New York Times: Guilty Of Treason

[hipsterdufus]

The WSJ printed the same info, when are the Bushinistas going after them?

Never

The NYT is an easy target for the Bushies, the right hates them and the left is p.o.ed at the whole Judith Miller/ WH stenegropher thing.

 

[aquapub]

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.

Exactly. I still think it was criminal to disclose classified information on the NSA story, but at least that one arguably served a public good...THIS is sheer treason.

 

[aquapub]

Haven't we always known about chasing the money trail to root out terrorists? Frozen accounts?

This has been addressed in post #31.

So was this:

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.

There were things disclosed that the enemy would not have known.

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

Amen.

 

[aquapub]

The WSJ printed the same info, when are the Bushinistas going after them?

Never

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

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:

I suppose you think these gay, infantile labels make you look witty? They just make you look hysterical and fanatical. :roll:

And I know you guys keep repeating this same invalid point because your liberal websites have mass emailed you your rhetoric for the day, but the WSJ (and L.A. Times) reported this AFTER the NYT, and they were following their lead, as the media always do-you know, following the lead of a paper that hasn't endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Ike?

This smokescreen argument you sheep are making in unison is ill conceived.

 

[aquapub]

some bad guys do continue to talk on their cell phones and some bad guys continue to transfer funds in ways open to monitoring.

Yes, despite the things the enemy DIDN'T know prior to the NYT article (listed in post #31), there is still the fact that some terrorists ARE THAT DUMB.

Case in point-the recent arrests in Miami.

 

[aquapub]

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.

Yeah, that's it. Calling the needless revealing of the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy treason is just a clever roos on the part of Republicans to look tough...because they need that so much...oh, wait, their opponents are Democrats, nevermind.

No one needs to make themself look tough when stood up next to you spineless hysterics.

And yes, the war in Iraq does kill our VOLUNTEER troops, as opposed to our CIVILIANS who WERE the ones getting attacked prior to the war.

Soldiers die in wars, retreatist. That doesn't mean we need to cower from our duties like castrated little liberals.

BTW, thanks for demonstrating #4 of my signature. :lol:

 

[aquapub]

http://www.defensetech.org/


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

Because, as post #31 explains, there were things revealed in the Times article that the enemy HADN'T known about prior to.

 

[aquapub]

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?

Post #31 lists the classified info. devoulged to the enemy in this article.

 

[aquapub]

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.

You are demanding that the White House release MORE damaging classified information about this because it gives you a safe place from which you don't have to change your mind. This ridiculous demand tells me you know you're wrong.

Intellectual dishonesty.

And WE don't need this information. AL QUEDA does. Can the phony "right to know" crap. Our right to not be mass murdered far outweigh's a terror suspect's right to know his funds (WHICH HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY ATTACHED) are being monitored.

There is absolutely no public good being served by this act of treason.

And, again, post #31 clarifies which parts of the article informed the terrorists of things NOT mentioned in public prior to...things that now are helping them kill Americans.

 

[aquapub]

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

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

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

4) If the charges were so bogus, why wouldn't they be bogus on their own? Why bring in Wilson's wife?

5) And do you have information to substantiate that Saddam Hussein attempted to obtain yellow cake from N iger? I'd love to see it.

1) Bush isn't a liberal. He has these things called duties and actually has to give a rat's rectum when someone commits treason and gets more Americans killed. Telling him to get over it would only accomplish something if he was more like your Bill Clinton, you know, someone who would let 8 years of Al Queda attacks on our troops go unanswered; who would let N.Korea go nuclear; someone who disregards their duties entirely.

2) Of course you don't. It's a provable fact that doesn't fit into your liberal hysteria.

3) Her being "covert" is the only way that story would matter at all. Thanks for deflating this for me. :mrgreen:

4) Because she was a part of how the "information" he collected was allegedly obtained.

5) This is a fallacy known as, "argumentum ignorantium." It means, "if you can't disprove my allegation, then it must be true." It hasn't been proved that Saddam tried to get yellow cake (that I know of off hand), but what HAS been thoroughly proved is that Joe Wilson is utterly full of crap.

 

[aquapub]

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.

1) Of course you do. They haven't endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Ike. They are as arrogant, hysterical, elitist, and biased for the Left as it gets. BTW, thanks for showing us what's behind all this refusal to admit what the facts and evidence point to here...except for the fact that you are a liberal, which gives you a natural inclination to disregard facts and evidence.

