The NY Times vs. The President. Who determines the People's Legitimate Right to Know? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 07-06-2006, 10:02 PM

On September 19, 2001, just eight days after the 9/11 attacks, the WSJ published the following on it's editorial page:

Quote:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...ml?id=95001169
<img src="http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/logo.gif">
REVIEW & OUTLOOK

A New Presidency
How Bush should spend his windfall of political capital.

Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:02 a.m. EDT

<b>So much for Florida, and Jim Jeffords's Senate betrayal too. Those teapot tempests happened in a different country a long time ago.</b> In the wake of last week's terror attacks, most Americans are putting their trust in President Bush and want him to succeed. This gives him a historic opportunity to assert his leadership, not just on security and foreign policy but across the board.

The White House temptation will be to subjugate everything else to the priority of getting bipartisan support for the war on terrorism. This is the mistake the President's father made during the Gulf War, agreeing to raise taxes in 1990 because he felt he couldn't challenge the same Democratic Congress he needed to vote for war against Saddam Hussein. His father, of course, had the disadvantage of having to build support for his war effort and only reached a 90% job approval rating after he won in the Persian Gulf.

George W. Bush now finds himself in far better political circumstances, with nearly universal public support before he undertakes any military action. The public will not soon want to hear from critics who appear to be angling for partisan gain. This means that for the next few months Mr. Bush will have enormous political capital to do whatever he says must be done to help the war effort and buttress national strength. But the lesson of history is that Presidents must spend political capital or they will lose it. And when they spend it and win, they accumulate even more capital.

Moreover, the assault on U.S. territory has altered the national dialogue in a way that makes Mr. Bush's agenda far more achievable. Domestic matters are less pressing than national defense, and cultural disputes will give way to the goal of re-energizing the national and global economies. The welfare-state issues that often benefit liberals, in short, are being replaced as priorities by the more fundamental questions of peace and prosperity.

First and foremost Mr. Bush has an opportunity to rebuild the nation's defenses. This seemed impossible only eight days ago, but now Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is likely to get all the money he needs. Much of that will go, as it should, for urgent military tasks. But Congress is also likely to agree to a major down payment on modernizing a military still operating under Cold War modes of thought.

Throughout history the periods of greatest military innovation have been wars. Now is the time to push for money for next-generation weaponry and electronics that will keep the U.S. well ahead of not just terrorists but all adversaries. Democracies are reluctant to spend money on defense in peacetime, but in a war they will give the military whatever it needs.

Americans also know that a strong economy is essential to any war effort, and this also gives Mr. Bush a big opportunity. In particular, the phony "trust fund" constraints on fiscal policy have fallen with the Trade Center towers, opening as much as $150 billion a year in surplus for pro-growth tax cuts.

The temptation here will be to settle for a lowest common denominator stimulus, for the sake of bipartisanship. But Democrats will be wary of opposing measures that Mr. Bush insists are necessary for growth. Already Dick Gephardt, the House Democratic leader, has said he's willing to look at new tax cuts. In return for spending that Democrats surely want, Mr. Bush has a chance to insist on faster tax-rate cuts that would increase the incentive to invest not just next week but for years ahead. This will help restore business and stock-market confidence.

The transformed political landscape should also boost other Bush initiatives. Turmoil in the Mideast helps make the case for more domestic energy production, including drilling for oil in Alaska. With the world economy slumping, trade also needs a lift and so Mr. Bush's request for free-trade negotiating authority is likely to be easier.

Mr. Bush can also now demand a complete government as soon as possible, including judicial nominees. Last week the Senate whipped John Negroponte through to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, after months of Democratic stalling. If nothing else, Mr. Bush can insist that the Senate give his nominees quick up or down votes, so he can appoint others for the jobs. As for judges, we suspect Democrats in the Senate will hesitate to carry out borkings that clearly undercut Mr. Bush's leadership.

We aren't saying that a crisis should stop political debate, and over time it surely won't. But the bloody attacks have created a unique political moment when Americans of all stars and stripes are uniting behind their President. Voters will have less patience for Washington's partisan parlor games. Mr. Bush won't help himself if he seems to be exploiting this moment of national unity for narrow partisan goals. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't use the moment to press a broad agenda that he believes is in the national interest.

We recall visiting Mr. Bush in Austin in December 1999, when he was planning his Presidential run. One of us asked him why his father had lost his bid for re-election. The son's answer was that when his father was at 90% approval after his Gulf War victory, he didn't spend the political capital on a big agenda. We trust the current President Bush remembers that lesson.

Is the following an accurate description of what has happened in the five years since the 9/11 attacks, or in the seven months since the NY Times reported the warrantless domestic wiretaps story, or in the month since several news orgs published the foreign monetary transaction surveillance story?

Quote:

The Treason Card

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 7, 2006

The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times, an attack not on the newspaper's judgment, but on its motives, seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions, that it "has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it", The Journal's own political editor pronounced himself "shocked," saying that "I don't know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that."

But anyone who was genuinely shocked by The Journal's willingness to play the treason card must not have been paying attention these past five years.

Over the last few months a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious a long time ago: the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the checks and balances that have heretofore constrained the executive branch.

Much of this project involves the assertion of unprecedented executive authority, the right to imprison people indefinitely without charges (and torture them if the administration feels like it), the right to wiretap American citizens without court authorization, the right to declare, when signing laws passed by Congress, that the laws don't really mean what they say.

But an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line. As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism."

Those of us who tried to call attention to this authoritarian project years ago have long marveled over the reluctance of many of our colleagues to acknowledge what was going on. For example, for a long time many people in the mainstream media applied a peculiar double standard to political speech, denouncing perfectly normal if forceful political rhetoric from the left as poisonous "Bush hatred," while chuckling indulgently over venom from the right. (That Ann Coulter, she's such a kidder.)

But now the chuckling has stopped: somehow, nobody seems to find calls to send Bill Keller to the gas chamber funny. And while the White House clearly believes that attacking The Times is a winning political move, it doesn't have to turn out that way, not if enough people realize what's at stake.

For I think that most Americans still believe in the principle that the president isn't a king, that he isn't entitled to operate without checks and balances. And President Bush is especially unworthy of our trust, because on every front, from his refusal to protect chemical plants to his officials' exposure of Valerie Plame, from his toleration of war profiteering to his decision to place the C.I.A. in the hands of an incompetent crony, he has consistently played politics with national security.

And he has done so with the approval and encouragement of the same people now attacking The New York Times for its alleged lack of patriotism.

Does anyone remember the editorial that The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 19, 2001, "So much for Florida," the editorial began, celebrating the way the terrorist attack had pushed aside concerns over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court decision that installed Mr. Bush in the White House. The Journal then warned Mr. Bush not to give in to the "temptation" to "subjugate everything else to the priority of getting bipartisan support for the war on terrorism." Instead, it urged him to use the "political capital" generated by the atrocity to push through tax cuts and right-wing judicial appointments.

Things have changed since then: Mr. Bush's ability to wrap his power grab in the flag has diminished now that most Americans no longer consider him either competent or honest. But the administration and its supporters still believe that they can win political battles by impugning the patriotism of those who won't go along.

For the sake of our country, let's hope that they're wrong.

I think that the NY Times has told us nothing that is beyond our right to know, as far as the legal and illegal monitoring by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. I am especially concerned about what I perceive as baseless attacks on leading news media orgs by politicians in Washington who seem to forget that we do have a right to know what our government is doing if it circumvents the law or invades our privacy. How can we criticize or support what we have no knowledge of? Shouldn't our sacrifice in investing what it took to enjoy the protection of the most powerful military in the history of the world, in a country that spends ten times as much on it's military, annually, as it's closest rival, entitle us to live in the freeest and most open society on the planet, with the most transparent government?

<b>If we can't manage this....a free society with a free press and an accountable government, who can? Shouldn't the most freedom of information and government transparency and the criticism that is a consequence of governing the freeest and most informed citizenry, be the right and privilege of the most insignifigant and the most powerful democratic societies,</b> the former because no rival is interested in threatening them, and the latter because no threat exists that is substantial enough, compared to their power and stature, to justify the narrowing of access to freedom to know and to freely criticize?

How does muzzling and intimidating the press, when done by an presidential administration that has erred on the side of secrecy and classification of as much information as possible, and has polled increasingly low minority support in the categories of trust and honesty, undeniably for cause; help to raise the reputation of such an administration?

I think that we are on the doorstep of a more desperate time, a time where freedom of the press and official lipservice paid to the concept of "democracy", will be suspended and replaced by more forceful and restrictive edicts of an increasingly desperate administration. They want to keep the control and lack of accountability that, after five years, they have become accustomed to. It is however, 5 years since 9/11 and the administration's performance and reputation are on display for all to see and evaluate.

I think that they are using the circumstances of declining support and increasing opposition, as an excuse to further consolidate power and control.
"in the interest of national security". Do you agree, and are you ready to let them, or will you decide to attempt to get in their way?

Seaver · 07-06-2006, 11:12 PM

It's a fine line, but freedom of the press does not equal freedom to release classified documents.

host · 07-07-2006, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

It's a fine line, but freedom of the press does not equal freedom to release classified documents.

It is not a "fine line"...there is a clear description of what classified info cannot be released or published by the press; other than those described items and categories, the opposite of what you posted seems more accurate:

In the last bold quotes in this post, Washington Post reporter says that freedom of the press does equal release of classified documents, Seaver. Dana Priest said that the exceptions to this are: <b>"But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight,"</b>

Seaver, if you're pressed for time, or only mildly interested, please just read only the bolded and enlarged highlights. It appears that the executive branch and some republicans in congress are singling out the NY Times. The excerpt from the WSJ editorial is "over the top". I think that Time's editor Keller renders the attacks on the Times by pols, pundits, and the WSJ, seem silly and far fetched, because the folks who work for the Times all live in two prime terror target areas....why would they decide to make where they live and work, "less safe", by publishing info that would strengthen an enemy that has already carried out terrorist attacks in those two cities?

The comments in the last quote box, from July 2's "Meet the Press", indicate that the administration has been quite open about this financial surveillance. I'll provide linked references to five or more quotes, that go at least as far back as around 9/11, that prove this.

Seaver, do you simply prefer to let an administration that classifies more documents that it generates, than it leaves unclassified, free to classify everything, and then use that action to keep the press from examining and publishing any document originating from that government branch?

Again...isn't the Times beign scapegoated as a diversion, now that you have been informed that it is legal for the press to publish all but a narrowly defined set of classified info? I highlighted the report that the Times was given the info that it published from more than 20 current or former government officials. If anyone should appropriately be investigated, it is them, not the Times.

....and again, if any country is strong enough militarily to uphold and defend it's free press and all of it's citizens' rights during "war time", wouldn't that country be the U.S. There has been no threat deemed serious enough to reverse tax cuts, or to call for any sacrifice from citizens on the homefront.

There has been no attack or serious plot uncovered to do so, in five years in the U.S. Is the Times doing anymore than attempting to tell us all what it has been told, is happening, as far as decisions of this administration, and since the administration has not shown any evidence that any damage to national security has been done by any news reports, is the official criticism of the Times, fair or accurate? You may not want to know, Seaver, but to me, it is important that I know. The Times knows what classified info it is prohibited from publishing, all information that isn't prohibited should be shared with us promptly. Too many Americans have fought and died to preserve this process, this right. We spend the money for the strongest and best defense....it allows us to err on the side of openness, and to freely criticize what that openness reveals to us about our government. When Cheney attacks a news org that is acting within it's rights, he is attacking my right to know, and by extension, my right to criticize his policies and directives.

Quote:

http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/cli...ller27-ON.html
June 25, 2006
Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report

.....Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

<b>It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.</b>

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.

Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel. <h3>It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places — New York and the Washington area — that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.</h3>

The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk.....

......A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.

We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program.

By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would — if the public knew what they were doing — withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA.

A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.

I can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gone through the process I've outlined above and come to a different conclusion. But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.

Thanks for writing.

Regards,
Bill Keller

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/wa...gewanted=print
June 23, 2006
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.....

......The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

"The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling," said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."

The program is separate from the National Security Agency's efforts to eavesdrop without warrants and collect domestic phone records, operations that have provoked fierce public debate and spurred lawsuits against the government and telecommunications companies.

But all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans and others inside the United States.

Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several secret efforts to trace terrorist financing. Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments, the officials said.

<h3>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.</h3> Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.....

.....The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.

Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Mr. Levey agreed to discuss the classified operation after the Times editors told him of the newspaper's decision.....

....The Treasury Department was charged by President Bush, in a September 2001 executive order, with taking the lead role in efforts to disrupt terrorist financing. Mr. Bush has been briefed on the program and Vice President Dick Cheney has attended C.I.A. demonstrations, the officials said. The National Security Agency has provided some technical assistance.

While the banking program is a closely held secret, administration officials have held classified briefings for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission, the officials said. More lawmakers were briefed in recent weeks, after the administration learned The Times was making inquiries for this article.....

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13615446/
Updated: 1:59 p.m. ET July 2, 2006

MS. MITCHELL: Senator Schumer, on January 1, you said that—about an earlier leak regarding the NSA surveillance...

SEN. SCHUMER: Right.

MS. MITCHELL: ...that “Whenever classified information is leaked, there ought to be an investigation, because it could endanger our security.” So I would presume you now would agree with the president that this leak should also be investigated.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, it certainly should be investigated, but the president and others have gone way overboard.

MS. MITCHELL: How so?

