NY Times Directly Aided The Enemy (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

The recent New York Times article revealing secret governmental strategies regarding identification of terrorists through banking transactions (discussed on, "New York Times: Guilty Of Treason" thread) is not the first time the Grey Lady has aided terrorism as a result of its flaming Bush hatred. It may not be the first time, but it is surely the worst.

Reporters Philip Shenon and Judith Miller have been identified as having contacted known terror-funding groups Global Relief Foundation and Holy Land Foundation the day before raids were conducted on them. Disguised as news inquiries, the reporters informed these organizations they were being investigated.


"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002 , letter to the Times' legal department.


Here's the Washington Post story:

http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.li...z-zSkVA&_md5=201bd8a4b34a774b03f89134d9649c3d

 

[Stinger]

"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002 , letter to the Times' legal department.

A grand jury should immediately start hearing charges of counter-espionage for these two and if found guilty sentence to 20 years hard labor each.

 

[hipsterdufus]

You two can have fun on this thread. :2wave:

 

[aquapub]

My Lexis Nexis link didn't work....Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9890-2004Sep9.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51840-2005Feb24.html

 

[Calm2Chaos]

If there guilty can we just hang them?

 

[Deegan]

You two can have fun on this thread. :2wave:

So does this mean you can't possibly defend the NYTimes in this instance?:lol:

 

[aps]

If you keep saying something over and over again, you will start to believe it.

 

[oldreliable67]

If you keep saying something over and over again, you will start to believe it.

And gee whiz, it might even be true!

 

[jfuh]

This is just bullshit. The Washington Post, Wallstreet Journal, LA times all posted the same news at the same time in addition to the Nytimes, yet you guys are singling out the NYtimes because of what?

And really, the enemy has NOOOO clue whatsoever that we'd track this bank account would they. That's right, they're too dumb to think of the obvious. Come on ppl, quit bitching about nothing.

Hell, I'll even take a line from what you guys love to say the most, Have the NYTimes been indicted on charges of treason? Aiding the enemy or any such measure? Has there even been such discussion of indicting the NY Times? No, move along

 

[jfuh]

And gee whiz, it might even be true!

What's true? that the enemy knew the obvious?

 

[oldreliable67]

What's true? that the enemy knew the obvious?

You're getting your threads mixed up. This thread is about a specific instance in which the NYT and a couple of reporters tipped two alleged terrorist funding organizations that they were being investigated.

The other thread ("New York Times: Guilty Of Treason") has more to do with the point of your comment: the obvious was that we were tracking terrorists finances; that had been trumpeted by the admin since 2001, when the admin was hectored by the NYT to do so.

The not-so-obvious was exactly how we were going about doing it. Thanks to the NYT, they now know several things that they did not previously know. Go to the thread and read what those things are.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Am I to assume hangingis still out of the question....:lol:

 

[aquapub]

If you keep saying something over and over again, you will start to believe it.

Of course, the irrefutable facts we are providing help too. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

I smell something.

 

[aquapub]

guys love to say the most, Have the NYTimes been indicted on charges of treason? Aiding the enemy or any such measure? Has there even been such discussion of indicting the NY Times? No, move along

Actually, if you look back on the thread you are mistaking this one for, you will see that the only person acting like an indictment determines the validity of the charge is your friend, Caine.

Again, way to think it through. :applaud

Also, here is proof that there HAS been discussion of indicting the NYT.

"The most troubling development for the press may be Gonzales's suggestion that, for the first time, journalists could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime for unauthorized receipt and transmission of national defense information."

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT. June 12, 2006. "Curbing the Press." By: Liz Halloran, Scott Michels.


Wrong on all counts. :mrgreen:

 

[aquapub]

This is just bullshit. The Washington Post, Wallstreet Journal, LA times all posted the same news at the same time in addition to the Nytimes, yet you guys are singling out the NYtimes because of what?

And really, the enemy has NOOOO clue whatsoever that we'd track this bank account would they. That's right, they're too dumb to think of the obvious. Come on ppl, quit bitching about nothing.

Again, I know liberals have this aversion to reading, but if you check out the intro, this is a different topic.

And this bs about the other papers releasing the paper at the same time was addressed and corrected in that thread. The NYT was the first, and the other papers followed their lead, like they always do.

And the program caught numerous, even major, terrorists, so apparently this assertion that they knew all about the program is bs too.

Additionally, I posted (on post #31) which things were not public knowledge until the NYT ran that story. So you have already had this spin corrected too.

Way to think things through. :applaud

Ever consider having some integrity and STOPPING perpetuating misinformation that's already been corrected? :liar2

And finally, you think a paper needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy is NOTHING? And you don't get why people like Ann Coulter call liberals the treason lobby?


Again, wrong on all counts.

 

[aquapub]

Am I to assume hangingis still out of the question....:lol:

Actually, I think the Constitution specifically mentions the death penalty in reference to treason.

 

[aps]

You're getting your threads mixed up. This thread is about a specific instance in which the NYT and a couple of reporters tipped two alleged terrorist funding organizations that they were being investigated.

The other thread ("New York Times: Guilty Of Treason") has more to do with the point of your comment: the obvious was that we were tracking terrorists finances; that had been trumpeted by the admin since 2001, when the admin was hectored by the NYT to do so.

The not-so-obvious was exactly how we were going about doing it. Thanks to the NYT, they now know several things that they did not previously know. Go to the thread and read what those things are.

Have you spoken to a terrorist who said, "oldreliable, I had no idea that the United States was doing this"? Somehow I doubt it. Thus, you cannot say that, "[T]hey now know several things that they did not previously know." You don't know that for a fact, although I know it strengthens your argument if you say such. :roll:

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Have you spoken to a terrorist who said, "oldreliable, I had no idea that the United States was doing this"? Somehow I doubt it. Thus, you cannot say that, "[T]hey now know several things that they did not previously know." You don't know that for a fact, although I know it strengthens your argument if you say such. :roll:

Yet your more then willing to assume they knew everything, I find that highly improbable

 

[oldreliable67]

Have you spoken to a terrorist who said, "oldreliable, I had no idea that the United States was doing this"? Somehow I doubt it. Thus, you cannot say that, "[T]hey now know several things that they did not previously know." You don't know that for a fact, although I know it strengthens your argument if you say such. :roll:

My speaking with a terrorist about this wasn't necessary. The CIA and other intel agencies in the west have done that for me - witness the capture of several terrorists as a result of this program. The program's success speaks for itself.

 

[Deegan]

I say again, we told these countries that were helping us, that this would remain a secret, now we look like fools, and many countries will be hesitant to help us in the future. This is crux of the matter, how can we ever expect a country to trust us, when we leak, and they become a target because of that leak. I certainly can't blame them, why put your country in harms way, when we can't keep sensitive relations secret, it's quite discouraging.

 

[Stinger]

My speaking with a terrorist about this wasn't necessary. The CIA and other intel agencies in the west have done that for me - witness the capture of several terrorists as a result of this program. The program's success speaks for itself.

What don't they understand about that? The program WORKED. The attempts to dismiss it they engage in are patently absurd. I bet the terrorists also know we listen into chat rooms, but we don't tell them how or when or where and that just resulted in the capture and foiling of a terrorist plot.

 

[Stinger]

You two can have fun on this thread. :2wave:

Some of us are mature enough to know this is not about fun.

 

[Stinger]

If you keep saying something over and over again, you will start to believe it.

It didn't work with your "Rove has been indicted" post did it.

The fact is this is something new, the tipping off of a group suspected of supporting terrorist to a search and investigation.

Do you support such actions by reporters and people opposed to our foriegn policy?

Oh that's right you ignore me since you were proven wrong about Rove.

 

[Stinger]

This is just bullshit. The Washington Post, Wallstreet Journal, LA times all posted the same news at the same time in addition to the Nytimes, yet you guys are singling out the NYtimes because of what?

Proving once again he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is a different issue.

And really, the enemy has NOOOO clue whatsoever that we'd track this bank account would they. That's right, they're too dumb to think of the obvious. Come on ppl, quit bitching about nothing.

And do you think the terrorist might imagine we listen in on chat rooms? Well we just caught a bunch of them that way. So would it be OK if a newspaper published information as to exactly how we do it even after the adminsitration told them it could ruin the program?

Perhaps it's time you learned that these programs are VERY important and VERY critical in keeping YOU safe and put your partisian blinders aside and take a realist view of the world.