doing that?
Should we all have discussed having th codes of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
How about the fact that we tapped Soviet telephone cables during the cold war and eavesdropped on calls some of which I am sure had an American on one end, maybe the Times should have found that out and reported it "for the public good".

And for lurkers since Fitzgerald announce that Rove would not be indicted, something Aps had invested alot of capital into despite my warnings to her not to believe Schuster on MSNBC, she has placed me on ignore rather than address her misjudgement on the issue so I don't expect a response, so floors open to anyone eles.

 

[talloulou]

I disagree. They met with the Bush Administration and weighed the facts and made a determination to publish the story. So what if they were hesitant? That shows that they cared enough to think before they published. talloulou, you can attack the NYT all you want. I love that newspaper, and I would give it the benefit of the doubt any day of the week.

They waited a year before they published the story of NSA spying. That's not a newspaper that doesn't care about its own credibility and reputation.

Well then clearly you're freaking biased since all that love and devotion must surely blind you! :rofl

Truth be told I don't know and haven't yet done enough homework to figure out if all that SWIFT stuff was common knowledge or previously published. If it wasn't previously known then I think the paper shouldn't have printed those specific details...if those details have been pointed out before than it's no biggie.

My instinct tells me the truth is probably somewhere in between. The Times had specifics which made their "story" the white house didn't want the specifics out there and the times decided it wasn't that big a deal. It's probably not a huge deal but it's probably also not "nothing." You know?

I just think that no matter how much you hate the president if the White House asks you not to go with a story due to national security then unless you have reason to believe the administration is doing something illegal or you believe the people are harmed by not having the info you should respect the white house. What's so wrong with that?

 

[Caine]

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

You realize you are the biggest Fascist ive ever seen on here right?

 

[oldreliable67]

Here's what I would say to Bush: Tough. Get over it.

Hey, this is bigger than you. This is bigger than George Bush. This is a principle involving national security. Not everything is about aps. In addition to your rabid case of BDS Syndrome, your recent posts suggest that you are not seeing this issue beyond the end of your nose.

 

[jujuman13]

The UK has a what is called a "D" notice, when this is issued to the media they are forbidden under law to print a particular story.
Naturally there are ways around this, usually by having the story printed in another country.

Every media outlet has a bias be it for the Democrats or the Republicans, this bias is generally whichever party the News Editor or the Owner happens to prefer.

quote by Danarhea:
( George Bush, telling terrorists about how we use “roving wiretaps” to eavesdrop on their calls -Columbus, Ohio - June 9, 2005.


George Bush, in 2004, telling terrorists that we are engaging in notice-less “sneak and peak” searches of their apartments - Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 19, 2004.


George Bush, alerting terrorists to changes in our techniques for eavesdropping on their cell phone calls - Baltimore, Maryland, July 20, 2005.


George Bush, alerting terrorists to the fact that we are eavesdropping on their telephone calls - Baltimore, Maryland, July 20, 2005.


George Bush, in 2004, telling terrorists that we monitor them by tracing their “money trails” - Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 19, 2004.


George Bush, telling terrorists how the Government monitors their computer communications and obtains their e-mails - Columbus, Ohio, June 9, 2005.


George Bush, detailing the threat priorities of the Homeland Security Department - Columbus, Ohio, July 20, 2005.


George Bush, detailing security measures taken against threats to American seaports - Columbus, Ohio, July 20, 2005.)

The only reason Bush and Cheney are bleating about this article in the NYT (curiously ignoring the article in the Wall Street Journal, (oh yes I almost forgot, that paper is biased in favour of the GOP)) is to divert attention away from the fact that so many officials who are of the GOP have been indicted for corruption and that that same GOP is unwilling to actually close the door on this blatant corruption.
I am aware of the Jefferson Democrat. who was the subject of a sting operation.

By a constant barrage of pretend outrage over trivial items they seek to divert attention well in advance of the November elections, evidently hoping that the electorate will forget. (to be honest they stand a good chance of succeeding as the public has such a short memory.

There is no such thing as an honest politician.
There may well be a few who are basically decent folk,......perhaps?

What bewilders me is that otherwise sensible folk, are actually unable to see through this smokescreen of deception.

 

[aps]

Hey, this is bigger than you. This is bigger than George Bush. This is a principle involving national security. Not everything is about aps. In addition to your rabid case of BDS Syndrome, your recent posts suggest that you are not seeing this issue beyond the end of your nose.

No. It's that I trust the NYT over George Bush. It's that simple.

The NYT is supposed to give credibility to an administration who thinks it's okay to wiretap phone calls in the United States and say it falls unde Article II of the Constitution? This administration refuses to be subjected to any oversight, so what they consider "national security" is absolutely bogus to me.

 

[aps]

Well then clearly you're freaking biased since all that love and devotion must surely blind you! :rofl

Truth be told I don't know and haven't yet done enough homework to figure out if all that SWIFT stuff was common knowledge or previously published. If it wasn't previously known then I think the paper shouldn't have printed those specific details...if those details have been pointed out before than it's no biggie.

My instinct tells me the truth is probably somewhere in between. The Times had specifics which made their "story" the white house didn't want the specifics out there and the times decided it wasn't that big a deal. It's probably not a huge deal but it's probably also not "nothing." You know?

I just think that no matter how much you hate the president if the White House asks you not to go with a story due to national security then unless you have reason to believe the administration is doing something illegal or you believe the people are harmed by not having the info you should respect the white house. What's so wrong with that?

This administration has stretched rules in the name of national security. To me, the NSA spying violates the FISA statute, and is outside the scope of Bush's authority under Article II of the Constitution. So when the Bush administration claims that not reporting the financial information is in the best interests of national security, I don't give that statement much value. According to articles I have read, the people who leaked this story to the NYT were leery about the legality of the program. The NYT has not said it was illegal; rather, it is allowing people to read the facts and make their own determination. But those close to the program had some doubt as to the legality, and to me, it is the duty of the "free press" to report this kind of behavior.

The WAshington Post has an editorial today on this issue. Here's what it said about a concurrence that Justice Potter Stewart stated in the Pentagon Papers case:

Justice Potter Stewart stated this trade-off well in a concurring opinion in the Pentagon Papers case 35 years ago. "In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government," he wrote. "For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For, without an informed and free press, there cannot be an enlightened people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062801954.html

And to those of you who are criticizing ONLY the NYT and claiming that the Wall Street Journal published the story only after the NYT did, wake up and show some thought here. If it was so against national security to report this information, why wouldn't the Wall Street Journal say, "While the story has been published, we find it dishonorable for the NYT to publish this story, and we refuse to stoop to their level"? Thus, they should receive the despicable attacks that the NYT is receiving.

 

[aquapub]

You realize you are the biggest Fascist ive ever seen on here right?

James Rage is a fascist? For calling the needless revealing of the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy treason?

So, if correctly interpreting the law makes you a fascist, then what do you call someone who hurls mindless smears at anyone who thinks, reads, bases their opinions on facts, evidence, substance?

Oh wait, I know this one...a liberal.

Thanks for proving #4 of my signature right again.