SEN. SCHUMER: How so? Look, we believe in a free press in this country. The press is often antagonistic or probing of people in power. We all don’t like that, but it’s part of America, and as a founding father said when they first wrote the Constitution, true to this day, that’s a good thing for America.

The—there are exceptions. One is if it harms national security. Now all of these statements by the president and others are jumping the gun. We don’t know if it’s harmed national security. In fact, I’ve been on the Banking Committee for six years. It is broad public knowledge, stated by administration officials...

MS. MITCHELL: Have you been briefed on this?

SEN. SCHUMER: I have not been briefed privately on this program, but we’ve had people come before the Banking Committee, publicly, from Treasury and other departments. And this is—the White House has made statements, others have made statements, that we monitor and track terrorist financing.

MS. MITCHELL: Well...

SEN. SCHUMER: It’s been successful, so that you look at the reports, the terrorists don’t use the banks as much. So to jump out front and just blast a newspaper that they may not like, that, to me, is totally wrong. It’s, it’s the guilty verdict first and then the trial. Mitch—Pat Roberts has called for an investigation, fine, let it be a fair...

MS. MITCHELL: The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. Let it be a fair and down-the-middle investigation. My guess: It will find that national security was not compromised a jot.

MS. MITCHELL: Well, let me pick up on that, because Treasury Secretary Snow took a group of reporters on a trip to Afghanistan and other parts of the world to show off how they were tracking terror financing. So, Senator McConnell, do they want to have it both ways? Do they want to brag about their success record in tracking this financing, and at the same time yell and scream about the reporters when they print the stories?

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, look, I think the leaks are abominable and printing of the leaks is certainly troubling. You can talk in general about what we’re doing without revealing the specifics. And I think we all regret that the, that the Times and other publications chose to do that. And I think the president essentially had it correctly.

MS. MITCHELL: Well, let me show you a joint statement that was on the op-ed pages of both The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times yesterday. The editors of those newspapers wrote, “... the banking articles ... did not dwell on the operational or technical aspects of the program, but on its sweep, the questions about its legal basis and the issues of oversight. We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices - to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.”

After that, in fact, The Wall Street Journal attacked The New York Times on its editorial pages Friday, so this was clearly a response to that, even though the Journal had itself published the same story about terror financing in its news columns, which is separate from its editorial pages. Senator McConnell, has the administration and its conservative supporters now embarked on a calculated campaign to demonize The New York Times and other newspapers, but particularly The New York Times, as a political calculus because it’ll help in the midterm elections?

SEN. McCONNELL: Look, newspapers are very, very important in our, in our country. The media’s important, and we have a free press, but the press is not responsible for our national security. That’s the responsibility of the president and the Department of Defense and the other agencies that look after us. And I think it’s important for the leaders of the principle outlets in the press in this country to be responsible. And I don’t this publishing of this kind of information is helpful, and nor do I think it is necessary in doing their job.

MS. MITCHELL: Senator Schumer?

SEN. SCHUMER: Andrea, let me say a couple of things. First, you asked about a double standard. There clearly is a double standard; it’s with the administration. They leak things they want to leak. And when the Plame leak came out, there was no outrage, there was no high dudgeon. In fact, regardless of the criminal standard which special prosecutor Fitzgerald is handling, it’s clear that there were leaks. There’s been no punishment, no outcry, etc. You can’t have it both ways and use leaks when you want to and don’t use leaks when you don’t.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13615446/page/4/
.......MS. MITCHELL: And coming next, freedom of the press vs. national security. Our roundtable with radio host and author Bill Bennett, William Safire of The New York Times, Dana Priest of The Washington Post, and John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal. All coming up on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MS. MITCHELL: Our round table on balancing press freedoms and national security, after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MS. MITCHELL: Welcome all.

Well, first the firestorm over leaks. For years the president and the Treasury have been trumpeting their success in following terror money.

So, Bill Bennett, what is the harm in what The New York Times and other newspapers did last week in publishing their stories?

MR. BILL BENNETT: Well, there are a lot of people who are saying there’s a lot of harm. Ask the undersecretary of the Treasury, Stuart Levy, who is very upset about it. Ask the secretary of the Treasury, departing secretary, Secretary Snow. Ask Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission. They’re not exactly Bush camp followers. Tom Kean said in an interview, he said a very successful program, which has been very successful, successful in the war against terror, has been lost, compromised because of this.

MS. MITCHELL: Well, isn’t it true that, in fact, this program was hinted at in the 9/11 commission report, and both NBC analyst Roger Cressey, who is a former national security official, and his fellow former NSC officer Richard Clarke said that no harm was done. Let’s look at what they wrote in The New York Times about this. “Wildly overblown ... are the Bush administration’s protests that the press revelations about the financial monitoring program may tip off the terrorists. ... They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny. How gullible does the administration take the American citizenry to be?” Bill Safire...

MR. BENNETT: Well...

MS. MITCHELL: ...does the press have an obligation...

MR. BENNETT: ...is that it? Is that it for me?

MS. MITCHELL: No. No. Stand by. I want to ask Bill Safire to weigh in on this.....

.....MS. MITCHELL: But, John, what Bill Bennett would say to you is that they didn’t know about the so-called SWIFT program, they didn’t know the specifics. Bill...

MR. BENNETT: Well, why did they, why did they get caught on 2003 rather than two years earlier when the program was announced? I know we have an air marshals program, but I don’t know which marshal is on which plane. Yeah, we established a democracy, we, we opposed a king, we have a president of the United States. The founders, let me go back 200 years, James Wilson said “The press will be free. No prior restraint on the press. However, when they err, when they are irresponsible, they should be held accountable.” Now, you put Richard Clarke up against Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean. I’m sorry, Richard Clarke has a thing against this administration, that’s pretty clearly known. Tom Kean said a—the details of a valuable program were lost.

MS. MITCHELL: Well, he worked for a while in this administration.

MR. BENNETT: Lee Hamilton said the same thing, Jack Murtha—these, again, are not cat’s paws of this administration—begged The New York Times not to run this piece.

MS. DANA PRIEST: You know, Andrea, the administration...

MS. MITCHELL: Yes, Dana?

MS. PRIEST: Every time there’s a national security story they don’t want published, they say it will damage national security. But they—for one thing, they’ve never given us any proof. They say it will stop cooperation, but the fact is that the countries of the world understand that they have to cooperate on counterterrorism. And just like the banks that did not pull out of the system, other countries continue to cooperate, because it’s a common problem.

MS. MITCHELL: But, Dana...

<b>......MS. MITCHELL: Dana, let me point out that The Washington Post, your newspaper, was behind the others but also did publish this story. And a story you wrote last year disclosing the secret CIA prisons won the Pulitzer Prize, but it also led to William Bennett, sitting here, saying that three reporters who won the Pulitzer Prize—you for that story and Jim Risen and others for another story—were, “not worthy of an award but rather worthy of jail.” Dana, how do you plead?</b>

<h3>MS. PRIEST: Well, it’s not a crime to publish classified information. And this is one of the things Mr. Bennett keeps telling people that it is. But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight, and you can’t do that.</h3> Look at the criticism that the press got after Iraq that we did not do our job <b>on WMD. And that was all in a classified arena. To do a better job—and I believe that we should’ve done a better job—we would’ve again, found ourselves in the arena of...</b>

MS. MITCHELL: But, we’ve now had a steady drum beat from the White House all week about this, as you’ve pointed out. Here’s what the president and the vice president have been saying on the stump at campaign events.

(Videotape, Wednesday):

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Last week, the details of this program appeared in the press. There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it, and no excuse for any newspaper to print it.

(End videotape)

(Videotape, Monday):

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging.

What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they’ve been rewarded for it—for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program—by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalist. I think that is a disgrace.

(End videotape)....

.......MR. BENNETT: Can—may I—can I, can I...

MS. PRIEST: Still, the point is the tension between the media and the government is long-standing. And that’s to be expected. And in fact, all these—many of the people getting up to lambaste the media now are also people that we talk to with our stories, to vet our stories, to say, “What is it in this story that you’re most concerned about?”

MS. MITCHELL: You mean, to hold things back?

MS. PRIEST: To hold things back. In the prison story, we talked with the administration. No one in the administration asked us not to publish the story. In fact, people said, “We know you have your job to do, but please don’t publish the names of the countries where the prisons are located.” So there is a reasoned dialogue that often goes on between the media and the government behind, behind all this.

MS. MITCHELL: That was not the case with the NSA surveillance stories.

MR. BENNETT: That’s correct. Can I say something?

MS. MITCHELL: Please.

MR. BENNETT: Because I’m being quoted and talked about. I’m right here.

You know, I’m right here. I can, I can make my own case.

MS. MITCHELL: Well, please weigh in.

MR. HARWOOD: (Unintelligible)...Bennett

MR. BENNETT: All right, now you’ve got, you’ve got, you’ve got three people on one side, you’ve got me on the other side. Let me just, let me just state my position.

It’s not time to break out the champagne and the Pulitzers. This is not about politics, not from my perspective. It’s about the United States of America and the security of the United States of America. The difference is, the government was elected. People may not like the Bush administration, but they were elected and they are entitled to due consideration on these matters. The American people, in fact, believe in a free press, as I do, and I don’t believe in prior restraint of the press. But the American people are saying, if you listen to them in very, very large and consistent numbers—and an awful lot of people across the board are saying this—is four times now, four times in eight months, Dana Priest’s story, the National Surveillance Security Agency monitoring story, the USA Today story about data mining. “Oh, sorry,” they tell us on Friday, “We maybe got that wrong. Our sources were wrong.”

MS. MITCHELL: Well, wait a second, the story wasn’t wrong. The—what they apologized for is that one of the companies, or two of the companies...

MR. BENNETT: Two of the companies.

MS. MITCHELL: ...did not have contracts.

MR. BENNETT: Big, big part of the story.

MS. MITCHELL: But that the—but that the information...

MS. PRIEST: Yeah.

MS. MITCHELL: ...was still being...

MS. PRIEST: The program was still valid.

MR. BENNETT: But they—a big part of the story...

MS. MITCHELL: But the fundamental part of the story was...

MR. BENNETT: ...big—big—big part of the story they got wrong. All right, check your facts when you’re running a front page...

MS. MITCHELL: I have.

MR. BENNETT: ...when they’re running front page, USA Today needs to check its facts. And now, and now, and now this story on the SWIFT. And now people are saying, is there a competition here?

MS. MITCHELL: Which no one has denied.

MR. BENNETT: No, no one has denied it except the people at Treasury and again, Tom Kean, are saying this thing has now destroyed the capacity of our program. Again, the difference is the government of the United States was elected to protect our security. It isn’t always in the service of security to leak. Katharine Graham, in The New York Times today, Katharine Graham cites a very interesting example in 1983 where she said the press went too far. It reported about secret communications between Syrian terrorists and their Iranian—their Iranian bosses, which led later, she said, to the deaths of 240 Marines. This can happen. We are in war. This is classified...

MS. PRIEST: You know, I heartily appreciate your talking on behalf of all the American people because when...

MR. BENNETT: ...it’s—it’s not—I’m not. I’m talking about a lot of the American—wait, let me finish. Let me finish.

MS. PRIEST: ...my stories ran I received several—many, many people thanking me because they thought that they went—including...

MR. BENNETT: You don’t want to be—you don’t, you don’t want to put this to an opinion poll.

MS. PRIEST: ...including four-star...

MR. BENNETT: You do not want to do this on an opinion poll.

MS. PRIEST: ...including active-duty four-star generals.

MR. BENNETT: Can I, can I just...

MS. PRIEST: Some people think that the administration has gone too far in some of the counterterrorism measures they’ve taken, and that some of the things that we were—are revealing are creating a debate that could not have happened before.

MR. BENNETT: Yeah, and the shutting down of prisons......

......MR. BENNETT: ...and countries that say...

MS. PRIEST: The prisons have been moved. They have not been shut down.

That’s a big difference.

MR. BENNETT: That’s a different.....

MS. MITCHELL: Bill Safire, weigh in here.

MR. SAFIRE: Let me respond to what Bill, to the point he’s making, that who elected the media to determine what should be secret and what should not?

MS. MITCHELL: Which is the fundamental point.

MR. SAFIRE: Right. And the answer to that is, the founding fathers did. They came up with this Bill of Rights beyond which the constitutional convention would not move unless there were a First Amendment to challenge the government...

MR. BENNETT: Right.

MR. SAFIRE: ...just as the American founding fathers challenged the British government. Now it’s not treasonable, it’s not even wrong for the press to say we’re going to find out what we can and we’ll act as a check and balance on the government. Sometimes we’ll make mistakes. Sometimes the government will mistake.

MR. BENNETT: Is it wrong for the government to go after the press when the press has gone too far?

MR. SAFIRE: Sometimes we—sometimes even the Supreme Court admits to making mistakes.

MR. BENNETT: Can—should the press be held responsible if it’s going too far?

MR. HARWOOD: (Unintelligible)...about public opinion.

MR. BENNETT: Should the press be held responsible if it’s gone too far?

MS. MITCHELL: John Harwood:

MR. SAFIRE: Free speech helps everybody.

MR. BENNETT: Judy Miller went to jail for 85 days.

MR. HARWOOD: Now, let me...(unintelligible).

MR. BENNETT: And there was not a big hue and cry about that, was there?

MS. MITCHELL: (Unintelligible).

MR. SAFIRE: There sure was for a moment.