2) Oh, how nice of them. They waited before releasing classified information (a.k.a., treason).

Their lawyers told them to wait.

 

[aquapub]

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.

Amen.

Imagine that. The grandson of the head of the Communist movement in America, the guy who tried to bury the Lewinsky story, an anti-American sleazeball who puts burning American flags in trash cans on the cover of Newsweek and gleefully predicts the fall of the U.S....

THIS is the guy he thinks is a "straight shooter." :rofl

And, AGAIN, post #31 details which parts the NYT revealed that the enemy had not known about.

 

[aquapub]

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.

:lol: You can say that again!

 

[Stinger]

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.

Well all the courts including the FISA judges, theu justice department and the Senators and Congressmen on the committes that were briefed said otherwise. So what is the basis for your differing opinion other than you just hope so?

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.

Of course you don't you have too much invested in this the MUST be doing something wrong else you are wrong.

According to articles I have read, the people who leaked this story to the NYT were leery about the legality of the program.

And they were/are government employees working in our intelliegnce agency's and they have a means to report any such things up the proper channels. But as the NYT reported there in fact IS nothign illegal about it, that was just a convienent reason. People do NOT have the right to blow our intelliegence operations simply because the "think" something.

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.

They did and proof in the puddy is that my financial information is not private, I don't have a right to it's privacy and neither do you.

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:

We don't care about the Pentagon Papers, we care about this.

What was the over riding reason, that they would blow what they admitted was a successful intelligence program in this case?


For lurkers Aps is still ignoring me since she was wrong about Rove being indicted and failed to heed my warnings her evidence was nothing but conjecture and assertions. So the floor is open to anyone else.

 

[Stinger]

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

What an intelligent thoughtfull response. You do realize that you are telling that to the United States and all of those who are fighting to protect us against these people who would kill us first.

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

It a point not in contention. Lee Hamilton and Tom Kane even called the NYT asking them not to disclose this CLASSIFIED program. Your simply ignorance does not substitue for proof otherwise.

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

All names of CIA employees in such positions are considered "classified" but then you just admitted why there was no case to begin with, she was not covert. And we know how wrong you were about that case because you refuse to listen to the evidence and accepted baseless conjecture and assertion as fact.

 

[oldreliable67]

According to articles I have read, the people who leaked this story to the NYT were leery about the legality of the program.

I love that newspaper, and I would give it the benefit of the doubt any day of the week.

An open letter in the Examiner by Robert Cox provides the following counterpoints to aps' endorsement of the NYTs. Paraphrasing from his points:

This past Sunday, Bill Keller, the NYTs executive editor published an open letter in which Keller claims, “some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality” but the article cites only one expert, L. Richard Fischer, and presents him as unfamiliar with the details of the program. The NYT quotes a “former senior counterterrorism official,” saying, “The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you’re sitting, troubling “the potential for abuse is enormous” without disclosing whether this former official might have some axe to grind against the administration. Richard Clarke, anyone? The paper claims “Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.” Why is it “nearly 20” and not “19.” Will the Times go back to those 19 people and get them on the record now that the program has been made public? The Times’ claims “Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program.” How many is “some?” Fifteen? Two? If two, then which two?

Indeed it does come down to a matter of trust, something in short supply for most Americans when it comes to the NYT. Since Sept. 11, the NYT has published fabricated quotations (Maureen Dowd), fabricated datelines (Rick Bragg) and stories manufactured out of whole cloth (Jayson Blair). The Times, by many estimates, made the administration’s case for war by publishing now-discredited claims about Iraq’s WMD program (Judith Miller). Dan Rather may have made “fake but accurate” famous, but it was the NYT that honed the practice to an art form. Maybe they could sell T-shirts?

It may not be wise to always take a president at his word, but the NYT has not exactly cornered the market on journalistic integrity. Yet Keller exposes a vital counter-terrorist program in a story based almost entirely on anonymous sources and asks that we take him at his word. Sorry Keller (and aps), that ship sailed long ago.

Robert Cox summed it up very succinctly:

We will never know the full extent of the damage caused by The New York Times in disclosing the SWIFT monitoring program but have no doubt it was not a benign act. Whatever agony Keller may have gone through in deciding to publish the story will pale in comparison to the agony of the victims of the next terror attack, an attack that might have been prevented save for Keller’s choice.