MR. HARWOOD: Let me...(Unintelligible)...just for a moment.

MR. BENNETT: From few people, not from a lot of people.

MR. SAFIRE: There sure was for...(unintelligible)...The New York Times stuck to their...

MS. MITCHELL: Wait, wait, wait, wait, one second here.

MR. HARWOOD: I’m going to agree with Bill Bennett for one moment.

MS. MITCHELL: Please.

MR. BENNETT: One moment.

MR. HARWOOD: I believe that public opinion is much closer to Bennett on this point than some of the other members of the press in the discussion. After Dana wrote her story about secret prisons we asked in our Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, “Do you think the administration has gone too far in handling terror suspects overseas, or is it taking the right approach?” Fifty-five to 30 the American people said they’ve taken the right approach.

MS. MITCHELL: But the press is never popular, and most notably now.

MR. HARWOOD: Exactly so, and the American people are not overly concerned at this moment about the finest points of civil liberties on this. Secondly, I accept that Bill Bennett is not motivated by politics in his views on this. However, when you talk privately to Republicans on the Hill, why did we have a debate for a couple of days on the Hill about this resolution that had no force of law whatsoever about The New York Times? They’ll tell you it was politics. They love having this discussion. They want it to go on as long as possible.

MR. BENNETT: Well, we’re still talking about basic right and wrong here. And is there any question that people—I think I’m the only one here who signed a nondisclosure agreement when I was—when I was director of national drug control policy, maybe some of you have—it’s a pretty serious matter. People who signed those agreements in government have violated the law, they have violated their oath, they have done so by talking to Dana Priest, talking to Risen and talking to Lichtblau.

MS. MITCHELL: Let, let me...

MR. BENNETT: We need to get after those people, and one way to get after those people is to talk to the reporters who—with whom they spoke.

MR. SAFIRE: Oh, you’re saying “get after them.” That means threatening reporters, and threaten them with contempt and put them in jail.

MR. BENNETT: Absolutely, absolutely.

MR. SAFIRE: And that’s wrong.

MS. MITCHELL: Bill, what, what...(unintelligible)...let me ask, Bill...

MR. BENNETT: Why is that wrong, Bill? Why are they above the law?

MR. SAFIRE: Because they’re affected...

MR. HARWOOD: Because it’s a big step toward tyranny, which is what we’re supposed to be withholding.

MR. BENNETT: It isn’t a step toward tyranny. And what about the AIPAC, guys? Is that a step toward tyranny? They’re being prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Isn’t that more a step toward tyranny?

MS. MITCHELL: Bill—Bill Safire, let me ask you a question about The New York Times. There are a lot of people who believe The New York Times, in doing this latest story, is motivated by an anti-Bush animus. Is The New York Times making a decision that is political rather than editorial?

MR. SAFIRE: The New York Times, like The Wall Street Journal, has a wall of separation between its editorial voice and its front page and its news coverage. And that’s always been the case. Now, does it always stay exactly the same? When you drive right down that road, is it always right? No, it changes. But in this case, I am certain, I’m really certain, that the editorial position of The New York Times about the war—which I completely disagree with—did not affect its coverage of the,of the news.

MS. MITCHELL: Let me, let me show you a Wall Street Journal editorial—a very unusual editorial—that was in the paper on Friday. It said that “The problem with The New York Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don’t. On issue after issue, it has become clear that The Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.” <b>John, I don’t want to really put you on the spot here, but I am. Your paper’s news columns also ran this story, and here you have this editorial. It really is a really sharp conflict......</b>

Redlemon · 07-07-2006, 06:05 AM

Time Magazine has a nice, evenhanded editorial regarding this.

Quote:

Sunday, Jul. 2, 2006
No One Gets a Blank Check
By RICHARD STENGEL, MANAGING EDITOR

The tension between liberty and security is as old as the Republic--and as new as the latest high-tech listening device. In wartime, that tension very often plays itself out as a battle between the White House and the press. It is doing so again now. The script is ever the same: the White House asserts it is the protector of our security; the press maintains it is the guardian of our liberty. * The stories in the New York Times and other newspapers about the government's highly classified program to monitor bank records have provoked outrage from the White House. President George W. Bush called them "disgraceful" and said the revelations caused "great harm" to America. Vice President Dick Cheney said the press had "made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult."

I do not know if they are right. What I do know is that Presidents in wartime assert that their constitutional responsibility for national security trumps any issue of civil liberties. Often that has meant trampling on them. From John Adams' Sedition Act to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus to Woodrow Wilson's draconian Espionage Act to F.D.R.'s internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, Presidents have constitutionally overreached. Last week's Supreme Court decision in the Hamdan case suggested that Bush had too--although his actions hardly compare with the examples above.

When the press runs a story the White House claims is harmful to security, the word disloyalty inevitably creeps into the conversation. The line between dissent and disloyalty, between harmful revelations and vital ones, is murky. Often we never really know. But I would argue that the judicious questioning of the conduct and morality of war is the furthest thing from disloyalty: it is an expression of deep patriotism and the essence of responsible citizenship.

Very often in our history, that task has fallen to the press. From the publication of the Pentagon papers and the Watergate probe to TIME's recent revelations about the tragedy at Haditha, our job is to speak truth to power. It is a messy process, and we have not always succeeded.

The framers guarded the freedom of the press in the First Amendment to make sure the press had the freedom to question the government. Jefferson and Madison believed that democracy could easily descend into tyranny and a vigorous press was necessary to prevent our leaders from getting too full of themselves.

There's not an editor in America who didn't wonder what he or she would have done in the case of the National Security Agency spying story and the recent Treasury revelations. It's impossible to say unless you had all the information before you and could hear the case the government made against publishing. But I believe the moral calculus of whether or not to publish is a basic one: Does the potential harm to public security outweigh the likely benefit to the public interest? If it does, hold fire. Attempting to answer that question isn't easy, but that's our responsibility not only as journalists but also as citizens.

This sometimes bitter crossfire between the government and the press is not a bad thing. In fact, such a rough-and-tumble debate is at the heart of American democracy, a 218-year-old seesaw over competing values that will and should continue for as long as we are a nation.

But I would urge you to listen closely to that debate. The government's assertion that it must be unhindered in protecting our security can camouflage the desire to increase Executive power, while the press's cry of the public's right to know can mask a quest for competitive advantage or a hidden animus. Neither the need to protect our security nor the public's right to know is a blank check. So listen carefully because, after all, you are the judge. It is the people themselves who are the makers of their own government. "The best test of truth," as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote, "is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."

Cynthetiq · 07-07-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I think that we are on the doorstep of a more desperate time, a time where freedom of the press and official lipservice paid to the concept of "democracy", will be suspended and replaced by more forceful and restrictive edicts of an increasingly desperate administration. They want to keep the control and lack of accountability that, after five years, they have become accustomed to. It is however, 5 years since 9/11 and the administration's performance and reputation are on display for all to see and evaluate.

maybe, but it seems that it swings back the way that it should over time as evidenced by:

Quote:

Originally Posted by redlemon

What I do know is that Presidents in wartime assert that their constitutional responsibility for national security trumps any issue of civil liberties. Often that has meant trampling on them. From John Adams' Sedition Act to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus to Woodrow Wilson's draconian Espionage Act to F.D.R.'s internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, Presidents have constitutionally overreached. Last week's Supreme Court decision in the Hamdan case suggested that Bush had too--although his actions hardly compare with the examples above.

The fear mongering works both ways, all say that FEAR that something will attack you, it's just divided between who it is, external enemy threat (people), or internal enemy threat (government.)

Either way, it's all Chicken Little posturing to me.

pan6467 · 07-07-2006, 06:48 AM

Freedom of the press is just that FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

We cannot as a "FREE" society, restrict what the press prints.

However, I am concerned about how the press gets these supposed "top secret" documents and do believe the people handing them over are treasonous and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, whether it was outing a CIA agent or handing over military documents.

I maybe against the war and against the current administration, but if we are putting our men in harm's way and possibly hurting their chances of survival then we need to find those responsible for passing along the information.

This does not mean that the press should name sources, I don't believe we should ever force that, nor do I believe that press should be punished in any way, by the government..... if the people don't like what a certain media prints or releases then do not buy that media, sales go down and it goes out of business... that is supposedly the "Capitalistic" way.

Bush wants to make this an issue but he doesn't say he's going after the "leaks" nor shows us that he is. Why?

Could it be that he knows the leaks are out there, maybe even planted them so that people will get upset over what the press releases and thus demand censorship and hurt what the press can release?

It may sound conspiratorial but until I see people truly tried for the release of information that is classified, I will believe that it is planted by the government, so that they can do just that, bitch about the freedom so they can limit it.

powerclown · 07-07-2006, 07:54 AM

Bush is in a no-win situation. If there were to be an attack on the United States, big or small, the press would complain that it was because Bush and the government weren't doing enough to protect the people. They'd be eaten alive. But as long as there are no attacks, it's ok for idiots like Bill Keller to release classified information related to stopping terrorism. Bush's poll approval ratings are back up in the mid 40s as well.

roachboy · 07-07-2006, 08:33 AM

bushco are quite committed to what naomi klein helpfully named as the politics of identity branding. here is a snippet from an interview she did in which she outlines the idea:

Quote:

The Democrats didn't fully understand that the success of Karl Rove's party is really a success in branding. Identity branding is something that the corporate world has understood for some time now. They're not selling a product; they're selling a desired identity, an aspirational identity of the people who consume their product. Nike understands that, Apple understands that, and so do all the successful brands. Karl Rove understands that too.

So what the Republican Party has done is that it has co-branded with other powerful brands ? like country music, and NASCAR, and church going, and this larger proud-to-be-a-redneck identity. Policy is pretty low on the agenda, in terms of why people identify as Republicans. They identify with these packets of attributes.

This means a couple of things. One, it means people are not swayed by policy debates. But more importantly, when George Bush's policies are attacked, rather than being dissuaded from being Republicans, Republicans feel attacked personally ? because it's your politics. Republicanism has merged with their identity. That has happened because of the successful application of the principles of identity branding

source: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21099/

the facts of the matter that klein refers to are not new, nor is she presenting anything like a systematic analysis in this interview to back up her characterization--but she does give identity branding as a nice tag, and that tag fits very well with the patterns developed by the right.

so it follows: rove et al find themeselves in a no-win situation: if they acknowledge anything of substance concerning this administrations consistent abuse of its power under the pretext of its "war on terror" the administration is fucked--they cannot defend themselves in anything like a debate about the merits of their actions or their rationales in which they do not control the terms of debate. and they are sweating the midterm elections. so what do you get? the nytimes is disloyal. they attack the person of the president, the collective person of the right, and so should themselves be attacked--by attacking in this manner, the hope obviously is to divert attention away from the substance of this and any number of other such allegations concerning the administration's contempt for the rule of law.

the move is directed at the republican base.
its logic follows from the centrality of identity branding to republican politics.
it resonates with the "liberal media" canard that the right has been tossing about for years now to spare its faithful the vertigo of having to face information they do not like.

you would think, however, that this kind of abuse of power would alienate even further the entire libertarian element of the right's populist coalition.
it'll be interesting if the right's politics of identification trumps any appreciation of the content of the administration's actions--in the financial tracking, its use of wiretaps, its attempts to ignore the geneva convention in the context of guantanomo and "renditions" on and on and on.

from an outside perspective, the roveresponse to the nytimes seems lunatic.
what makes me shudder is that it could well resonate out there.

Seaver · 07-07-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Freedom of the press is just that FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

We cannot as a "FREE" society, restrict what the press prints.

No but some of them border on aiding and embedding the enemy. Saying how we were monitoring international bank transactions, the method we used to stop cold the terrorist "charity" funds, potentially lost us a valuable tool.

There was an uproar about the release of that CIA agent's name, about how everyone in the Bush administration should face jailtime. If proven true I support it.

However where was the outcry when the FBI director stated to the press (and the press printed it) how we were tracking Bin Laden's satellite phone? Was it because he was a democrat? Was it because that falls under freedom of the press? Well that definately aided Bin Laden, when he was a known dangerous criminal. Personally I think said director and journalist should face charges.

Willravel · 07-07-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

It's a fine line, but freedom of the press does not equal freedom to release classified documents.

What if the government was carrying out secret murders? When is it okay or not okay to report illegal or potentially illegal activities? Where is the line? Was it wrong to investigate Watergate? Should we have ever found out about Agent Orange?

The government does not always have our best interests in mind, and we need to be aware of that when we choose to trust them. The press, in the case of uncovering the potentially illegal wiretaps, was doing it's civic duty in trying to stop the government from bypassing FISA. Not only do I not view that as aiding the enemy, but I view it as patriotic.

boatin · 07-07-2006, 09:54 AM

This topic fascinates me, because it seems clear that both extremes are wrong: publishing secrets and not publishing abuses. It's the crazy middle area... In the current situation, it seems to me the press is doing just fine.

I'm much more likely to trust experienced observers of decision making than those making decisions. Anyone of us that makes decisions all day long should know that our egos/reputations/biases are always in play. And that no one makes perfect decisions all the time. I trust these people's discussions, arguements and decisions in part because they are more neutral than those in power.

Here's my link to add to the fray - an op ed from the publishers of the NY and LA Times

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/01/op...gewanted=print

July 1, 2006
Op-Ed Contributors
When Do We Publish a Secret?
By DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times

SINCE Sept. 11, 2001, newspaper editors have faced excruciating choices in covering the government's efforts to protect the country from terrorist agents. Each of us has, on a number of occasions, withheld information because we were convinced that publishing it could put lives at risk. On other occasions, each of us has decided to publish classified information over strong objections from our government.

Last week our newspapers disclosed a secret Bush administration program to monitor international banking transactions. We did so after appeals from senior administration officials to hold the story. Our reports — like earlier press disclosures of secret measures to combat terrorism — revived an emotional national debate, featuring angry calls of "treason" and proposals that journalists be jailed along with much genuine concern and confusion about the role of the press in times like these.

We are rivals. Our newspapers compete on a hundred fronts every day. We apply the principles of journalism individually as editors of independent newspapers. We agree, however, on some basics about the immense responsibility the press has been given by the inventors of the country.

Make no mistake, journalists have a large and personal stake in the country's security. We live and work in cities that have been tragically marked as terrorist targets. Reporters and photographers from both our papers braved the collapsing towers to convey the horror to the world.

We have correspondents today alongside troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others risk their lives in a quest to understand the terrorist threat; Daniel Pearl of The Wall Street Journal was murdered on such a mission. We, and the people who work for us, are not neutral in the struggle against terrorism.

But the virulent hatred espoused by terrorists, judging by their literature, is directed not just against our people and our buildings. It is also aimed at our values, at our freedoms and at our faith in the self-government of an informed electorate. If the freedom of the press makes some Americans uneasy, it is anathema to the ideologists of terror.

Thirty-five years ago yesterday, in the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people."

As that sliver of judicial history reminds us, the conflict between the government's passion for secrecy and the press's drive to reveal is not of recent origin. This did not begin with the Bush administration, although the polarization of the electorate and the daunting challenge of terrorism have made the tension between press and government as clamorous as at any time since Justice Black wrote.

Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.

In recent years our papers have brought you a great deal of information the White House never intended for you to know — classified secrets about the questionable intelligence that led the country to war in Iraq, about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, about the transfer of suspects to countries that are not squeamish about using torture, about eavesdropping without warrants.

As Robert G. Kaiser, associate editor of The Washington Post, asked recently in the pages of that newspaper: "You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America's name, shouldn't Americans understand how it is being waged?"

Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat.

How do we, as editors, reconcile the obligation to inform with the instinct to protect?

Sometimes the judgments are easy. Our reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, take great care not to divulge operational intelligence in their news reports, knowing that in this wired age it could be seen and used by insurgents.

Often the judgments are painfully hard. In those cases, we cool our competitive jets and begin an intensive deliberative process.

The process begins with reporting. Sensitive stories do not fall into our hands. They may begin with a tip from a source who has a grievance or a guilty conscience, but those tips are just the beginning of long, painstaking work. Reporters operate without security clearances, without subpoena powers, without spy technology. They work, rather, with sources who may be scared, who may know only part of the story, who may have their own agendas that need to be discovered and taken into account. We double-check and triple-check. We seek out sources with different points of view. We challenge our sources when contradictory information emerges.

Then we listen. No article on a classified program gets published until the responsible officials have been given a fair opportunity to comment. And if they want to argue that publication represents a danger to national security, we put things on hold and give them a respectful hearing. Often, we agree to participate in off-the-record conversations with officials, so they can make their case without fear of spilling more secrets onto our front pages.

Finally, we weigh the merits of publishing against the risks of publishing. There is no magic formula, no neat metric for either the public's interest or the dangers of publishing sensitive information. We make our best judgment.

When we come down in favor of publishing, of course, everyone hears about it. Few people are aware when we decide to hold an article. But each of us, in the past few years, has had the experience of withholding or delaying articles when the administration convinced us that the risk of publication outweighed the benefits. Probably the most discussed instance was The New York Times's decision to hold its article on telephone eavesdropping for more than a year, until editors felt that further reporting had whittled away the administration's case for secrecy.

But there are other examples. The New York Times has held articles that, if published, might have jeopardized efforts to protect vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material, and articles about highly sensitive counterterrorism initiatives that are still in operation. In April, The Los Angeles Times withheld information about American espionage and surveillance activities in Afghanistan discovered on computer drives purchased by reporters in an Afghan bazaar.

It is not always a matter of publishing an article or killing it. Sometimes we deal with the security concerns by editing out gratuitous detail that lends little to public understanding but might be useful to the targets of surveillance. The Washington Post, at the administration's request, agreed not to name the specific countries that had secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons, deeming that information not essential for American readers. The New York Times, in its article on National Security Agency eavesdropping, left out some technical details.

Even the banking articles, which the president and vice president have condemned, did not dwell on the operational or technical aspects of the program, but on its sweep, the questions about its legal basis and the issues of oversight.

We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.

— DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times

host · 07-07-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Bush is in a no-win situation. If there were to be an attack on the United States, big or small, the press would complain that it was because Bush and the government weren't doing enough to protect the people. They'd be eaten alive. But as long as there are no attacks, it's ok for idiots like Bill Keller to release classified information related to stopping terrorism. Bush's poll approval ratings are back up in the mid 40s as well.

Please defend your "idiots like Bill Keller" statement. I find it especially offensive, because I've put the time in to make the thorough case that the Times acted on my behalf, and that they broke no law, because it is not illegal to publish the classified information that they published.

Would you have us know, if it was up to you, nothing about the controversial ,measures that the Bush administration has taken, simply because they stamped most of their unilateral decisions as "classified"? I asked before...if, after five years without a terrorist attack on American soil, this country, when it is spending double on it's military per year, as it did in 2000, and ten times as much as it's next nearest rival, cannot err on the side of a free press and a transparent and accountable government, <b>what country can do that, and when?</b>

How do we know what, about their policymaking, to support or criticize, if Keller cannot publish what he knows, simply because the administration stamps the majority of it's decisions as classified? Does the time we live in and the threats that we face, really compare in immediacy and scope to the Civil War, WWI, or WWII? If you think that it does, please provide references that support how a stateless threat by "evil doers", can trump the right to know of the people of the most powerful nation, militarily, in history?

Here is some of the record of this administration's decision making, when it comes to protecting our security and communicating the threat level:

Bush appointed Porter Goss to head the CIA, and Goss appointed unknown CIA middle manager Kyle "Dusty" Foggo to be CIA #3....executive director, equivalent to the director of operations. Foggo is the best friend....all of his life....of Brent Wilkes, co-conspirator #1 in the Duke Cunningham scandal.

Bush appointed Bernard Kerik to head the new DHS, and then hastily withdrew that appointment:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/ny...cnd-kerik.html
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM and JOHN HOLUSHA
Published: June 30, 2006

Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, pleaded guilty today to two misdemeanor charges as the result of accepting tens of thousands of dollars of gifts and a loan while he was a city official in the late 1990's......

The white house was caught using the DHS color coded terror alert warning system for political purposes, needlessly raising public concerns, airport delays, and the expense of living in the country for all of us......

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...e-alerts_x.htm
Posted 5/10/2005 11:21 PM
Ridge reveals clashes on alerts
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.......

The chief of staff in the OVP office was revealed in news reporting, and in releases from special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to be directly involved in telling reporters the name of a classified status employee of the CIA. Then, he lied to the FBI and a federal grand jury about what he had done.

It has been falsely claimed that the administration's handling of pre-Iraq invasion intelligence had been "vetted" by the 9/11 Commission, Sen. Pat Roberts Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and the Robb-Silbermann Investigation, when it fact, all three investigations released reports that stated that they had avoided or been directed, not to investigate that important issue. Roberts has managed....by dividing the "phases" of his investigation...twice....to postpone investigating and reporting on that intelligence handling investigation for two full years, now, and will continue to delay disclosure at least until after the election in November.

I'm only touching the surface, powerclown, for the reasons that I believe that it is my right to know, and Bill Keller's right to report what the administration is doing, that makes your "idiot" label, extreme...... especially in view of the circumstances that clearly make it obvious that this administration is not even attempting to be transparent, accountable, or deserving of our trust. Why not leave the attacks and name calling to Cheney and congressional republicans, why join their chorus? If the news reporting did any harm, where are the examples of that "harm"? Why not make a case that rebuts my documented opinion that Keller was exercising his paper's legitimate contitutional right to publish classified info that did not fall into the narrow realm of prohibited categories?

Your contention that Bush's polling has risen signifigantly does not seem that signifigant:

Quote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. June 27-29, 2006. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE � 3.

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job as president?"

6/27-29/06
Approve 35 %
Disapprove 59 %

Unsure 6 %

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 27-28, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE � 3. LV = likely voters

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?"

.6/27-28/06

Approve 41%

Disapprove 50%

Unsure 9%

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. June 24-27, 2006. N=1,321 adults nationwide. MoE � 3. RV = registered voters. LV = likely voters.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

.6/24-27/06

Approve 41 %

Disapprove 56 %

Unsure 3 %

<img src="http://www.pollingreport.com/images/Gpres.GIF">

powerclown · 07-07-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Please defend your "idiots like Bill Keller" statement.

It's just a big game...a self-important press taking a swipe at a President they don't like.

From what I've read on the SWIFT program, I've come to the conclusion that tracking the financial activities of 'potentially bad people' is a good thing. Therefore, I don't think releasing sensitive information pertaining to said program is necessary - just petty and vindictive.

Willravel · 07-07-2006, 11:36 AM

You really think this is a game? How many people died on 9/11? How many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have died? How many soldiers have died? What's happened to the Constitution and BOR? Self importance obviously has little to do with this, since the press has put itself in a very difficult spot publishing their findings. Why would they do that? Well, it's something called journalistic integrity. If I was a journalist, and I saw the government doing something I thought was illegal, guess what I'd do? What would you do? Would you support a fruitless wire tapping program that OBVIOUSLY effects the privacyt of every American?

I don't understand how it's petty to bravely do one's job. Would you call a firefighter petty just because they put out a fire in a place that you didn't care about?

powerclown · 07-07-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You really think this is a game? How many people died on 9/11? How many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have died? How many soldiers have died? What's happened to the Constitution and BOR? Self importance obviously has little to do with this, since the press has put itself in a very difficult spot publishing their findings. Why would they do that? Well, it's something called journalistic integrity. If I was a journalist, and I saw the government doing something I thought was illegal, guess what I'd do? What would you do? Would you support a fruitless wire tapping program that OBVIOUSLY effects the privacyt of every American?

I don't understand how it's petty to bravely do one's job. Would you call a firefighter petty just because they put out a fire in a place that you didn't care about?

If it isn't a game, then why did the NYTimes expose a clandestine government program aimed at those responsible for 9/11 (rhetorical question).

What *possible* good could come of it.

There was no rational justification that I can see for them to expose this program. I think you are giving the NYT more credit here than they deserve. This should be a case-study to everyone that the Media, who are also human beings with opinions, is not necessarily completely impartial, unbiased or non-partisan. A case-study they don't teach in journalism school.

Willravel · 07-07-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

If it isn't a game, then why did the NYTimes expose a clandestine government program aimed at those responsible for 9/11 (rhetorical question).

You have an amazing sense of humor. Thank you for sharing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

There was no rational justification that I can see for them to expose this program. I think you are giving the NYT more credit here than they deserve. This should be a case-study to everyone that the Media, who are also human beings with opinions, is not necessarily completely impartial, unbiased or non-partisan. A case-study they don't teach in journalism school.

And the sky is blue. The bottom line is that there exists something called the FISA court, an entity that is responsible for greenlighting surveillance, so as to avoid misuse of power by the surveilers. That court was bypassed for whatever reason. The arguments about the legality of the program are still being debated. What does this tell me? Simple. This program is potentially illegal, and we wouldn't know about this potentially illegal program had it not been for the NYT. They uncovered potentially illegal actions. How is that not a rational justification? Partisan issues aside for one milisecond. Could it be possible that they have done good?

I enjoy the fact you ascert that becuase these people have opinions, they are completly devoid of loyalty to their country and are willing to aid the enemy. That's quite a fantastic leap.

dksuddeth · 07-07-2006, 12:25 PM

I think that since we are in a different kind of war with such easy technology to pass information, especially classified, that we ought to start limiting some of the first amendment rights like freedom of the press and speech. It should be easy for congress to accomplish. They could start by making a $200 tax for all press passes and put it under the commerce clause. All newspaper companies should have to pay a $200 a year license to print news media on paper and online. They should also make it so that you can only buy and read newspapers from your home state.

hiredgun · 07-07-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I think that since we are in a different kind of war with such easy technology to pass information, especially classified, that we ought to start limiting some of the first amendment rights like freedom of the press and speech. It should be easy for congress to accomplish. They could start by making a $200 tax for all press passes and put it under the commerce clause. All newspaper companies should have to pay a $200 a year license to print news media on paper and online. They should also make it so that you can only buy and read newspapers from your home state.

What?

You're actually proposing that people not be allowed to read news from anywhere in the world other than their home state? On what grounds? How would it be enforced, especially as far as the internet is concerned? Are you going to ban or regulate interstate travel as well? How much material qualifies as 'news' and therefore for banning? What about blogs?

I'm completely astounded, unless you're being sarcastic to prove a point, which I thought was against the spirit of this place.

dksuddeth · 07-07-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

I'm completely astounded, unless you're being sarcastic to prove a point, which I thought was against the spirit of this place.

sarcasm is perfectly fine here, insults and threats are not.

sapiens · 07-07-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

What?

You're actually proposing that people not be allowed to read news from anywhere in the world other than their home state? On what grounds? How would it be enforced, especially as far as the internet is concerned? Are you going to ban or regulate interstate travel as well? How much material qualifies as 'news' and therefore for banning? What about blogs?

I'm completely astounded, unless you're being sarcastic to prove a point, which I thought was against the spirit of this place.

If I'm not mistaken, he's making a statement about the Second Amendment.

powerclown · 07-07-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You have an amazing sense of humor. Thank you for sharing it.

And the sky is blue. The bottom line is that there exists something called the FISA court, an entity that is responsible for greenlighting surveillance, so as to avoid misuse of power by the surveilers. That court was bypassed for whatever reason. The arguments about the legality of the program are still being debated. What does this tell me? Simple. This program is potentially illegal, and we wouldn't know about this potentially illegal program had it not been for the NYT. They uncovered potentially illegal actions. How is that not a rational justification? Partisan issues aside for one milisecond. Could it be possible that they have done good?

I enjoy the fact you ascert that becuase these people have opinions, they are completly devoid of loyalty to their country and are willing to aid the enemy. That's quite a fantastic leap.

You have a mediocre sense of sarcasm. Try keeping it to yourself eh?

I never said anything about loyalty to country. The leap was yours. I am talking about playing games...publishing something to get back at someone has always been a game played by the press. Thats how I see this.

dksuddeth · 07-07-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

If I'm not mistaken, he's making a statement about the Second Amendment.

You are indeed correct, good sir.

sapiens · 07-07-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I am talking about playing games...publishing something to get back at someone has always been a game played by the press. Thats how I see this.

If all the press was interested in was hurting the President, they could be doing a much better job of it. The article below makes a better argument than I could:

Quote:

http://www.tompaine.com/print/the_timid_times.php
The Timid Times
David Corn
July 05, 2006

When I looked at the picture of a wounded boy in Baghdad on Page 4 of last Sunday's New York Times, I thought of the recent barrage of criticism directed at the paper by conservatives enraged by its June 23 story disclosing a covert U.S. program to track suspected terrorists through an international clearinghouse for financial transactions. What's the connection? Read on.

Some of the paper's detractors have claimed—or rather shouted—that the Times is against winning the conflict against Islamic jihadists and purposefully seeks to undermine the Bush administration's efforts to defeat terrorists and safeguard the homeland. Rightwing radio host Glenn Beck claimed the Times was "fighting for the same thing that al-Qaida wants." Ann Coulter declared, "The safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in The New York Times building" (which she once quipped she would like to see blown up). Rush Limbaugh proclaimed the Times was "trying to help the jihadists." Newt Gingrich said of the paper, "They hate George W. Bush so much that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president."

Such over-the-top rhetoric is hardly a surprise in this partisan era, especially when the right is saddled with an unpopular president and desperately needs to change the subject from George W. Bush's war in Iraq. Without sitting in Bill Keller's chair—or that of the editors of The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post, which all published stories on this anti-terrorist banking program—I can easily acknowledge that the decision to publish this piece appears to have been a close call and that there might have been a legitimate reason to hold back in this case. But the right wingers are willfully misguided in viewing Keller's decision as part of a plot to undercut Bush. If that was the goal of the Times schemers, there would be a lot more the paper could do.

Let's start with that black-and-white photograph of the Iraqi boy. It was gruesome. He was lying in a hospital bed, badly wounded from a suicide bombing. His arms, hands and head were bandaged. It looked as if he had burns and scars over much of his body. The Times and other papers occasionally publish graphic photos of wounded and dead Iraqis, but not enough to represent accurately and fully the daily tragedies occurring in Iraq. Keller's paper and the others could be publishing many more such photographs, including shots that are even more visceral. The worst horrors of the war in Iraq are not routinely depicted visually in the Times. Everyday there are bodies—often headless bodies bearing signs of torture and mutilation. The paper generally does not put photographs of such atrocities in front of its readers. But imagine if it did, with regularly placed detailed photos of civilian casualties in Iraq on the front page. White House officials and others, no doubt, would complain about the demoralizing impact on U.S. public opinion regarding the war in Iraq. The paper would only be sharing harsh realities with its readers. But the anti-Times gang would consider such photojournalism treasonous. It's a wonder then, the paper hasn't done so.

Maybe because Times is a family paper, its editors feel it cannot go too far when it comes to gore-ridden photos. But what if everyday it had a box on the front page listing all the attacks and bombing within Iraq the previous day? Reuters keeps (and posts) such a list. Anyone who read this sort of roster on a daily basis would have a tough time accepting Bush and Dick Cheney's never-ending claims that progress is being made. Or what if the Times—as it did with the victims of 9/11—printed profiles of every U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, placing one a day on the front page? Such a reminder of the cost being paid might well undermine the war effort by causing more people to question the value of this military venture. Or what if the newspaper ran a daily account of how much the war is costing, not in blood, but in taxes? (Representative Jack Murtha, the Democrat hawk who turned against the war, recently put the tab at $450 billion and noted this was $445 billion more than the cost of the first Gulf War.)

There's plenty more the paper can do to discredit Bush. It often treads lightly when the president or the vice president says something untrue. Two weeks ago, Dick Cheney claimed in an interview that there were 250,000 Iraqi soldiers "now in uniform, equipped, trained, in the fight." That was a whopper. In February, the Pentagon noted that the number of Iraqi battalions ready to fight on their own was zero. (The Defense Department then stopped releasing figures on the battle readiness of Iraqi security forces). After Cheney made those remarks about the Iraqi military, did the Times rush out a front-page article reporting that the vice president was misleading the public about the centerpiece of the administration's Iraq policy? No. Keller missed another chance to deal a blow to the administration's war on terrorism.

And let's look at the Times’ past actions. Yes, it did publish an article revealing that the National Security Agency, as directed by Bush, was intercepting phone calls of Americans to overseas destinations without obtaining warrants-if those Americans were suspected of being terrorists or were talking to people suspected of being terrorists. But the paper sat on the piece for about a year. Had the Times run the story when it had first learned of this arguably illegal wiretapping program, it would have appeared before the 2004 presidential election. The ensuing hullabaloo could have influenced the election results. Yet the diabolical Times did not seize this opportunity to weaken the commander in chief at a crucial moment. What were they thinking?

There is also the matter of the Times’ coverage of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to consider. How does that fit into the conservative theory that the Times is a hotbed of anti-Bushites? In the year and a half prior to the invasion of Iraq, the paper consistently published stories that hyped the WMD threat. Its reporters—Judith Miller and others—churned out breathless exposes based on administration leaks and handouts from Iraqi exile groups angling to start a war. Though the paper's editorial page was a loud voice against the invasion of Iraq, its front-page often carried stories—which all turned out to be wrong—that created a favorable context for Bush's march to war. Is it the critics' position that the Times helped grease the path to war in Iraq but has plotted to emasculate the war against bin Laden?

Perhaps it is too much to expect logic or consistency from the Times-bashers. They are looking for a target. And there are not many flag-burners running around these days. The Times has hardly declared war on this administration. Only someone who didn't read the newspapers could believe it has.

Willravel · 07-07-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

You have a mediocre sense of sarcasm. Try keeping it to yourself eh?

I seem to have misread your last post. You wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

If it isn't a game, then why did the NYTimes expose a clandestine government program aimed at those responsible for 9/11 (rhetorical question).

Why? Because it's wrong. Domestic spying has rules to follow. If there was even an iota of reason behind tapping the phones, then they could have simply gone through FISA. What that tells me is that this doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. The FISA court is a revolving door, it almost never turns down requests to wire tap. If the government wanted to tap potential terrorists, then they could have slapped together a quick case and had permission in a matter of hours. They didn't. Not only that, but they didn't even contact the court after the surveliance. No attempt was made to get permission. This blatent disregard for checks and balances tells me one thing: they aren't spying to stop terrorism.

I'm sorry for misreading your post. I havn't slept in 33 hours (long story). I read it too fast and took it as some sort of attack about my conspiracy related questions surrounding 9/11. I apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I never said anything about loyalty to country. The leap was yours. I am talking about playing games...publishing something to get back at someone has always been a game played by the press. Thats how I see this.

You are suggesting that the NYT places their partisan writing over the welfare of the country. To me that means disloyalty.

I personally don't care about the motives behind the publishing. The information needed to be out in the open and now it is.

powerclown · 07-07-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You are suggesting that the NYT places their partisan writing over the welfare of the country. To me that means disloyalty.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the press like to play games.

sapiens, this is a thought for another subject, but in general, I think it is becoming more and more difficult for nations to fight decisive wars. I agree - the press could be worse.

host · 07-07-2006, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

No but some of them border on aiding and embedding the enemy. Saying how we were monitoring international bank transactions, the method we used to stop cold the terrorist "charity" funds, potentially lost us a valuable tool.....

Some of the opinions expressed on this thread make my case for dividing the politics forum into a "feelings" based section, and a "facts" based section.
The "attack the NY Times" "Op", catches our leaders and those who control the congress, red handed, because their accusations againt the NY Times are exposed for what they are; bullshit propaganda aimed at distracting from the truth and it's messenger. The reason we know this is because the NY Times revealed a "secret"...the monitoring or SWIFT financial transactions, that al Qaeda in Baltimore, knew about for the last five years...if they read the Baltimore Sun......

Seaver, the "outrage" is feigned....the administration knows this. It's a shame that the "chorus" doesn't. The method of surveillance, using "SWIFT" to track "al Qaida" finances, was published nearly five years ago. If "al Qaeda" exists in the form of the dangerous and formidable opponent that the Bush admin. tells us that it is, beyond the fact that "it" is gradually bankrupting the U.S. Treasury, due to the fact that the appropriations to fight "it" are a million times greater than what it "spends" to terrorize America......al Qaeda would be smart enough to have noted the news reports in the fall of 2001, and stopped making any financial transfers that would be monitored.

The NY Times disclosure was about the fact that the monitoring continued anyway, without specifically targeted warrants....and the question still is...against who? That is what this propaganda "Op" is about. It is designed to make the questioning seem treasonous, and it is bullshit. The "target" that justified the CIA/FBI monitoring, via SWIFT, knew for five years, not to do financial transactions that would show up in the SWIFT data monitoring, yet
the program continued, anyway.

Read the Sac Bee editorial, and the inaccurate "chorus" from the conservative web page:

Quote:

http://www.willisms.com/archives/200...ew_york_1.html
Is The New York Times A Pack Of Treason Weasels?

New York Times editor Bill Keller is puzzled as to why the article revealing the existence of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT program, is creating such a firestorm. Yes, checking banking records to track terrorists is an obvious strategy, and yes the administration even announced its intention to do so after 9/11 (a program that the Times editorial board even advocated immediately after the WTC attacks). <b>But the operational details have been unknown until now, and even the name of the program had been kept under wraps.</b> The CIA has proven yet again that is is a keeper of secrets that can keep no secrets: Coalition of the Willing members and other international partners in the War on Terror must be wondering what details of cooperation with the United States won't likewise end up on the front page of the New York Times.....

If the statement in bold in the quote box above was true, what did the Baltimore Sun report about (below) way back on September 21, 2001. when their article stated,

Quote:

......Funding on that scale would not necessarily have required large international bank transfers of the kind often seen in cases involving drug cartels or corrupt regimes. That could limit the ability of the National Security Agency to follow the money through its electronic intercepts of such transactions, which are carried out by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), headquartered in Belgium.........

So....after that article was published, if you were an al Qaeda money launderer or a distributor of funds to al Qaeda "cells" around the world, would you have initiated any financial transactions that SWIFT could potentially monitor for the US CIA/FBI? I'm just a guy named "host" on a message board.
If I know that al Qaeda was warned, by September 21, 2001, not to use SWIFT, didn't Cheney and Bush also know it, before their posturing and outrage directed last week at the NY Times. They have reasons and an agenda to drive their speech and their false posturing. Those who defend and repeat their claims on this subject seem only to be following flawed leaders...

Quote:

Who's overreaching?
GOP blows political smoke over leaks
Sacramento Bee, The (CA)
June 29, 2006
Estimated printed pages: 2

President Bush has condemned as "disgraceful" several newspapers' reports about a government program that monitors international financial transactions. Some congressional Republicans go further: Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky accused the New York Times of "treason" and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas wants intelligence agencies to assess the extent of damage to national security.
What's ironic about this is, first, that the news reports, while they added much detail, merely described a program that's been no secret to anyone who has followed the administration's anti-terrorist efforts. And if there's any investigative tool that most Americans would probably agree is a proper one, it's tracking suspected terrorist finances.

A major component of that tool has been a Belgium-based database called SWIFT -- Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication -- that tracks millions of financial transfers, many of them between this country and others. SWIFT serves as a clearinghouse for financial institutions worldwide. The president was infuriated because, he said, disclosure of the program to tap into SWIFT's database "does great harm to ... America" by tipping off suspects.

That's debatable.

Amid the hue and cry from the White House and Capitol Hill, less fevered voices tried to put things in perspective. <h3>Roger Cressey, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, said the White House is "overreaching," that the SWIFT program "has been in the public domain before." And a former U.S. diplomat, Victor Comras, who was involved at the United Nations in efforts to combat terrorist financing, told the Boston Globe: "A lot of people were aware that this was going on," and that "unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored.</h3>

That makes sense. And so do the frenzied calls to crack down on the news media, at least in a politically partisan sense.

Never mind that some members of Congress had been briefed on the program and that all Americans have known for years about the government's efforts to uncover terrorist financial movements and seize assets.

This issue provides a convenient campaign weapon for supporters of the Bush administration to use against "soft-on-terrorism" officeholders, especially Democrats, and against critics in the news media. All of the frothing in Washington raises the possibility that some in Congress will seek to muzzle the press with legislation, subpoenas or other means of intimidation. The long-term effects of such actions might stifle the free flow of information in a society that treasures it, but whose current administration not only has an overdeveloped passion for secrecy but has used that secrecy to cover an array of abuses, including the abuse of people in U.S. custody, some of whom turned out to be innocent.

Such actions have tarnished America's reputation and subverted its values. They deserve to be held up to the light of day, no matter how unflattering the result may be to those now in power.

The line between what's fair to publish and what might hurt national security is a blurry one. The First Amendment's durability rests not only on its text, but on a long-standing unwritten bargain between government and the press that both will do their best to avoid straying over that line. The burden is on an administration that has gone much too far in the name of national security to show that news organizations have done the same in the name of press freedom. That's not evident.
Memo: EDITORIALS

Quote:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/cus...,1,71575.story

Authorities trying to track money back to bin Laden But crucial financial trail could lead to dead end, anti-terror experts say TERRORISM STRIKES AMERICA THE RESPONSE
Sun, The (Baltimore, MD)
<h2>September 21, 2001</h2>
Author: SUN STAFF
Scott Shane
Estimated printed pages: 5

The money trail from last week's terrorist attacks may eventually lead back to Osama bin Laden. But experts say it could just as easily reach a dead end at an offshore bank account, an automated teller machine or even a shoe box.

"Don't rule out a shoe box full of cash," says John Fernandez, editor of the monthly newsletter Money Laundering Alert, based in Miami. "Bin Laden's organization has used both modern and ancient ways of moving money."
The hunt for the financiers behind the attacks in New York and Washington is a crucial part of the investigation, promising the possibility of a direct link to bin Laden, whom President Bush has called the prime suspect. The investigation could reveal whether bin Laden played the role of chief plotter and paymaster or whether he merely supplied the rhetoric of a holy war on America to inspire those who carried out the slaughter.

"I'm not sure we'll find that the money came out of his pocket, but I think we'll find ties to him," says Ed Bridgeman, who studies terrorism at the University of Cincinnati. "It's important, because it gives us legitimacy and credence in targeting him before the rest of the world."

<h3>That appears to be the goal of a web of U.S. agencies as they launch the most intensive money-tracking effort in U.S. history.

A new task force at the Treasury Department "has begun to create financial profiles" of the suicide hijackers, Treasury Undersecretary Jimmy Gurule said at a news conference Wednesday. He said the new sub-agency, called the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center, "will be an important tool in our quest to dismantle the terrorists' financial bases and shut down their funding capabilities and operations. ... We seek to create a big-picture profile, if you will, of the financial infrastructure of terrorist organizations."

But Fernandez says the new tracking center should have been in operation months ago. "This center was proposed more than a year ago and funded last October, and just in the last few days they've activated it," he says. "It's just government bureaucracy."</h3>

FBI agents are poring over the 19 suspected hijackers' known transactions, however trivial, from video rentals to ATM withdrawals and rent payments. Other investigators, focusing on the sources of their funds, are inspecting bank records in the Cayman Islands and Panama, Fernandez says, and Barclays bank in London has frozen a suspicious account.

With an inheritance from his family's construction empire in Saudi Arabia and a network of legitimate businesses and bank accounts, bin Laden certainly is capable of providing the money for patient, meticulous, large-scale terror operations. But tracking the funds will not be easy, experts say.

The first and most important problem is that the total cost of planning and mounting the attacks that have transformed geopolitics overnight was relatively modest, probably several hundred thousand dollars spent over the past few years. The only relatively large expenditure was flight training tuition for several terrorists at prices ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 apiece.

"We've had a saying for a long time - that terrorism is warfare on the cheap," says Yonah Alexander, a terrorism specialist at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Va., who recently co-wrote a study of bin Laden. "You had pilot training, air tickets, car rentals, apartments and food for a number of years. But for the whole operation, what are you talking about? Maybe a million dollars? They invest very little money, and the results are unbelievable."

Bridgeman agrees. "I'm sure this whole thing ran less than a million dollars - a lot less," he says. "That's why terrorism is so popular with the underdog - it's so cost-effective."

Funding on that scale would not necessarily have required large international bank transfers of the kind often seen in cases involving drug cartels or corrupt regimes.<h3>That could limit the ability of the National Security Agency to follow the money through its electronic intercepts of such transactions, which are carried out by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), headquartered in Belgium.</h3>

The Treasury Department's first line of defense against money laundering, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, also might not be of much help. FINCEN, located in Virginia, studies bank reports of cash deposits of $10,000 or more, as well as other suspicious transactions. But none of the known financial activities of the hijackers would have generated such reports.

If the terrorists used an ATM card to withdraw cash from an account in a bank that does not cooperate with international authorities, that could also prove to be a brick wall for investigators, Fernandez says. In June, the 31-nation Financial Task Force on Money Laundering listed 19 countries that did not meet its reporting standards, including Egypt, Guatemala, Russia, and the tiny Pacific island of Nauru, home to 400 "shell banks" whose purpose is often to hide money. Accounts in those places could prove inaccessible to investigators.

Bin Laden's organization also has used a traditional method for transferring money in South Asia, known by the Hindi word hawala, or "in trust." Under such a transaction, money is deposited with a hawala broker in one country and withdrawn, often the same day, from a second broker in another country. The system produces no records and depends on absolute trust between the brokers, since the money must later be transferred from one to the other.

But some terrorist money moves in an even simpler fashion - in wads of bills passed hand to hand, according to testimony at the trial this summer of four men in the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, attacks allegedly directed by bin Laden. An operative named Jamal Ahmed al Fadl testified that when he was ordered to move $100,000 in $100 bills from Sudan to a terrorist cell in Jordan, he simply put the cash in his suitcase "with my clothes" and hopped on a plane.

Al Fadl listed some of bin Laden's legitimate businesses in Sudan, ranging from a construction company to a farm that grew sesame seeds, peanuts and corn - as well as providing a terrorist training ground. In Kenya, bin Laden's organization helped one of its operatives start a fish business in the coastal town of Mombasa, according to testimony.

"It's a pretty diverse portfolio," says Bridgeman, at the University of Cincinnati. "Because they're legitimate businesses, he can use them to move money and to launder money."

Some of the money also might have been diverted from a web of Islamic charities, as occurred in previous terrorist attacks. Several such charities were closed after donations were proved to have been diverted for the 1993 and 1998 bombings.

In an attempt to crack down on bin Laden's finances in August 1998, President Bill Clinton banned U.S. banks and companies from doing business with a number of organizations linked to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. But according to a report issued Sept. 10 - the day before the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - by terrorism expert Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, no assets have been frozen by the order, because authorities have not been able to link any to bin Laden.

"Tracing the funding is not so simple," says Alexander, at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. "But one benefit of the investigation may be to shut down some of the financing methods. At least that might make their operations more difficult in the future."

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1553153.stm
Wednesday, 7 November, 2001, 17:18 GMT
Following the money trail

by BBC News Online's Sarah Toyne and Jeremy Scott-Joynt

Financial authorities around the world are stepping up their efforts to trace illegal money flows in the wake of the attacks inflicted on New York and Washington DC on 11 September.

Law enforcement agencies in the US are well aware that one of the best ways to prove a case against Osama Bin Laden, who has been identified as the chief suspect, is to follow the money.

How were the hijackers supported? And how did the money make it into their hands in the US and elsewhere without being traced?

No-one is under any illusion that the task will be an easy one.

Tracing the flow of illicit money is a complicated, time-consuming business, and the cards are stacked against investigators.

To help boost the chances of finding a paper trail that could lead back to the perpetrator, regulators are planning to upgrade their systems for uncovering the laundering of dirty money.....

.....Transatlantic efforts

The Bush administration has now unveiled a package of measures concentrating on the biggest of money laundering operations.
US authorities are ramping up the search for terrorist money
On 18 September the Federal Reserve ordered all banks, domestic and foreign, under its jurisdiction to search through their records for any accounts or transactions involving the 19 people identified by the FBI as the
hijackers.

The government will also identify and focus on specific areas of the US where money laundering is rife, via a new body to be called the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center with staff drawn from all US law enforcement and
intelligence agencies.

The aim is to "map" the finances of terrorist organisations. In the UK, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown told the BBC's Today programme that banks needed to tighten their rules on oversight of suspicious transactions.

The reporting of suspicious transactions is seen as a cornerstone of compliance with the global anti-money laundering effort, spearheaded by an international Paris-based group, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF),
affiliated to the OECD.

UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown
Brown: plans to tighten up bank oversight
"It's necessary to create that wider (reporting) obligation on international institutions," Mr Brown said.

"But equally it's necessary to have a system of reporting so that there's not only no safe haven (for terrorists) but no hiding place for terrorist money."

One bank account supposedly connected to the US terrorists, at a Barclays Bank branch in Notting Hill in London, has already been closed.

Switzerland, a country whose reputation for banking secrecy has often made its banks a prime suspect in money laundering investigations, says its task force is "working at high speed" to see if any terrorist-linked funds had
flowed through Swiss institutions.

And other European countries are following suit.

Quote:

The Daily Telegraph: Police foil hackers' pounds 220m raid on London bank
Daily Telegraph, The (London, England)
March 18, 2005
Author: David Derbyshire Consumer Affairs Editor

.....In order to transfer money electronically, City banks use Swift -- the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications -- system. Hacking into Swift is ``theoretically possible'' but unlikely, Mr Palmer said. ``It is much easier to bribe or blackmail individuals who have access to those codes or have your own people within the banking system,'' he said.

``A lot of banks do not want to admit the fact that there are organised groups that are laundering money and getting away with it.'' He estimates that there are between 2,000 to 3,000 active fraudsters working inside London's 500 banks. Many of them are bribed and then blackmailed to hide transactions or pass on confidential information.

``I believe that keylogging is not terribly relevant here. You can keylog and see what's going on in another person's computer system, but in banking you can't send money overseas without using a third party system like Swift.''

According to research from the High-Tech Crime Unit, more than 80 per cent of British-based companies have been victims of computer crime.

The above, "old news" is the actual record, and the "noise" from Bush, Cheney, Pat Roberts, Peter King, Jim Bunning, etc.....does not square with the news archive record from 2001.....but your opinion , does square with their "noise".

Cynthetiq · 07-08-2006, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Some of the opinions expressed on this thread make my case for dividing the politics forum into a "feelings" based section, and a "facts" based section.

But see, ultimately, it all falls under the word, OPINION, which we are all entitled to. Your view of "facts" and my view of "facts" encompass different things at different times. Live and let live, if we all had the same beliefs and opinions, what a boring world this would be.

host · 07-08-2006, 06:30 AM

Leading the "charge" against the NY Times reporting, were VP Cheney and President Bush:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060627-8.html">Remarks by the Vice President at a Luncheon for Congressional Candidate Adrian Smith June 27, 2006</a>....The second program that The New York Times has now disclosed is the terrorist financial tracking program, just within about the last week or so....... ....The New York Times has now made it more difficult for us to prevent attacks in the future. Publishing this highly classified information about our sources and methods for collecting intelligence will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts. These kinds of stories also adversely affect our relationships with people who work with us against the terrorists. In the future, they will be less likely to cooperate if they think the United States is incapable of keeping a secret. What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they've been rewarded for it, for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program, by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalism. I think that is a disgrace.

How do Cheney's comments "stand up", when they are considered in the context of the September 21, 2001 article that I already posted, and the following, from a December, 2002, UN Report:

Quote:

<a href="http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/725/72/PDF/N0272572.pdf?OpenElement">From .pdf page 11:</a>
30. New emphasis is also being placed by several major banking countries on Financial Action Task Force (FATF) special recommendation VII (see annex IV), which relates to wire transfers. FATF has issued a new proposal for an interpretive note to ensure that basic information identifying the originator of fund transfers is obtained and preserved by banks and intermediaries, and that such information is made rapidly available to law enforcement and other appropriate authorities for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting and tracing the assets of terrorists or other criminals. The Group would like to see the FATF proposal for an interpretive note quickly adopted and implemented by all countries and banking jurisdictions.

31. The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the <h3>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.</h3> The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.

Can anyone explain to me what Cheney was talking about when he accused the NY Times of <b>"Publishing this highly classified information about our sources and methods for collecting intelligence"?</b> Here is a link to the NY Times, June 22 article:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ei=5090&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ex=1308715200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print">Bank Data Is Sifted by US in Secret to Block Terror</a>

I read the whole article linked above, again. How can a news article that reports on the intercepting of SWIFT financial transaction instruction messages, by U.S. government agencies, cause such controversy and fingerpointing from promininet republicans? I've established that the information about U.S. surveillance of <a href="http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:wHQBtSe7APMJ:www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.money21sep21,1,71575.story.hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=">SWIFT was published</a> just 10 days after 9/11, by the Baltimore Sun, and now....I've posted an example of much more specific disclosure of U.S. monitoring of SWIFT, this time in a December 17, 2002 UN Report.

If you've read this far, and compared Cheney's accusations concerning the NY Times reporting, and the public record of SWIFT monitoring by the U.S., in 2001 in the Baltimore Sun, and a year later in a UN report, both fully accessible on the internet, where do you think he is coming from, and what do you think his goals are? IMO, the "games" that powerclown maintains the press is "playing", aren't being played by the press at all. The "games" are being played by Cheney and Bush; and the are openly attempting to impede our right to know, to deflect attention from the mass, warrantless surveilance that is neither "secret", nor intended to "monitor" al Qaeda.

How could it be in your interest to support or defend what Bush/Cheney and their chorus of pundits and faux news parrots are all accusing the NY Times of doing, when it is now apparent that al Qaeda was tipped off about the SWIFT monitoring in 2001 or in 2002, at the latest? The data mining of SWIFT transactions has gone on for five years, who is our government actually monitoring, now that the al Qaeda excuse has worn so thin as a justification?

pan6467 · 07-08-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

No but some of them border on aiding and embedding the enemy. Saying how we were monitoring international bank transactions, the method we used to stop cold the terrorist "charity" funds, potentially lost us a valuable tool.

There was an uproar about the release of that CIA agent's name, about how everyone in the Bush administration should face jailtime. If proven true I support it.

However where was the outcry when the FBI director stated to the press (and the press printed it) how we were tracking Bin Laden's satellite phone? Was it because he was a democrat? Was it because that falls under freedom of the press? Well that definately aided Bin Laden, when he was a known dangerous criminal. Personally I think said director and journalist should face charges.

I have no issue if the FBI director gets in trouble, but no, not never the press. The press can only publish what the government and her agents have released.

Personally, I feel the government and the press work hand in hand on more things than not.

Also, if you have "leaks" and then claim they are hurting the war and blah blah blah..... and the people say, "yes, we need to restrain the press." You'll end up with fewer independant sources, more cover ups, more government corruption and less of the true purpose of the press and that is to be the government's watchdog to keep them in check from becoming to powerful.

Freedom is freedom and the second you put limitations on said freedom, it is no longer free, in any way, shape or form.

ubertuber · 07-08-2006, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

The press can only publish what the government and her agents have released.

I don't think you can simplify it quite this much - if a government employee releases information that they are not authorized to release then they are not acting as an agent of the government. They are taking advantage of their governmental association and acting as an individual.

host · 07-08-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

But see, ultimately, it all falls under the word, OPINION, which we are all entitled to. Your view of "facts" and my view of "facts" encompass different things at different times. Live and let live, if we all had the same beliefs and opinions, what a boring world this would be.

Cynthetiq, it probably will come as no surprise to you that I could not disagree more with what you wrote in your last post.

If we all were willing to document and provide reference links to share what shapes and supports our beliefs and opinions, what a substantive and useful forum this could be!

My main problem is that you seem to dismiss, "out of hand", the damage that is done to opinion that most closely approximates the truth, when distortions are deliberately launched by leaders with "bully pulpits" (Bush and Cheney), who enjoy, but must responsibly shoulder, the privilege and the influence that having every word they utter publicly, end up in print and on broadcast news media.

Things these leaders say, when they are not true, (and they know it...or should be sure of the accuracy of their assertions before they state them....) or are deliberately mischaracterized and blown out of proportion, have a ripple effect. The republican noise machine picks up on Cheney accusing the NY Times of publishing "state secrets", and catapults the propaganda, as if it were fact, and some folks who post here are impressed by it, and they won't move away from it, no matter what documentation to the contrary is posted for them to "fact check".

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...e_transcript_/
.....KING: Do you think we’re safe?

G. BUSH: I think we’re safer, but I’m — I’m worried about — worried about an enemy that wants to hit us again. And I’m comforted by the fact there’s a lot of people working hard on the issue.

KING: Have we stopped them? Have there been things that we don’t hear about that have been stopped?

G. BUSH: We’ve disrupted plots. And not only here but elsewhere. And it’s — you know, I’m worried about some of the tools we’re using being disclosed. I — I think it’s a huge mistake.

<b>KING: You blame The New York Times, but the L.A. Times also published that story about intercepting and also The Wall Street Journal printed it.

G. BUSH: Well, disclosure is disclosure. I don’t think I’ve blamed any paper by name — maybe I have.

KING: You did name The New York Times.

G. BUSH: I did? I don’t know if I did or didn’t</b> but anyway, let me put it this way. I am disturbed that people would feel comfortable enough going to newspapers with state secrets. It doesn’t make any sense to me to give the enemy — our — our game plan on how we’re going to deal with them …

KING: Isn’t that a ticklish line, though, a free press …

G. BUSH: I do support a free press strongly. I also want people to recognize that we’re at war and it’s just — it’s just — I just don’t understand. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.....

Indeed, the leaders' propaganda is reinforced in some of our members' opinion forming processes, to the degree that hints of a consistantly observable extreme; where some here post undocumented assertions that they "feel" no need to support with any documentation to back their opinion, even in response to polite challenges and requests......leaving me to draw no other conclusion than that they believe that what they are posting, <b>"is just so..."</b>, ending a debate that never even got started, since only one side of an argument is debating, as the other side, "knows what they know", but won't post where they got the knowledge...so that it can be examined, dissected, and held up for comparison to the large body of other information that living in the year 2006 in a post industrial society affords us quick access to......

Here is an example of the potential for damage to the right of a free press to question the government: Accusations by Bush and Cheney against the NY Times decision to publish descriptions of the US government's "data mining" program of the Belgian based SWITCH financial transaction message, processing center influenced Sen. Jim Bunning (R- Kentucky) to demand prosecution of everyone involved in that disclosure at the NY Times for TREASON. There was an attempt by republicans to pass a non-binding congressional resolution to specifically condemn the Times for their "disclosure" of the "SWITCH" data mining "Op".

Six months ago, in my post linked here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=67
I shared my documented opinion of "Power Line" and John Hinderaker, one of the site's three principle "bloggers". True to form.....two days ago, instead of questioning whether those political leaders who are criticizing the NY Times are making justfied and accurate accusations, Hinderaker posted the following in an obvious attempt to dismiss the fact that the NY Times reported alledged "secrets", that were already in the public domain for several years:

Quote:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014619.php
July 06, 2006
Did the United Nations Expose the SWIFT Program?

A few days ago, we challenged liberals to provide us with evidence that the terrorists already knew about the administration's use of SWIFT to track terrorist financing, as the New York Times now claims, so that the Times' exposure of that program did not damage national security. The most coherent response we got was from Greg Sargent of New York Magazine, who writes at the American Prospect's media and politics blog:

I'd like to direct your attention to this report that was done by the UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group in December of 2002. The report has long been readily accessible to the public at the UN's web site. You can read it here:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

Paragraph 31 of this report says the following:

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.

As you can see, this paragraph states quite clearly that the United States has "begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions," and that settlement of such transactions are handled through outfits "such as the SWIFT." <b>The suggestion of this paragraph is obvious: the United States has begun to monitor, or intends to start monitoring, transactions processed through SWIFT and other similar outfits. This report was completed in 2002.</b>.....

John Hinderaker's comments seem reasonable...so far...he gives the impression that he is trying to obtain an accurate conclusion about whether the NY Times reporting was already in the public domain when they "disclosed" the "secret" SWIFT program.....but then he sets new hurdles intended to minimize the effect of the existence of the prior UN material on the web that described the U.S. role in the SWIFT program:

Quote:

Many other liberals have cited this U.N. report for the proposition that the SWIFT program was common knowledge before the Times exposed it. Let's examine that claim and see whether it can withstand scrutiny.

First, in order to show that the Times' report was "old news" that could not have damaged national security, <h3>liberals would have to demonstrate that the terrorists knew three things: 1) that SWIFT's international headquarters in Brussels maintains a database that includes information on the vast majority of all international banking transactions; 2) that the United States had persuaded the foreign bankers who operate SWIFT's Brussels headquarters (and perhaps their governments) to give the U.S. access to that database; and 3) that the nature of the records in the SWIFT database is such as to allow terrorists and their financiers to be tracked and identified.
</h3>
Does the U.N. report, which can be accessed here, satisfy these elements? Clearly not, for a number of reasons.

<h3>First, there is no evidence whatsoever that any terrorist--let alone all terrorists--ever read the U.N. report. </h3>The fact that the report was on the U.N.'s web site where it could be found, after the fact, by liberals searching for information about SWIFT does not demonstrate that any terrorists knew about it. So on its face, the suggested "proof" is inadequate.

<h3>Second, if we're going to assume the terrorists read that particular U.N. report, let's assume they read it carefully. Paragraph 31 does not say that the United States had gained access to the data maintained by SWIFT's international headquarters in Brussels.</h3> On the contrary, the paragraph refers specifically to "systems in the United States of America" which were being monitored by the U.S. These systems included Fedwire, which is operated by the Federal Reserve Board, CHIPS, an American bank-owned alternative to Fedwire, and the SWIFT operation "in the United States," which is located in New York. Paragraph 31 nowhere hints that SWIFT's Brussels headquarters had a massive database of international money transfers, or that the U.S. had gotten access to it.

This is perhaps why the government of Belgium--which is much more apt than a group of terrorists to read United Nations reports--had no idea, prior to the Times' report, that SWIFT's Brussels headquarters had allowed the U.S. government access to its database. When the Belgian government learned that last month, it launched an investigation,

<h3>Third, let's assume the terrorists read not just paragraph 31, but the entire U.N. report. If they did so, they would find no indication that SWIFT's headquarters contained the mother lode of international financial data, to which the U.S. had already gained access.</h3> On the contrary, paragraph 90 of the report says that "it has become more difficult to trace and identify [al Qaeda's] assets." If the terrorists actually read the report, which is highly unlikely, they would have gained false comfort from it.

Fourth, we know for sure that U.N. report of December 2002 didn't blow the secrecy of the SWIFT program, because that program achieved its most notable success eight months later with the capture of Hambali. Further, we know that even as of last month the program's cover hadn't been blown, because it was described as instrumental in several investigations that were ongoing when the Times printed the illegally leaked information about the program. So as of last month, the terrorists hadn't yet changed whatever behavior allowed them to be tracked by SWIFT. Now that they know how we've been tracking them, they can investigate the SWIFT system, reverse-engineer the transactions that led to the capture of Hambali and other terrorists, and, in all likelihood, negate the benefits of this highly successful program.

<b>Liberals' reliance on the 2002 U.N. report is typical of how they so often argue: seize on a word here and a phrase there, make wild assumptions, ignore the obvious, and assert the incredible in the face of all evidence to the contrary.</b>

Posted by John at 08:27 PM

John Hinderaker certainly showed us "liberals", a thing or two, didn't he?
He did not count on a "wildcard", like ole "host" on TFP politics, reacting to the republican attacks on the NY Times and the "take it on faith" attitudes of some of the posters who do not support a major newspaper erring on the side of public disclosure in an "alleged" close call, editorial decision to publish news of the SWIFT monitoring program.

I was inspired to silence this noise machine "Op", and I think that I've done it via my own investigating. I've posted the following already, I've seen it cited no where else, and it seems to me that it destroys enough of Hinderaker's debunking of the UN report, and his contention that al Qaeda doesn't read reports like that, and would still not know that "SWIFT" was based in Belgium, if not for the reckless "wartime" reporting of the NY Times.....

Quote:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...us&ct=clnk&cd=
September 21, 2001......Funding on that scale would not necessarily have required large international bank transfers of the kind often seen in cases involving drug cartels or corrupt regimes. That could limit <b>the ability of the National Security Agency to follow the money through its electronic intercepts of such transactions, which are carried out by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), headquartered in Belgium.........</b>

Cynthetiq, there are plenty of other places at TFP where it is appropriate to post undocumented opinions. Are you in favor of most participants consistantly posting in an off the cuff manor like that, here at the politics forum, too, even to the point where they ignore requests that they support what they've posted, by directing the rest of us to the sources that influenced their conclusions?

Is it your opinion that John Hinderaker and I have made equally persuasive or accurate presentations? I look forward to reading any attempt to make an argument that the Dec. 2002 UN reference to SWIFT and the Sept. 21, 2001 Baltimore Sun reporting are insufficient to support a conclusion that the SWIFT data monitoring program was already in the public domain for years before the Times reported on it on June 22. The most troubling issue to me is that the POTUS and the VPOTUS either knowingly attempted to falsely attack legitimate news reporting by describing it as revealing "secret" "sources and methods for collecting intelligence", or they genuinely did not know that SWIFT details were in the public domain for years, and didn't even make the effort to check if they were publicly available details before the launched their coordinated "treason" noise barrage.

Pathetically speaking, it would raise my confidence in the competence of Bush/Cheney if we were to find out that the U.S. government was mining data from SWIFT for five years for some other inappropriate, intrusive reason, than that they genuinely were unaware, as John Hinderaker seems to be, that all al Qaeda had to do to become informed about and avoid SWIFT monitoring, was to read the Sept., 21, 2001 Baltimore Sun article, publicly available on the web for almost five years!

pan6467 · 07-08-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I don't think you can simplify it quite this much - if a government employee releases information that they are not authorized to release then they are not acting as an agent of the government. They are taking advantage of their governmental association and acting as an individual.

Yes, and if the information puts our men overseas (whether military or CIA or ambassadorial) in harm's way then the source should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.... BUT the press can publish it, I would hope they would weigh the consequences before doing so, but they have that option, and I would have the option of buying their product or not. It is not within our government's scope to censor them or stop them in any way.

Cynthetiq · 07-09-2006, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Cynthetiq, it probably will come as no surprise to you that I could not disagree more with what you wrote in your last post.

If we all were willing to document and provide reference links to share what shapes and supports our beliefs and opinions, what a substantive and useful forum this could be!

My main problem is that you seem to dismiss, "out of hand", the damage that is done to opinion that most closely approximates the truth, when distortions are deliberately launched by leaders with "bully pulpits" (Bush and Cheney), who enjoy, but must responsibly shoulder, the privilege and the influence that having every word they utter publicly, end up in print and on broadcast news media.

But see there is no way to put reference links to facts like an uncle of mine beheaded by the Japanese during the occupation of the Philippines. The belief system of an american caught between asian heritage and american dreams, duty to family and press for individualism. No those things all cannot be referenced in some link as to how it helps one form an opinion when someone reads "facts."

as roachboy would say, you seem to see this as a binary principle where there is only one of two answers, either they have facts that support them or they don't. Sometimes opinion has much more than just a few links that you can quote or put together into a thread.

What makes this forum great is the ability for people to have opinion no matter if facts are there to back them up. It is the forum founder's vision that opinion and lifestyle can be expressed without retribution or cause.

ubertuber · 07-09-2006, 06:39 AM

Not to mention the fact that in the real world, the political process happens through fact and opinion. If we neglected half of that equation here, we'd be perpetually misunderstanding the world around us. I think that we have to come to grips with the fact that people's irrational biases and prejudices are a valid part of our system. I'm not saying that this is optimal, just that it is. To fail to acknowledge this is to fail to examine the whole picture.

host · 07-09-2006, 10:02 AM

To me, it's disappointing that both of you guys don't even seem to agree with me that it detracts from the potential of this politics forum, when...time after time, the same posters are asked to provide some documentation ....anything.... that could add support for their statements of opinion, and their response is to ignore such requests.

IMO, it would be appropriate, as far as the example that Cynthetiq provided, to request documentation as to whether atrocities, such as the beheading of civilians or of Filipino resistors to the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Phillipines during WWII was widespread or rarely performed by Japanese troops, etc.

In the meantime, I'll just continue my attempts to add facts to these discussions whenever I can, and display them up against the "feelings" based opinions posted on threads, like this one.

Isn't it ironic that Foxnews is <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=newshounds.us%20new%20york%20times%20SWIFT&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wn">tirelessly publicizing</a> the republican campaign against the NY Times reporting of SWIFT monitoring "secrets", when these Five Fox Television affiliates all have, since September 21, 2001, displayed the following story, with this paragraph that seems to destroy Power Line Blog's John Hinderaker's argument? (See my last post....)

Quote:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014619.php
......First, there is no evidence whatsoever that any terrorist--let alone all terrorists--ever read the U.N. report.
The fact that the report was on the U.N.'s web site where it could be found, after the fact, by liberals searching for information about SWIFT does not demonstrate that any terrorists knew about it. So on its face, the suggested "proof" is inadequate.........

Yeah, John Hinderaker.....if these five Fox Television affiliates, linked below, and the <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=shoplocal+bal-te-money21sep21&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&dups=1&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=21">Chicago Tribune</a>, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/bal-te.money21sep21,1,2970618.story">LA Times</a>, and <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=shoplocal+bal-te-money21sep21&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&dups=1&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=21">Orlando Sentinel</a>, et al....had all buried their September 21, 2001 reporting on the U.S. government's monitoring of SWIFT, you, our "leaders", and their republican noise machine would have a persuasive case that the NY Times had exposed, in June of 2006, "secret sources and methods".

Quote:

http://fox59.trb.com/bal-te.money21s...,2732416.story

http://fox17.trb.com/news/nationworl...,3656428.story

http://fox43.trb.com/entertainment/f...,4288990.story

http://q13.trb.com/news/bal-te.money...,1003427.story

http://fox61.trb.com/bal-te.money21s...ll=wtic-home-2

.......Funding on that scale would not necessarily have required large international bank transfers of the kind often seen in cases involving drug cartels or corrupt regimes. That could limit the ability of the National Security Agency to follow the money through its electronic intercepts of such transactions, which are carried out by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), headquartered in Belgium.....

powerclown · 07-09-2006, 11:50 AM

If the SWIFT program was outed as far back as 2001, what is the purpose of publishing an article - especially in light of the recent phone-tapping stories - with such ominous headlines:

---
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror
"A secret program has given counterterrorism officials access to financial records involving thousands of Americans, officials said."
---

Why call it secret if it really wasn't?

Come on host, everyone knows the NYT is anti-war. Fine, theyre anti-war no big deal. But why pretend to be unbiased, why pretend to be upholding the First Amendment and other lofty excuses, when all you are doing is taking a partisan swipe. It insults people's intelligence more than anything else.

Cynthetiq · 07-09-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

To me, it's disappointing that both of you guys don't even seem to agree with me that it detracts from the potential of this politics forum, when...time after time, the same posters are asked to provide some documentation ....anything.... that could add support for their statements of opinion, and their response is to ignore such requests.

IMO, it would be appropriate, as far as the example that Cynthetiq provided, to request documentation as to whether atrocities, such as the beheading of civilians or of Filipino resistors to the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Phillipines during WWII was widespread or rarely performed by Japanese troops, etc.

Because I do not have to show burden of proof for my feelings or opinions. I don't have to cull up 20 links to back up how my opinion was formed. It's my opinion and that is pretty much the end of the story. I don't have to defend a disertation each and every time I express my opinion in the Politics Forum. In fact, I see that as the strength and potential of this forum that people who do not care to be flamed, harassed, or cajoled into more than just voicing their opinion.

Appropriate to ask sure, but it's equally appropriate for me to NOT respond with links or back up information. That's my choice. My freedom of speech to stay silent is also important.

Or maybe there is no more back up than just the situation of life, I have a cousin who is in Iraq. Whatever feelings and emotions come with that entitle me to my opinion with or without voluminous and copius amounts of links and verbiage.

In fact the very idea that someone can have an opinion in total ignorance is completely fair game.

If you wish to find "back up" documentation, that's up to you, someone is entitled to just post their opinion on it's face without the burden of always having to say or prove why their opinion exists.

tecoyah · 07-09-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

-snip-

In fact the very idea that someone can have an opinion in total ignorance is completely fair game.

If you wish to find "back up" documentation, that's up to you, someone is entitled to just post their opinion on it's face without the burden of always having to say or prove why their opinion exists.

And there it is folks....serously. Cyn just placed in context the issues underlying the divide in this political forum. EVERYONE has an opinion:

o·pin·ion Audio pronunciation of "opinion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

The problems arise when one decides to accept it as fact.....I try very hard to portray my opinion as just that.....opinion. If needed we should all just add the disclaimer (the above is only opinion, any resemblance to actual fact is unimplied, and found only in the mind of the reader)
to remedy the Bias found in any political discussion.....one can hope this is not required in a forum meant for Adults.

Elphaba · 07-09-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

The problems arise when one decides to accept it as fact.....I try very hard to portray my opinion as just that.....opinion.

I agree that this is where discussion breaks down and the brick wall is hit. My single experience of 'X' has caused me to form an opinion that is now unassailable by any outside source that contradicts my opinion. It gets very tiresome.

host · 07-09-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

If the SWIFT program was outed as far back as 2001, what is the purpose of publishing an article - especially in light of the recent phone-tapping stories - with such ominous headlines:

---
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror
"A secret program has given counterterrorism officials access to financial records involving thousands of Americans, officials said."
---

Why call it secret if it really wasn't?

Come on host, everyone knows the NYT is anti-war. Fine, theyre anti-war no big deal. But why pretend to be unbiased, why pretend to be upholding the First Amendment and other lofty excuses, when all you are doing is taking a partisan swipe. It insults people's intelligence more than anything else.

What do you mean by,

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

If the SWIFT program was outed as far back as 2001.....

Haven't I supplied enough links to persuade you that it was outed as far back as 2001?

Doesn't John Hinderaker's partisan hit piece define what it would take to satisfy him that the "secret SWIFT monitoring programs" was actually in the public domain? He may be correct in assuming that terrorists don't read 2002 UN reports, or scour the internet looking for them, and that "liberals" are the ones who do that. I don't think that Hinderaker can make any case that the September 21, 2001 reporting about NSA interception of SWIFT international banking transactions was not widely distributed....the proof that it was is that the "story" is still displayed on all of these news media websites, and has been there for anyone to come across for the last 58 months.

Can you make any case that the NY Times disclosed a secret program?
What have you offered in your post that would increase my knowledge of what actually happened, as far as this coordinated attack from the highest levels of US political leadership, against the NY Times reporting?

The Times at least has a transparent motive for describing their reporting the way they did. They are in the business of selling newspaper advertising, which requires stimulation of their circulation numbers.

What are Bush and Cheney's motives? Are you comfortable with the spectacle of them criticizing the NY Times reporting, as a "disclosure of secrets"? It is interesting that your reaction to me providing you with unique new information about the SWITCH monitoring by the US government, information that you, and obviously John Hinderaker, found nowhere else...is to attack the NY Times and dismiss me as a partisan....

My "partisan" contribution to this forum brought more truth and accuracy to this issue than your president, vice president, and shills like John Hinderaker will ever bring to it. The fault in this does not lie with me, or with the NY Times, because neither you, nor I, knows if the Times reporters approached the white house with questions, and were met with a reaction that SWIFT is a secret source and method that we won't discuss, and you shouldn't publish...
or not. We do know now, with reasonable certainty, because of what I've posted on this forum, that details of SWIFT were in the public domain for nearly five years. We can reasonably suspect that Bush and Cheney are either clueless about that fact, or they used SWIFT monitoring as an excuse to data mine, private, proprietory, international and domestic financial transaction instruction messages, for at least the last 58 months.

Please tell me whether or not you object to me providing you with all of this new information.

07-07-2006, 06:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Freedom of the press is just that FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. We cannot as a "FREE" society, restrict what the press prints. However, I am concerned about how the press gets these supposed "top secret" documents and do believe the people handing them over are treasonous and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, whether it was outing a CIA agent or handing over military documents. I maybe against the war and against the current administration, but if we are putting our men in harm's way and possibly hurting their chances of survival then we need to find those responsible for passing along the information. This does not mean that the press should name sources, I don't believe we should ever force that, nor do I believe that press should be punished in any way, by the government..... if the people don't like what a certain media prints or releases then do not buy that media, sales go down and it goes out of business... that is supposedly the "Capitalistic" way. Bush wants to make this an issue but he doesn't say he's going after the "leaks" nor shows us that he is. Why? Could it be that he knows the leaks are out there, maybe even planted them so that people will get upset over what the press releases and thus demand censorship and hurt what the press can release? It may sound conspiratorial but until I see people truly tried for the release of information that is classified, I will believe that it is planted by the government, so that they can do just that, bitch about the freedom so they can limit it. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-07-2006, 12:25 PM	#17 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I think that since we are in a different kind of war with such easy technology to pass information, especially classified, that we ought to start limiting some of the first amendment rights like freedom of the press and speech. It should be easy for congress to accomplish. They could start by making a $200 tax for all press passes and put it under the commerce clause. All newspaper companies should have to pay a $200 a year license to print news media on paper and online. They should also make it so that you can only buy and read newspapers from your home state. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

07-09-2006, 06:39 AM	#34 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Not to mention the fact that in the real world, the political process happens through fact and opinion. If we neglected half of that equation here, we'd be perpetually misunderstanding the world around us. I think that we have to come to grips with the fact that people's irrational biases and prejudices are a valid part of our system. I'm not saying that this is optimal, just that it is. To fail to acknowledge this is to fail to examine the whole picture. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

07-09-2006, 11:50 AM	#36 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	If the SWIFT program was outed as far back as 2001, what is the purpose of publishing an article - especially in light of the recent phone-tapping stories - with such ominous headlines: --- Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror "A secret program has given counterterrorism officials access to financial records involving thousands of Americans, officials said." --- Why call it secret if it really wasn't? Come on host, everyone knows the NYT is anti-war. Fine, theyre anti-war no big deal. But why pretend to be unbiased, why pretend to be upholding the First Amendment and other lofty excuses, when all you are doing is taking a partisan swipe. It insults people's intelligence more than anything else. Last edited by powerclown; 07-09-2006 at 12:04 PM.. Reason: secret

07-06-2006, 11:12 PM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	It's a fine line, but freedom of the press does not equal freedom to release classified documents.

07-07-2006, 07:54 AM	#7 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Bush is in a no-win situation. If there were to be an attack on the United States, big or small, the press would complain that it was because Bush and the government weren't doing enough to protect the people. They'd be eaten alive. But as long as there are no attacks, it's ok for idiots like Bill Keller to release classified information related to stopping terrorism. Bush's poll approval ratings are back up in the mid 40s as well.

07-07-2006, 11:36 AM	#14 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You really think this is a game? How many people died on 9/11? How many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have died? How many soldiers have died? What's happened to the Constitution and BOR? Self importance obviously has little to do with this, since the press has put itself in a very difficult spot publishing their findings. Why would they do that? Well, it's something called journalistic integrity. If I was a journalist, and I saw the government doing something I thought was illegal, guess what I'd do? What would you do? Would you support a fruitless wire tapping program that OBVIOUSLY effects the privacyt of every American? I don't understand how it's petty to bravely do one's job. Would you call a firefighter petty just because they put out a fire in a place that you didn't care about?