Playwright David Mamet once wrote of elites “you’re all the same … It’s always ‘What I’m going to do for you.’ Then you screw up and then its ‘we did the best we could. I’m dreadfully sorry’ and people like us live with your mistakes the rest of our lives.”

We may be living with Keller’s mistake for a long time to come.

Source.

 

[aquapub]

Lie, maneuver, throw up smokescreens....

The Left's behavior here is telling. They are desperate to make this into far more of a gray area than it is so that people will come to an "eye of the beholder" conclusion and forget about it.


Not going to happen on my watch.


Post #31 details what wasn't public knowledge until this article. There is no escaping the black and white conclusion that this was calculated, deliberate treason, just as if they had broadcast our troop movements to the enemy.

Aps, you have already admitted that you "love this paper" and would "always give it the benefit of the doubt." Your excuses for the Times are not holding up.

The NYT needs to be brought up on treason charges.

 

[Captain America]

what do you call someone who hurls mindless smears at anyone who thinks, reads, bases their opinions on facts, evidence, substance?

Ditto head
New Republican
Bush apologist
Ultra-Rightwingnut
Disillusioned
Gullible
Sheep
Drone Clone
Neocon
Archie Bunker
War Mongerer
American hater
Klansmen
Religious kook
Nazi
Kool-Aid baby
Dumbass
Rude asshole.....


Pick one.:mrgreen:

 

[bison]

This is insane. You think our government has the right to spy on us without us knowing? God Bless the New York Times. The Administration cannot keep taking away our privacy, that's not what we were built on. I'll take privacy and freedom over security any day.

 

[Captain America]

This is insane. You think our government has the right to spy on us without us knowing? God Bless the New York Times. The Administration cannot keep taking away our privacy, that's not what we were built on. I'll take privacy and freedom over security any day.

If this was a democrat administration that did this, (especially if it was Clinton,) the same Bush apologists here would be cutting Clinton to shreads if this shoe was on the other foot. Don't let 'em fool ya. :roll:

More partisan BS.

But Bush is right for covertly following the money trail. But when you got all his minions on TV talking about it, as they have done countless times before the NYT ever made it a story, you can hardly call it covert.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Ditto head
New Republican
Bush apologist
Ultra-Rightwingnut
Disillusioned
Gullible
Sheep
Drone Clone
Neocon
Archie Bunker
War Mongerer
American hater
Klansmen
Religious kook
Nazi
Kool-Aid baby
Dumbass
Rude asshole.....


Pick one.:mrgreen:

In case you don't have enough to choose from:
Chickenhawk
101st Fighting Keyboardist
Wingnut
Constitution Shredder
Freeper
Hate Hag
Drug Addled Gas Bag
Slantyhead
Falafel
Bushevik
Oilygarchyist (is that a word)
God's Own Party
Greedy Oil Party
Fristians
Xenophobes
Repug
Rethug
neocon men
FUBAR

 

[Deegan]

And yet we say "liberal" and everyone gets all in a tizzy, lol.:lol:

 

[aquapub]

Ditto head
New Republican
Bush apologist
Ultra-Rightwingnut
Disillusioned
Gullible
Sheep
Drone Clone
Neocon
Archie Bunker
War Mongerer
American hater
Klansmen
Religious kook
Nazi
Kool-Aid baby
Dumbass
Rude asshole.....


Pick one.:mrgreen:

How witty. :roll: I see you've got the name-calling down pat like a good liberal sheep. The only problem though is that you and every other liberal who has responded here (except one) has proven themselves to be the ones who won't read, think, or base their opinions on any kind of substance.

I've pointed it out each time you have done it.

And here you are further confirming what I'm talking about. I'm sorry I'm not 12 so I can't appreciate your slurs, but if there are any ADULTS in here who would like to debate the issue, I would be glad to engage.

 

[aquapub]

And yet we say "liberal" and everyone gets all in a tizzy, lol.:lol:

GET in a tizzy? Liberals STAY in a tizzy. It's what irrational people do.

 

[aquapub]

This is insane. You think our government has the right to spy on us without us knowing? God Bless the New York Times. The Administration cannot keep taking away our privacy, that's not what we were built on. I'll take privacy and freedom over security any day.

Yeah, who wants to live when we could be needlessly revealing classified operational intelligence to the enemy and feel all warm and fuzzy.

And yes, our government DOES have the right to track our financial exchanges. It is perfectly legal and sensible to follow terror funds to the source.

I can't beleive there are people who need this explained to them. :roll: