NationStates Jolt Archive

We are on our third leak that exposes national security programs and gives the details to terrorist organizations as to how we are trying to track them.

The new York Times claims " it is in the Public interest " so they just print articles exposing the mechanics of how we are tracking terrorist organizations ...despite the fact that the programs are classified top secret ...

IMO the news papers have the right to print the stuff...guaranteed under the first ammendment...but ...people will die because of it..

the real treason comes from those who leak TS material to the press ...

Should they be shot or just put in jail ? How many more top secret programs can be leaked to the press ?

can you imagine this crap durring WW II ?

At any rate what do you think should be done .

In a democratic society the government should not need to keep secrets from its citizens. The NSA program is spurious at best. However, it is your society, so you live with it if you want to.

IMO the news papers have the right to print the stuff...guaranteed under the first ammendment...but ...people will die because of it..

the real treason comes from those who leak TS material to the press ....
Not treason.

People won't die because of this.

So what about when Bush does it. Do you want to shoot him/put him in jail?

I say its treason and everyone in the gov't should be hanged!


But alas, I am yet a young revolutionary

Your attempts at trolling are pathetic at best, because you know that if this type of program were happening under a Democratic president, you'd be frothing at the goddamn mouth screeching about civil liberties violations and the like. :rolleyes:

That specific kind of leaking was allowed God Knows How Many Times under variour legal rulings including by SCOTUS.
*yawns*

We are on our third leak that exposes national security programs and gives the details to terrorist organizations as to how we are trying to track them.

The new York Times claims " it is in the Public interest " so they just print articles exposing the mechanics of how we are tracking terrorist organizations ...despite the fact that the programs are classified top secret ...

IMO the news papers have the right to print the stuff...guaranteed under the first ammendment...but ...people will die because of it..

the real treason comes from those who leak TS material to the press ...

Should they be shot or just put in jail ? How many more top secret programs can be leaked to the press ?

can you imagine this crap durring WW II ?

At any rate what do you think should be done .

Those who leaked the informations should be jailed. Those programs are top secret, and the one that wa revealed is actually producing results. Thanks to that tell-all rag we're going tobe attacked AGAIN. Everyone who was invovled in this should be jailed- those who leaked it to the New York Piece of Crap and those who work for the NY Piece of Crap and allowed this to be published and viewed.

In a democratic society the government should not need to keep secrets from its citizens. The NSA program is spurious at best.
Exactly, everything the government knows and does should be easily assessable public knowledge.
However, it is your society, so you live with it if you want to.
Alas, one of the problems with democracy is that it often only works when half your population is sensible or ate least not complete dumbasses.

At any rate what do you think should be done .

After careful thought, I recommend pie fights. *nod*

Those who leaked the informations should be jailed. Those programs are top secret, and the one that wa revealed is actually producing results. Thanks to that tell-all rag we're going tobe attacked AGAIN. Everyone who was invovled in this should be jailed- those who leaked it to the New York Piece of Crap and those who work for the NY Piece of Crap and allowed this to be published and viewed.
Awfully paranoid aren’t we?

After careful thought, I recommend pie fights. *nod*
You always recommend that.

You always recommend that.

Yes.

*snip*

That's not treason.

Now, when Rare left Nintendo for Microsoft, THAT was treason. :mad:

Awfully paranoid aren’t we?

You want to talk paranoid? Why is this poll public?

Such leaks do not fit the legal definition of Treason, which is quite specific. However, anti-leak legislation is in force, and should be enforced - regardless of the nature of the leak or the rank of the leaker.

You want to talk paranoid? Why is this poll public?
He want to know who supports "treason"!! :eek:

I say its treason and everyone in the gov't should be hanged!


But alas, I am yet a young revolutionary
FUC YEAH!

He want to know who supports "treason"!! :eek:
In that case, come and get me you neo-fascist sons of bitches!!!!

After careful thought, I recommend pie fights. *nod*
But only after a hard fought game of 'paper rock scissors' to determine who gets to throw the first pie.
*nod*

Those who leaked the informations should be jailed. Those programs are top secret, and the one that wa revealed is actually producing results. Thanks to that tell-all rag we're going tobe attacked AGAIN. Everyone who was invovled in this should be jailed- those who leaked it to the New York Piece of Crap and those who work for the NY Piece of Crap and allowed this to be published and viewed.

1) It seems unlikely that we are going to incur terror attacks as a direct result of the leakage of financial-snooping schemes.

2) We HAVE been 'attacked', even before the current regime started on it's KGB-like policies. We will likely get attacked again.. but that's because we can't keep our collectiv fingers out of foreign pies... not because our government is a snoop, or our press is free.

Just imagine if someone leaked the plans for the allied invasion of Europe during WWII. The Germans would have been able to reinforce there positions and get set to push it back. The government has the obligation and the right to keep some operations and plans secrets for security reasons.

Just imagine if someone leaked the plans for the allied invasion of Europe during WWII. The Germans would have been able to reinforce there positions and get set to push it back. The government has the obligation and the right to keep some operations and plans secrets for security reasons.

Just imagine if someone had leaked Nixon's plans to illegally spy on the opposition. He might have been found out to be corrupt and resigned. The government has the obligation and the right to keep some operations and plans secrets for their own protection against the law.

No, it's not treason. However, it should not be encouraged unless the people who are planning to expose it know beyond a doubt that wrongdoing is occuring.

What do you do when it is the president and his administration who have committed treason?

Well, maybe not treason, but it is illegal activity by the New York Times.

Title 18, Section 798 reads, in part:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

That's pretty plain English, and it is established law here in the US.

It would be fairly easy to get a conviction.

It would be fairly easy to get a conviction.
Do you believe the NYT will even be indicted?

Do you believe the NYT will even be indicted?
That's a political question, not a legal one.

That's a political question, not a legal one.
Do you believe the NYT ever will be indicted?

Do you believe the NYT should be indicted?

Well, maybe not treason, but it is illegal activity by the New York Times.

Title 18, Section 798 reads, in part:



That's pretty plain English, and it is established law here in the US.

It would be fairly easy to get a conviction.

And that 'plain' English refers, specifically, to the release of information, where such release is "for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States"...

It could stay in court for years while that was argued... and it's not nearly as 'clear' as you like to think.

Although - of course - the current regime would probably apply pressure, just as they have been doing about the 'legality hearings' on the call monitoring program.

Just imagine if someone had leaked Nixon's plans to illegally spy on the opposition. He might have been found out to be corrupt and resigned. The government has the obligation and the right to keep some operations and plans secrets for their own protection against the law.

Nixon did not plan Watergate. He did however try to cover it up.

I think cookies, parades, and a few minutes of fame are what these leakers deserve, hands down. They keep our democracy stable and our government honest. Good for them (and I should hope that if I were saying the same thing about a liberal governmnet with leaks that I would say the same thing).

Do you believe the NYT will even be indicted?

I don't, but the person who leaked the information should be prosecuted. Anyone who knowingly divulges classified information can and should be prosecuted. Will anyone die because this information was revealed? Probably not as a direct result of the leak, but indirectly it is possible. Now the enemy will be looking for new avenues to finance their operations and that could lead to people being killed because of those operations.

Was it treason? No. Was it illegal activity? Defiantly.

Awfully paranoid aren’t we?

Okay, we MIGHT be attacked again.

:gundge:

Cookie. If you're being spied on, it's best to at least know about it. Your taxes pay for these people, come on.

funny how the OP thinks it's necessary to identify poll voters... are you trying to get a job at NSA or have you already got one there? :D

The first two are fine with me.

You want to talk paranoid? Why is this poll public?
So he can send the results to the NSA and next time the GOP starts looking bad they can nab us all, claim we're all wannabe Al-quada and say how only the Republicans can keep the country safe from the OMG TERRORISTS!

The Government shouldn't fuck through other people's money.
They shouldn't know what every person they don't like says, that's an easy way for Government sponsered Blackmail.
(Imagining: Senator, we hear you like Phone sex calls, help pass this bill suspending all civil liberties or we'll tell your wife.)

And that 'plain' English refers, specifically, to the release of information, where such release is "for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States"...
Actually, it said "for the benefit of any foreign government or to the detriment of the United States".

The way I figure it, the only ones committing treason are the government bodies spying, figuring, and planning without consent of the people, or at least Congress (aka the lunatics running the asylum). Way I see it, the government has no business spying on its own citizens, since we are not actually at "War". The current "War on terror" is more akin to the Big Statist "War on Poverty" "War on Drugs" or (coming soon) "War on your Mother" (featuring Dick Cheney and his shotgun). Basically, George Orwell described the situation we're stumbling into best when he extrapolated Big Brothers policy Of "Continuous War" in the book "1984".
Treason is...
Disobeying the Constitution (with "Executive Decisions")
Taking the say of the Public out of the equasion
Involving the country (and its soldiers, and its citizens) in gadfly interference in the sovereign roles of other nations.
Ask yourself this question. "If the US minded its own damn business, would the terrorists have attacked us." I can think of 3 permutations:
1. No
2. Yes, but since we werent interfering in their business, we were an innocent victim (see also: Harbour, Pearl)
3. Yes, but since we had our nose in their business, it got bloodied (just ask anyone else in a terror region...Israel, PLO, about 85% of Africa, Philippines, Indonesia, to name just a handful)
In 2 of these 3 possibilities, the US would be universally regarded as a stricken innocent and defended.
Are we?

See, here's the problem. We don't so much actually have a democracy. We are, roughly speaking, a centralized republic, with democracy slowly creeping in, an old confederation-of-states legislation, if not attitudes, still hanging around.

That said, the law is the law, and should be enforced... also, leaking intelligence info is just stupid, and I recommend the stocks be re-instituted as punishment for public stupidity like that. But that's just me.

Ultraextrme Sanity respects the first part of his name.

However, riddle me this: Did you cry foul when Bush and Rove leaked Valerie Plame or was your mouth too busy on Dick's Cheney, I mean, Cheney's dick?

Do you believe the NYT ever will be indicted?

Do you believe the NYT should be indicted?

1. No.
2. Yes.

When people defend the government like this, I sometimes imagine a monkey hitting an electric buzzer to receive a shock and have his banana taken away. And doing it over and over and over. But even a monkey will learn to push a different button. I hope.

America has been hijacked by Halliburton and co and the people doing the whistleblowing are trying to stop the worst excesses of the criminal gang in control. They will be remembered as brave patriots who worked as a resistance during the "cultureless revolution" or whatever this period will be called by history ( "The great American mistake", "The GWB error", "The second dark ages").

I remember when those arseholes got "elected" first, it was a very depressing time. Then someone said "One day, when all these guys are in prison, we'll be able to look back on all this and shake our heads and laugh about it". Roll on the day.

Actually, it said "for the benefit of any foreign government or to the detriment of the United States".

Did I manage to drop the 'or'? Hmmm.

Not that it matters - since the point still remains true, even with the 'or'.

I think cookies, parades, and a few minutes of fame are what these leakers deserve, hands down. They keep our democracy stable and our government honest. Good for them (and I should hope that if I were saying the same thing about a liberal governmnet with leaks that I would say the same thing).

I agree.

And Watergate does not bother me.

Darknovae, Deep Kimchi, DesignatedMarksman, Errikland, Eyster, Greater Valinor, I H8t you all, Layarteb, New Britannian kingdom, Nitsujara, People without names, Runopa, Secret aj man, Sozialistische Preusen, Szanth, The State of Georgia, Tinsinia, Ulrichland, Ultraextreme Sanity, Wyvern Knights, & Zilam -

consider yourselves all vomited upon.

We are on our third leak that exposes national security programs and gives the details to terrorist organizations as to how we are trying to track them.

The new York Times claims " it is in the Public interest " so they just print articles exposing the mechanics of how we are tracking terrorist organizations ...despite the fact that the programs are classified top secret ...

IMO the news papers have the right to print the stuff...guaranteed under the first ammendment...but ...people will die because of it..

the real treason comes from those who leak TS material to the press ...

Should they be shot or just put in jail ? How many more top secret programs can be leaked to the press ?

can you imagine this crap durring WW II ?

At any rate what do you think should be done .

I can imagine this crap during WWII. Just replace the word "terrorist" with the word "jew".

Not treason.

People won't die because of this.

yes they will.
Tell the terrorists how we track em, then they'll just
counter it and make it harder for us. Then when there
is a big BOOM! in a crowded shopping mall
or another large skyscraper, then we'll all run around screaming,
"HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED??!"
You honestly dont think they pay attention to our
media. Our media is their best friend. FC*K them.

I think there should be rewards for this.

yes they will.
Tell the terrorists how we track em, then they'll just
counter it and make it harder for us. Then when there
is a big BOOM! in a crowded shopping mall
or another large skyscraper, then we'll all run around screaming,
"HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED??!"
You honestly dont think they pay attention to our
media. Our media is their best friend. FC*K them.

You're reaching... you IMPLY a connection... and then just paper over any gaps.

HOW does "Tell the terrorists how we track em, then they'll just counter it and make it harder for us..." logically lead into: "Then when there is a big BOOM! in a crowded shopping mall..."

Answer: it doesn't. It's hyperbole.

I WILL REITERATE.

Legally, it's not treason. That said, it is a violation of Title 18, Section 798.

I WILL REITERATE.

Legally, it's not treason. That said, it is a violation of Title 18, Section 798.

Big letters don't help. You say it is, I say it isn't - based on the same excerpt. Imagine how much fun THAT could be, in the hands of paid lawyers.

Big letters don't help. You say it is, I say it isn't - based on the same excerpt. Imagine how much fun THAT could be, in the hands of paid lawyers.

If you consider the original intent of the law, I think the argument would be easier to make than you think. And in the meantime, while the case brewed, no other media outlet in the US would dare to print another similar leak until the smoke cleared.

yes they will.
Tell the terrorists how we track em, then they'll just
counter it and make it harder for us. Then when there
is a big BOOM! in a crowded shopping mall
or another large skyscraper, then we'll all run around screaming,
"HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED??!"
You honestly dont think they pay attention to our
media. Our media is their best friend. FC*K them.

You censor yourself. Just like American TV. How cute.

You for one minute think that a phonetap is going to catch terrorists, dream on. It's going to curtail freedom more than any bomber.

If you consider the original intent of the law, I think the argument would be easier to make than you think. And in the meantime, while the case brewed, no other media outlet in the US would dare to print another similar leak until the smoke cleared.

So - in the end, the current regime 'wins' another round in the "War on First Amendment Rights", by acting like a thug?

So - in the end, the current regime 'wins' another round in the "War on First Amendment Rights", by acting like a thug?
It's called "enforcing the laws on the books".

If you don't like the law, call your Congressman and have it revoked, instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to bless whatever a President wants to do.

It's called "enforcing the laws on the books".

If you don't like the law, call your Congressman and have it revoked, instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to bless whatever a President wants to do.

No - I don't agree... it is very much about swagger over content. Preventing other media from printing leaks, because they are 'intimidated' by the court process? Putting the kibosh on official investigations because 'secret' material might be released?

It's stongarm tactics, nothing more. The 'laws on the books' are barely being gestured at - this is about leverage, justifying the possibly-unconstitutional behaviours of the current regime, claimed as acceptable under 'emergency' loopholes.

What happens to these programs after the "War on Terror" has been won? In theory.

No - I don't agree... it is very much about swagger over content. Preventing other media from printing leaks, because they are 'intimidated' by the court process? Putting the kibosh on official investigations because 'secret' material might be released?

It's stongarm tactics, nothing more. The 'laws on the books' are barely being gestured at - this is about leverage, justifying the possibly-unconstitutional behaviours of the current regime, claimed as acceptable under 'emergency' loopholes.

So, let me get this thing you answered to straight, Grave: It's OK, for DK, to leak the name of an agent, but it's not ok to leak fourth ammendment rights violations.

DOUBLETHINK ALERT!

*Sings to the tune of "When I'm Sixty-four"*

If people knew that I wrote this song I'm singing right now
I would surely be erased for thoughtcrime, I'd just dissapear in the night!
I can hear now the thought-police knocking on my door!
We are all being watched by the Big Brother, Nineteen Eighty Four!

If the government is doing something illegal and unconstitutional, without judicial oversight, then the American people have a right to know. "Top Secret" classification be damned.

Your attempts at trolling are pathetic at best, because you know that if this type of program were happening under a Democratic president, you'd be frothing at the goddamn mouth screeching about civil liberties violations and the like. :rolleyes:


Explain how this thread is in anyway an "attempt at trolling' instead of a seriouse attempt at discussing a subject that durring a time of war deserves reasoned discussion .

and BTW ..not only have you no clue how I would be acting under a Democratic president but I not only voted for Clinton but also did everything I could politicaly to fight against the star commision and the idiots who used it as an attempt to undermine a legaly elected President .

So troll away little fellow . sooner or later even a blind rabid squirrell may find an acorn .

Such leaks do not fit the legal definition of Treason, which is quite specific. However, anti-leak legislation is in force, and should be enforced - regardless of the nature of the leak or the rank of the leaker.

The info is classified top secret and by the Times own admission is legal.
So please explain how or why you feel those that leaked top secret info durring a time of war are not guilty of treason ?


In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

a crime that undermines the offender's government
disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason


the betrayal of one's country.
library.thinkquest.org/J003358F/terms.html


The US Constitution

Section 3: Treason
Section Three defines Treason and its enforcement.

Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."

Section Three also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same "overt" act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older British law, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses". In Haupt v. United States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are only required to prove that the overt act actually occurred.

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted


I say that telling your enemy in detail how they are being tracked down and what enforcement tools are being used in detail...is the VEY definition of " GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY "

dont you think so ?

I thought that it was illegal to violate the constitution? so who is really breaking the law here? certainly not the all knowing, all powerful, all richeous US government? :rolleyes: *gags* the NSA should be the ones taken outside the court-house and shot.

You're reaching... you IMPLY a connection... and then just paper over any gaps.

HOW does "Tell the terrorists how we track em, then they'll just counter it and make it harder for us..." logically lead into: "Then when there is a big BOOM! in a crowded shopping mall..."

Answer: it doesn't. It's hyperbole.

Tell you what.
I wonder how well this demand of, "The people have the right to know" crap would have worked during WWII. Remember the Normandy Invasion? It was a kept a secret to make sure no one else found out about it. Especially the Nazis. Even the President begged the media not to make a peep about it, because it would have caused BIG problems, and the element of secrecy would have been lost.
Now, if they had done what the media is doing today, Normandy would have been a huge failure, and thousands more Allied soldiers would have been killed. Secrecy is the name of the game. A nation needs to keep secrets. You tell the people that the government is listening in on them and tell them how they are doing it, dontcha think the terrorists will be paying attention too? Hell, even during WWII the Nazis were paying attention to our media. What makes you so sure the enemy of today isnt? And they will respond accordingly and make it even more difficult to track them. I reallt doubt the government is interested in what you had for breakfast or what "he said she said" on the phone. They are listening in on TERRORISTS. Just wait for the next attack.
remember TOP SECRET means TOP SECRET!
not everyone should hear about everything that the government is doing.

Tell you what.
I wonder how well this demand of, "The people have the right to know" crap would have worked during WWII. Remember the Normandy Invasion? It was a kept a secret to make sure no one else found out about it. Especially the Nazis. Even the President begged the media not to make a peep about it, because it would have caused BIG problems, and the element of secrecy would have been lost.
Now, if they had done what the media is doing today, Normandy would have been a huge failure, and thousands more Allied soldiers would have been killed. Secrecy is the name of the game. A nation needs to keep secrets. You tell the people that the government is listening in on them and tell them how they are doing it, dontcha think the terrorists will be paying attention too? Hell, even during WWII the Nazis were paying attention to our media. What makes you so sure the enemy of today isnt? And they will respond accordingly and make it even more difficult to track them. I reallt doubt the government is interested in what you had for breakfast or what "he said she said" on the phone. They are listening in on TERRORISTS. Just wait for the next attack.
remember TOP SECRET means TOP SECRET!
not everyone should hear about this.
Wow.

You want to talk paranoid? Why is this poll public?

Its because I was too dumb to figure out how to not make it public ..but if a mod could correct that oversite on my part i would appreciate it..unless I can edit it on my own .

what else should the public have a right to know?
How about the location of every single nuclear ballistic
missile submarine? Or the frequencies of our Milsat communications?
Or how about the location of every single hidden bunker that
conatins nuclear weapons? Or how about how to detect a
Stealth Fighter?
I mean people have a right to know these things too, right?
*rolls eyes*

So what about when Bush does it. Do you want to shoot him/put him in jail?

A littile education for you. President Bush, as the Commander in Chief of the Military and head of the Executive Branch (Which includes ALL Intel branches) decides wether or not something is top secret. If Bush "Leaks" something, then he is Constitutionally Allowed to do so. All he is doing is recsinding it's "Top Secret" rating. However, an individual agent doing so is giving "Aid and Comfort to an Enemy of the United States" by telling them how we are trying to catch them, allowing the terrorist assholes out there to avoid us, and commit their attacks.

1) It seems unlikely that we are going to incur terror attacks as a direct result of the leakage of financial-snooping schemes.

2) We HAVE been 'attacked', even before the current regime started on it's KGB-like policies. We will likely get attacked again.. but that's because we can't keep our collectiv fingers out of foreign pies... not because our government is a snoop, or our press is free.

Lackawana 6
Miami 7

those are 13 people who conspired to attack the US, and there are more we don't know about. These "KGBesque" enforcement practices have stopped attacks. And if you want to see info on a real Gulag or the Real KGB, just wiki it, what we are doing is nothing like it.

No - I don't agree... it is very much about swagger over content. Preventing other media from printing leaks, because they are 'intimidated' by the court process? Putting the kibosh on official investigations because 'secret' material might be released?

It's stongarm tactics, nothing more. The 'laws on the books' are barely being gestured at - this is about leverage, justifying the possibly-unconstitutional behaviours of the current regime, claimed as acceptable under 'emergency' loopholes.


First off its not the medias fault for printing the leaks .
If you bothered to read the OP ...They have a first ammendment right to act in what they think is the publics best interest and the publics right to know.
Whithout a free press we become a Fascist nation run by whomever can controll information and suppress dissent .

But we are at WAR . So the leaking of our strategy to combat the people we are at WAR with is TREASON . Leaking top secret information is UNLAWFULL at the minimum . The leakers are the criminals NOT the press.


But even so...... can you imagine the New York Times printing this headline after MIDWAY..

The Japanese Navy was soundly defeated due to the top secret code breakers in Washington who have been reading japanese codes since 1941..
A chain of radio intecept stations stretching from the Aleution Islands to Australia according to an unnamed but high placed source , has been collecting Japanese communications and forwarding it so the unnamed group of code breakers , According to our source these individual have had the cooperation of individuals actually behind enemy lines in the many islands captured durring the first years of the current war in the Pacific .

Ultraextrme Sanity respects the first part of his name.

However, riddle me this: Did you cry foul when Bush and Rove leaked Valerie Plame or was your mouth too busy on Dick's Cheney, I mean, Cheney's dick?

There is still no evidence that it was Rove who leaked it. Until their is an indictment against Rove, I will support him.

some people just like being oppressed. theyre called masocasts.:(

I thought that it was illegal to violate the constitution? so who is really breaking the law here? certainly not the all knowing, all powerful, all richeous US government? :rolleyes: *gags* the NSA should be the ones taken outside the court-house and shot.
What a great idea. Everyone hates the NSA, right? The CIA is just as bad, correct? Let's just get rid of them both! Problem solved! No more violation of the constitution. Then let's see what happens to the safety of this country.

If the government is doing something illegal and unconstitutional, without judicial oversight, then the American people have a right to know. "Top Secret" classification be damned.


right you are .

but in the case of these leaks ..The government is dong things with CONGRESSIONAL oversite , along with judicial oversite and to the letter of the law .

read the Times article...even though they admit the above...they still felt the need to publish ...although the administration asked them to show some common sense and restraint and hold off on it .

Please do at least the minimum of reading on a subject before you jump to your conclusion .

What happens to these programs after the "War on Terror" has been won? In theory.

Then I for one will make sure that I do what I can to get them revoked. I hate Big Government, but am willing to accept it in a time of WAR, as long as it does not cross the line. It is one thing to look at phone calls going in or leaving this country for a terrorist hotspot, it is another to watch every phone call going all around the world. Oh, and as for all that about the money, the IRS does it any way. How do you think they caught Capone?

There is still no evidence that it was Rove who leaked it. Until their is an indictment against Rove, I will support him.

Ah, right, the same chance you gave the NYT before any proof that what they did was illegal or would hamper the war on a noun...

I rest my case.

What happens to these programs after the "War on Terror" has been won? In theory.
When the war ends? You know better than that.

What a great idea. Everyone hates the NSA, right? The CIA is just as bad, correct? Let's just get rid of them both! Problem solved! No more violation of the constitution. Then let's see what happens to the safety of this country.
Then lets disclose ALL of our secrets to the public!
Hey, wont we be better off then? No secrets just
everything out in the open for everyone to see!
Wee wont we be free then?

Ah, right, the same chance you gave the NYT before any proof that what they did was illegal or would hamper the war on a noun...

I rest my case.

Hey I don't think that the NYT should be convicted of treason, aiding and abetting maybe, those who should be convicted are their sources.

What a great idea. Everyone hates the NSA, right? The CIA is just as bad, correct? Let's just get rid of them both! Problem solved! No more violation of the constitution. Then let's see what happens to the safety of this country.

So, for the ideals of your country to stand, they have to be violated? How... How... How...

STUPID!

Hey I don't think that the NYT should be convicted of treason, aiding and abetting maybe, those who should be convicted are their sources.

There's no proof that what they did was illegal - which is the argument you use to support Rove.

Cute.

There's no proof that what they did was illegal - which is the argument you use to support Rove.

Cute.

But, they aided the leakers. If I hear that a Grand Jury found that there is no evidence that they borke the law, then I will retract that statement. Until then, I have to think that they made the wrong choice and aided the Leakers. After all, they didn't have to print it.

Rove, has no evidence against him. Scooter Libby is the one who was indicted by the Grand Jury, not karl Rove.

But, they aided the leakers. If I hear that a Grand Jury found that there is no evidence that they borke the law, then I will retract that statement. Until then, I have to think that they made the wrong choice and aided the Leakers. After all, they didn't have to print it.

Rove, has no evidence against him. Scooter Libby is the one who was indicted by the Grand Jury, not karl Rove.

So Rove is innocent until proven guilty, but the NYT is guilty until proven innocent?

:upyours:

People dont seem to understand that if someone walks up to you and hands you information that could possibly endanger the entire country, its a good idea to hide it, or destroy it. Not publish it, in the name of Free Speech and Freedom of Press.

So, for the ideals of your country to stand, they have to be violated? How... How... How...

STUPID!

Show proof of one law that was broken . Aside from leaking Top secret programs to the press .

The ideals of this country and others around the world exist because we at one time kept our secrets from those we were at war with.

Or didnt they teach that in school ?

People dont seem to understand that if someone walks up to you and hands you information that could possibly endanger the entire country, its a good idea to hide it, or destroy it. Not publish it, in the name of Free Speech and Freedom of Press.

So, when the administration handed over Valerie Plame's info, it was not their fault that it got leaked? You know, this kind of thought process is the one psychologically PERVERSE people utilize.

So Rove is innocent until proven guilty, but the NYT is guilty until proven innocent?

:upyours:

:rolleyes:

Rove was found Innocent by the Grand Jury

Also, the evidence is right there. They broke the law by aiding and abetting the Leakers. If a Rapist where caught on a security camera, I would say the same thing. Or if a Burglar was caught on tape, or a Pedophile. You committ a crime and there is indisputable evidence that you did so, that "Innocent until Proven Guilty" stance is just a formality.

Oh, and if you are trying to draw me into a flamewar, hate to break it to you, but it won't happen.

So Rove is innocent until proven guilty, but the NYT is guilty until proven innocent?

:upyours:


drill a hole in your thick skull and see if this gets in...

THE NY TIMES DID NOTHING ILLEGAL .

The person who leaked top secret info to them DID .

People dont seem to understand that if someone walks up to you and hands you information that could possibly endanger the entire country, its a good idea to hide it, or destroy it. Not publish it, in the name of Free Speech and Freedom of Press.

Exactly. Publishing it is Aiding and Abetting. It should be turned in or destroyed.

Show proof of one law that was broken . Aside from leaking Top secret programs to the press .

The ideals of this country and others around the world exist because we at one time kept our secrets from those we were at war with.

Or didnt they teach that in school ?

Would you like me to list the fourth ammendment violations in alphabetical order?

drill a hole in your thick skull and see if this gets in...

THE NY TIMES DID NOTHING ILLEGAL .

The person who leaked top secret info to them DID .

No, they published it, that is aiding and abetting the actuall criminals.

So Rove is innocent until proven guilty, but the NYT is guilty until proven innocent?

:upyours:

Lets see.
What proof was there of Rove actually saying the name? None.
The NYT publishes sensitive documents that are Top Secret.
How did they get them, and why did they print them?
Hmmmmm... someone must be very blind or ignorant.

Thats like a having the entire police department seeing a criminal
murder five people right in front of them, all caught on camera,
and positively ID'd , and still assuming he's innocent.
I'm sorry but my peepers dont lie. You see someone
breaking the law, they are a criminal and guilty of the crime.
Someone saying someone did something bad from a third party source, well
has to be assumed innocent by lack of hard evidence.

No, they published it, that is aiding and abetting the actuall criminals.

No, this isn't, unless you live in North Korea. But if you would like to live there so much, kindly move.

Lets see.
What proof was there of Rove actually saying the name? None.
The NYT publishes sensitive documents that are Top Secret.
How did they get them, and why did they print them?
Hmmmmm... someone must be very blind or ignorant.

Thats like a having the entire police department seeing a criminal
murder five people right in front of them, all caught on camera,
and positively ID'd , and still assuming he's innocent.
I'm sorry but my peepers dont lie. You see someone
breaking the law, they are a criminal and guilty of the crime.
Someone saying someone did something bad from a third party source, well
has to be assumed innocent by lack of hard evidence.

AMEN!

Exactly. Publishing it is Aiding and Abetting. It should be turned in or destroyed.


You are wrong . Leaking the info is aiding and abetting....pubishng the info..although IMO foolish..is the right of a free press and guaranteed under the first Ammendment of the constitution . The people have a right to know .
It the GOVERNMENTS job to protect our secrets NOT the press .

We are on our third leak that exposes national security programs and gives the details to terrorist organizations as to how we are trying to track them.

The new York Times claims " it is in the Public interest " so they just print articles exposing the mechanics of how we are tracking terrorist organizations ...despite the fact that the programs are classified top secret ...

IMO the news papers have the right to print the stuff...guaranteed under the first ammendment...but ...people will die because of it..

the real treason comes from those who leak TS material to the press ...

Should they be shot or just put in jail ? How many more top secret programs can be leaked to the press ?

can you imagine this crap durring WW II ?

At any rate what do you think should be done .
They should be tried and, if guilty, be either incarcerated for a very, very long time, or stood against a wall and shot.

Lets see.
What proof was there of Rove actually saying the name? None.
The NYT publishes sensitive documents that are Top Secret.
How did they get them, and why did they print them?
Hmmmmm... someone must be very blind or ignorant.

Thats like a having the entire police department seeing a criminal
murder five people right in front of them, all caught on camera,
and positively ID'd , and still assuming he's innocent.
I'm sorry but my peepers dont lie. You see someone
breaking the law, they are a criminal and guilty of the crime.
Someone saying someone did something bad from a third party source, well
has to be assumed innocent by lack of hard evidence.

You'd have to point out to me which laws did they break. "Rove actually saying the name"? What, if he played mimes to tell the name of Valerie Plame it would make it all ok? That WAS a vendetta by the administration! The world KNOWS!

You are wrong . Leaking the info is aiding and abetting....pubishng the info..although IMO foolish..is the right of a free press and guaranteed under the first Ammendment of the constitution . The people have a right to know .
It the GOVERNMENTS job to protect our secrets NOT the press .

And a crappy job of it it has done so far, QED the shameful vendetta against Valerie Plame's husband.

You are wrong . Leaking the info is aiding and abetting....pubishng the info..although IMO foolish..is the right of a free press and guaranteed under the first Ammendment of the constitution . The people have a right to know .
It the GOVERNMENTS job to protect our secrets NOT the press .

The press helped protect secrets during WWII.
The Normandy Invasion? They knew all about two day before it occured.
Gee, why didnt they go and publish it right away? Cause they understood what would happen if they did. They were a hell of a lot more patriotic then, then they are now. If anyone in the press leaked any secret info then, they would have been shot as traitors.

No, this isn't, unless you live in North Korea. But if you would like to live there so much, kindly move.

Actually, yes, it is against the law to publish secrets in the US. However, the worst they can get is to be found as an accomplice or accesory. The Leakers can be found as being treasonous.

Exactly. Publishing it is Aiding and Abetting. It should be turned in or destroyed.


No, I'm afraid it isn't. The Supreme Court ruled, back in the '30's, that newspapers and media basically owe no loyalty to any government. Thus, while they can, if they wish, follow government requests to keep something secret, they cannot be compelled to do so - such is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.

This includes publishing things leaked to them, regardless of security classification. The leaker can (and should) be duly punished, but the paper can't be.

The press helped protect secrets during WWII.
The Normandy Invasion? They knew all about two day before it occured.
Gee, why didnt they go and publish it right away? Cause they understood what would happen if they did. They were a hell of a lot more patriotic then, then they are now. If anyone in the press leaked any secret info then, they would have been shot as traitors.

Well, Sanity beats you on the sanity department. I do wonder if you were this righteous and angry when, again, VALERIE PLAME WAS EXPOSED AS PART OF A VENDETTA AGAINST HER HUSBAND!!!

However, the paper should have some common sense
and understand the implications that might occur if they do
publish secrets. what if they published an article on how
to detect stealth fighters or they disclose the flight path
of Air Force One or the exact path of a Presidential motorcade?
a stealth fighter gets shot down the next day, killing the pilot.
Air Force One gets shot down, or the motorcade gets attacked by terrorists?
who is responsible for the deaths?

Well, Sanity beats you on the sanity department. I do wonder if you were this righteous and angry when, again, VALERIE PLAME WAS EXPOSED AS PART OF A VENDETTA AGAINST HER HUSBAND!!!
And your proof?

No, they published it, that is aiding and abetting the actuall criminals.


Read the first Ammendment . they have aright and a duty to inform the people of a free society ofr information they determine to be in the public interest .

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



The people have a right to know ..its government for the people by the people and of the people . And for the PEOPLE to be able to GOVERN themselves they must know whats being done in the name of the people and for the people .

That is why the press has the freedom to report on whatever document they find or is given to them ..

It is the GOVERNMENTS job to protect our national security and keep our secrets . Thats what the laws of the United States and the Constitution says .

We have an FBI and an NSA and other internal police and laws to enforce the leaking of secrets ...but no one has a right to suppress free speech or the freedom of the press ...unless they want to learn about the second ammendment by vivid example.

As much as I am willing to shoot those that leak secret information durring a war am as twice as willing to shoot anyone who attempts to enforce censorship of the press or anyones right to free speech ..
Why the hell are we even at war if you would suppress free speech ?
Suppress the leakers with two bullets in the head after a public trial but leave the press out of it . They commited no crime , they did what they are supposed to do .

Well, Sanity beats you on the sanity department. I do wonder if you were this righteous and angry when, again, VALERIE PLAME WAS EXPOSED AS PART OF A VENDETTA AGAINST HER HUSBAND!!!

So why did the press print the name into his article?

However, the paper should have some common sense
and understand the implications that might occur if they do
publish secrets. what if they published an article on how
to detect stealth fighters or they disclose the flight path
of Air Force One or the exact path of a Presidential motorcade?
a stealth fighter gets shot down the next day, killing the pilot.
Air Force One gets shot down, or the motorcade gets attacked by terrorists?
who is responsible for the deaths?

Ultimate responsibility must lie with the attackers, of course - one is always finally responsible for one's own actions. But I agree that those would be irresponsible releases.

Here, however, we have a countervailing requirement to inform our populace what our government is doing. Would I have published? Probably not. But I can see their reasons for doing so.

Would you like me to list the fourth ammendment violations in alphabetical order?

No I'd like you to show me one charge filed ...one court orderer..one restraining order...one congressional order...one legitamate bit of PROOF that any law was broken ...not your opinion . Unless of course you are a constitutional scholar and are working as an aide in the supreme court and actually know what you are talking about .

Well, Sanity beats you on the sanity department. I do wonder if you were this righteous and angry when, again, VALERIE PLAME WAS EXPOSED AS PART OF A VENDETTA AGAINST HER HUSBAND!!!




Emo man ...the years of investigations and the lack of any charges what so ever accusing ANYONE of leaking ANYTHING about Plame ....under the rule of law..instead of hysterical screaming and running about ...they mean nothing to you ?

Ultimate responsibility must lie with the attackers, of course - one is always finally responsible for one's own actions. But I agree that those would be irresponsible releases.

Here, however, we have a countervailing requirement to inform our populace what our government is doing. Would I have published? Probably not. But I can see their reasons for doing so.

some should be known to the public about what the government is doing, yes.
But not matters of National Security! Why do sensitive security buildings have security doors and secret passwords, and other things like that? To protect the building and the people inside, and keep trouble out!
can you imagine if all of our Army bases were wide open to the public? or Nuclear plant sites were wide open? Even the police station has some security and secrets in it. SECRETS are secrets, period. Some secrets protect the country, some can destroy it.
People should have common sense when it comes to these thing. Common sense is dead in our press today!

Emo man ...the years of investigations and the lack of any charges what so ever accusing ANYONE of leaking ANYTHING about Plame ....under the rule of law..instead of hysterical screaming and running about ...they mean nothing to you ?

Some people like conspiraces and hysteria to reality.

After reading this whole damn thread I realize the source of all these problems. THE CONSTITUTION. *pause for fainted people to revive themselves* The men who wrote the constitution and helped found the U.S wrote the constitution very vaguely giving very few actual laws and it seems to ignore many of the realities of what a government has to do in order to fulfill it's main goal: Allowing the common people to live their lives in freedom the pursuit of happiness etc. etc.. The constitution should be revised to give a more definitive set of guidelines for this nation.

Also for the record leakers should be shot depending on what they leaked if they leaked the president embezzling money (lol bush stealing to get $) that should be allowed, but if information about an ongoing operation that may or may not involve actual agents (living breathing people who have families like you) should be illegal and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as espionage not treason.

Lets take a look at Vietnam several times special operations planned to free prisoners who were reported as dead even though they were not were exposed by the press and the end results were mission failures and casualties for nothing. Was anyone eheld responsible for this? no. Instead American wasted their lives pointlessly because some asshole was objecting to the war.

After reading this whole damn thread I realize the source of all these problems. THE CONSTITUTION. *pause for fainted people to revive themselves* The men who wrote the constitution and helped found the U.S wrote the constitution very vaguely giving very few actual laws and it seems to ignore many of the realities of what a government has to do in order to fulfill it's main goal: Allowing the common people to live their lives in freedom the pursuit of happiness etc. etc.. The constitution should be revised to give a more definitive set of guidelines for this nation.

Also for the record leakers should be shot depending on what they leaked if they leaked the president embezzling money (lol bush stealing to get $) that should be allowed, but if information about an ongoing operation that may or may not involve actual agents (living breathing people who have families like you) should be illegal and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as espionage not treason.

Lets take a look at Vietnam several times special operations planned to free prisoners who were reported as dead even though they were not were exposed by the press and the end results were mission failures and casualties for nothing. Was anyone eheld responsible for this? no. Instead American wasted their lives pointlessly because some asshole was objecting to the war.

Couldnt of said it better myself!

some should be known to the public about what the government is doing, yes.
But not matters of National Security! Why do sensitive security buildings have security doors and secret passwords, and other things like that? To protect the building and the people inside, and keep trouble out!
can you imagine if all of our Army bases were wide open to the public? or Nuclear plant sites were wide open? Even the police station has some security and secrets in it. SECRETS are secrets, period. Some secrets protect the country, some can destroy it.
People should have common sense when it comes to these thing. Common sense is dead in our press today!

Perhaps. But some secrets protect the Government instead of the Country. Or specific persons who wish their fuckups to just go away. And all of those secrets get "NATIONAL SECURITY" stamped on the covers of their folders, just the same.

We can't trust government. Not any government. So, better too much published than too little, if one must err. Painful as it might be, we must acknowledge that protection FROM our government is just as important as protection BY our government.

When the war ends? You know better than that.
But the answers are funny.

Perhaps. But some secrets protect the Government instead of the Country. Or specific persons who wish their fuckups to just go away. And all of those secrets get "NATIONAL SECURITY" stamped on the covers of their folders, just the same.

We can't trust government. Not any government. So, better too much published than too little, if one must err. Painful as it might be, we must acknowledge that protection FROM our government is just as important as protection BY our government.
See you are one of those assholes who doesn't mind if someone gets hurt because of you doing the "right" thing.

See you are one of those assholes who doesn't mind if someone gets hurt because of you doing the "right" thing.

Oh, I mind; I'm just not sure there IS a "right" thing in this case.

In a democratic society the government should not need to keep secrets from its citizens.
This is quite naive. Security programmes sometimes need to be classified to protect these citizens. This is because most people who hear about them will have no malevolent intent, but the information must be protected from the few who do.

Then if their is no "right" thing (who the hell defined right anyways) do the least wrong.

Then if their is no "right" thing (who the hell defined right anyways) dp the least wrong.

In which case, I would publish. My mistrust of government is higher than my respect for their secrecy provisions.

and that their is the one of the largest problems we have people see the government as "evil". I for one trust the government more than the press. Although the government may be cruel and heartless I can at least expect that from them rather than constantly guessing when the public/press will stop liking me. When you deal with the press it is like petting a cat you never know when it will decide to bite you.

and that their is the one of the largest problems we have people see the government as "evil". I for one trust the government more than the press. Although the government may be cruel and heartless I can at least expect that from them rather than constantly guessing when the public/press will stop liking me. When you deal with the press it is like petting a cat you never know when it will decide to bite you.

Right from the start the founders of the US saw government as a necessary evil. Consider the famous statement 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.' Jefferson didn't mean vigilance towards other nations; as he made it quite clear in later writings, he meant vigilance towards OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

I don't see government as evil. Most people striving for office are, I am sure, seeking such for reasons both angelic and base; they honestly believe they are doing good as well as lining their pockets.

But only a fool would trust them.

I trust them to do what they have always do make sure they get re-elected or for non elected offices promoted/not fired. I can trust that government officials will when it comes down to it act in their own interests. The press simply follows the agenda of what will sell the most copies or get the most viewers. Seeing as how 1 can never know all of the ways that the press will try to accomplish that they can not be trusted to follow a predictable pattern.

Ah, but the press has no power to impose it's will upon you. Government does, and will. Besides, I find the press quite predictable - if you have the choice between bad news and worse news, the worse sells better.

and that their is the one of the largest problems we have people see the government as "evil". I for one trust the government more than the press. Although the government may be cruel and heartless I can at least expect that from them rather than constantly guessing when the public/press will stop liking me. When you deal with the press it is like petting a cat you never know when it will decide to bite you.


If government was not seen as a potental evil...why did we need the second ammendment ?

" The people need as much protection as from government as they do from criminals "

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.


"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."

- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789


The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."



"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."

- James Monroe



seems to me none of these fellows trusted government .


THOMAS JEFFERSON (Author of Declaration of Independence, member Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, Minister to France, Secretary of State, Vice President, 3rd President )
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." 12 Jun 1823 (The Complete Jefferson p.32)
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Jefferson Papers, p. 334, C.J. Boyd, 1950)
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
"The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil...I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government..." (letter to Madison 31 July 1788, The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, p.11:212)
"I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." (letter to Uriah Forrest, 1787, Jefferson Papers, 12:477)
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." (letter to Isaac Tifany, 1819)

Perhaps. But some secrets protect the Government instead of the Country. Or specific persons who wish their fuckups to just go away. And all of those secrets get "NATIONAL SECURITY" stamped on the covers of their folders, just the same.

We can't trust government. Not any government. So, better too much published than too little, if one must err. Painful as it might be, we must acknowledge that protection FROM our government is just as important as protection BY our government.
Perhaps surprisingly enough, I agree. So, apparently, did the founders of the American republic.

Thing is I don't know all the news or all of what the press knows at least politicians are stupid enough to make sure they look really important by showing off what they know. Also the press can impose it's will on you albeit ina much more indirect way. All they have to do is publish rumors and people automatically assume it is fact because "it was in the NY times or Tom Brokaw wouldn't lie" 9not that tv new is even legitimate). Well I have to go grow my sideburns, so I will sum it up like this I wouldn't invite a politician over for dinner nor would I invite a journalist over. (of course excluding family or friends who happen to be in those professions I would needle them about it though.)

SAM ADAMS (Signed Declaration of Independence, organized the Sons of Liberty, participated in Boston Tea Party, Member of Continental Congress, Governor of Massachusetts)
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ...or to prevent the people from petitioning , in a peaceable and orderly manner; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, p86-87)


like this guy ?

Good beer too .;)


JAMES MADISON (Drafted Virginia Constitution, Member of Continental Congress, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, named "Father of the Constitution", author of Federalist Papers, author of the Bill of Rights, Congressman from Virginia, Secretary of State, 4th President)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (Federalist Papers #46)
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights....the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government..." 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, 12:193, 204)
"To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands." (Federalist Papers #46)

I am trying to find one guy besides maybe karl Marx that sai to trust in the state ...and Roussea..and there ilk ...but I cant...not any that formed the United Staes .

A fair point. One should always verify information, and seek to understand the bias of the information sources one uses.

like this guy ?

Good beer too .;)




I am trying to find one guy besides maybe karl Marx that sai to trust in the state ...and Roussea .and there ilk ...but I cant...not any that formed the United Staes .
that guy who created the social contract (I am assuming that is who you are referring to) provided many of the ideas that were in the constitution his ideas along with the ideas of many of the other famous philosphe. Many of whom believd that the common people and the government should work to help each other I.E people support the government the government protects the citizens. Now I really must go grow my sideburns.

Hmmm perhaps George Washington said it best ...

GEORGE WASHINGTON
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." (farewell address)
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined..." (Papers of the President, p.65, Richardson, ed)



This and all the other quotes I have posted is why a free press is a necessity if we are to remain a free people . But we also need to be able to preserve our Union from outside forces and so we have given the government the right and the duty to protect our national security . It is not only their right but their obligation to protect our secrets.
The person or persons involved who have leaked Top Secret information to the press deserve to be hunted down and punished to the full extent the law allows .

The Social Contract is a good way of viewing and understanding social-individual-government relations, and provides a useful idea of how government is SUPPOSED to work.

But our governmental founders operated on an interesting combination of idealism and 'realpolitik'. They understood that the ideal will never be achieved, and that government has a nasty tendency to degenerate. So, they made it clear that government was untrustworthy, and bound it in restriction and separation of powers.

Ideals we need to resurrect in this benighted age, I feel.

Rousseau = people as a collective are responsible to the STATE .

Founders of the US = the State is responsible to the people ...to the INDIVIDUAL .

The founders of the US recognized that individual rights must be protected from the state .

An argument for another thread ..at any rate . perhaps capitalist vs Socialist .

What a great idea. Everyone hates the NSA, right? The CIA is just as bad, correct? Let's just get rid of them both! Problem solved! No more violation of the constitution. Then let's see what happens to the safety of this country.

you cant put saftey and power above freedom, thats not what america was built on, it was built to a be a free and open society with little government influence. we can do that and be a superpower at the same time. it just takes work and creative thinking, but people are dumb and lazy and revert back to SS style tactics that have proven NOT to work, and only encourage rebbellions.

let me ask the people who are obsessed with security here, is it really that important to you? do you really want to live in a 1984 world just to feel safe, and how safe are you going to be, really, think about it, sure its definetly not 1984 yet... and sure this is america, but this is how its starts, putting security above freedom. Do you really want a militant presance in your neighboorhood? anyone who steps outside the line is shot? do you really want to be inside your house every day, on lock down? or be there by at least 9pm because of a forced cerfew for your saftey? dont you want to go out and enjoy life, and be free, and live like an american? It is true that this is not the case yet, but lets say, after all the domestic suervellence and spying and such, a terrorist gets through (which would happen anyway) and blows somthing up, suddenly the suervelliance isnt enough, now they need cerfews, now the government needs even more power, then maybe crime is on the rise a bit and then suddenly we ned more police, and cameras, everywhere, you cant take a piss without someone knowing. Now someone challanges the government and they tear up the 1st amendment to protect themselves and keep people safe, then another terroist gets in and BAM. Marshall law. If you think thats a nice safe world, if you think its safe in a police state, you outta talk to some people who lived in Stalinist Russia, or Nazi germany, or modern china....

let me ask the people who are obsessed with security here, is it really that important to you? do you really want to live in a 1984 world just to feel safe, and how safe are you going to be, really, think about it, sure its definetly not 1984 yet... and sure this is america, but this is how its starts, putting security above freedom. Do you really want a militant presance in your neighboorhood? anyone who steps outside the line is shot? do you really want to be inside your house every day, on lock down? or be there by at least 9pm because of a forced cerfew for your saftey? dont you want to go out and enjoy life, and be free, and live like an american? It is true that this is not the case yet, but lets say, after all the domestic suervellence and spying and such, a terrorist gets through (which would happen anyway) and blows somthing up, suddenly the suervelliance isnt enough, now they need cerfews, now the government needs even more power, then maybe crime is on the rise a bit and then suddenly we ned more police, and cameras, everywhere, you cant take a piss without someone knowing. Now someone challanges the government and they tear up the 1st amendment to protect themselves and keep people safe, then another terroist gets in and BAM. Marshall law. If you think thats a nice safe world, if you think its safe in a police state, you outta talk to some people who lived in Stalinist Russia, or Nazi germany, or modern china....



Covered..

BEN FRANKLIN (member, Continental Congress, signed Declaration of Independence, attended Constitutional Convention, 1st Postmaster General)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Covered..

yeah I know tht quote, I like it.

For all the people who keep saying that the press kept secrets during WWII:

D-Day was a military maneuver into territory controlled by a nation that we were at war with. It was in no way a secret violation of the rights of US citizens.

Now, the NYT story was not a malicious attack on the government's attempt to fight terrorism. That story was reported because the newspaper rightly felt that the NSA program was an incursion on our civil liberties and lacking in sufficient oversight. They determined that the people had a right to know about such a program, not merely because it was secret, but because it violated our constitutional rights.

you cant put saftey and power above freedom, thats not what america was built on, it was built to a be a free and open society with little government influence. we can do that and be a superpower at the same time. it just takes work and creative thinking, but people are dumb and lazy and revert back to SS style tactics that have proven NOT to work, and only encourage rebbellions.

let me ask the people who are obsessed with security here, is it really that important to you? do you really want to live in a 1984 world just to feel safe, and how safe are you going to be, really, think about it, sure its definetly not 1984 yet... and sure this is america, but this is how its starts, putting security above freedom. Do you really want a militant presance in your neighboorhood? anyone who steps outside the line is shot? do you really want to be inside your house every day, on lock down? or be there by at least 9pm because of a forced cerfew for your saftey? dont you want to go out and enjoy life, and be free, and live like an american? It is true that this is not the case yet, but lets say, after all the domestic suervellence and spying and such, a terrorist gets through (which would happen anyway) and blows somthing up, suddenly the suervelliance isnt enough, now they need cerfews, now the government needs even more power, then maybe crime is on the rise a bit and then suddenly we ned more police, and cameras, everywhere, you cant take a piss without someone knowing. Now someone challanges the government and they tear up the 1st amendment to protect themselves and keep people safe, then another terroist gets in and BAM. Marshall law. If you think thats a nice safe world, if you think its safe in a police state, you outta talk to some people who lived in Stalinist Russia, or Nazi germany, or modern china....

I'm not saying that anyone, even the NSA or CIA, should take away our freedoms. I'm not saying we should sacrifice any of our liberties for safety, and I'm not safety obsessed. I'm just saying that I think it would be a very, very, very bad idea to get rid of the NSA or the CIA. (not that I'm saying anyone on here has suggested this)

For all the people who keep saying that the press kept secrets during WWII:

D-Day was a military maneuver into territory controlled by a nation that we were at war with. It was in no way a secret violation of the rights of US citizens.

Now, the NYT story was not a malicious attack on the government's attempt to fight terrorism. That story was reported because the newspaper rightly felt that the NSA program was an incursion on our civil liberties and lacking in sufficient oversight. They determined that the people had a right to know about such a program, not merely because it was secret, but because it violated our constitutional rights.



Wrong ...one hundred percent wrong ...show me anywhere in the times article where they say the NSA or the treasury department violted ONE civil liberty .
The fact is they acknowlaged the legallity of the program . PERIOD .

This is what Sec snow had to say ..


June 22, 2006
js-4332

Statement of Treasury Secretary John W. Snow on
Disclosure of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program

"President Bush has made it clear that ensuring the safety of the American people and citizens around the globe must be our number one priority.

"Consistent with this charge, one of the most important things we at Treasury do is to follow the flow of terrorist monies. They don't lie. Skillfully followed, they lead us to terrorists themselves, thereby protecting our citizens.

"Given our intimate knowledge of the global financial system and financial flows, along with our close working relationships with financial institutions around the world, Treasury is uniquely positioned to track these terrorist money flows both internationally and domestically. This is part of an overall governmental effort to map terrorist networks and apprehend terrorists around the world. By following the money, the U.S. has been able to locate operatives and their financiers, chart terrorist networks, help bring them to justice, and save lives.

"I am particularly proud of our Terrorist Finance Tracking Program which, based on intelligence leads, carefully targets financial transactions of suspected foreign terrorists. Let me be clear what this program is, and what it is not. It is an essential tool in the war on terror, based on appropriate legal authorities with effective oversight and safeguards. It is not "data mining", or trolling through the private financial records of Americans. It is not a "fishing expedition", but rather a sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity. That fact makes today's disclosure so regrettable, because the public dissemination of our sources and methods of fighting terrorists not only harms national security but also degrades the government's efforts to prevent terrorist activity in the future.

"If there are people sending money to help al Qaeda, then we need to know about it. We also need to take advantage of that knowledge to follow the money trail and thwart them.

"It's hard to overstate the value of this information. That's why, during my tenure, I've focused intently on this program. It is consistent with our democratic values and legal traditions. I know that it works to make America and the world safer. I'm proud of the fact that the 9-11 Commission gave its highest level of recognition to our work. It would have been irresponsible not to have undertaken this program. As President Bush said, we will not sit back and wait to be attacked again," said Secretary Snow.

-30-





do you even have aclue what we are discussing ?

here is another clue ..


June 23, 2006
JS-4334

Statement of Under Secretary Stuart Levey on
the
Terrorist Finance Tracking Program

My job, as Under Secretary for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, is to track the movement of money of terrorists and other national security threats, and do everything I can to disrupt those money flows. I take this job extremely seriously, as do the hundreds of dedicated people at Treasury and our partner agencies who focus on combating terrorist financing and protecting innocent people around the world from vicious and senseless attack.

"Following the money" is one of the most valuable methods we have to identify and find terrorists. If a terrorist operative that you're watching sends or receives money from another person, you know that there's a link between the two. Money trails don't lie. And, to wire money through a bank, a person needs to provide a name, address, and account number – exactly the kind of concrete leads that that can move an investigation forward and allow us to take action.

As a part of our efforts to track the funds of terrorists, we are confirming that we have subpoenaed records on terrorist-related transactions from SWIFT.

SWIFT is the premier messaging service used by banks around the world to issue international transfers, which makes its data exceptionally valuable. I would note that SWIFT is predominantly used for overseas transfers. It does not contain information on ordinary transactions that would be made by individuals in the United States, such as deposits, withdrawals, checks, or electronic bill payments.

The legal basis for this subpoena is routine and absolutely clear. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a statute passed in 1977, allows us to issue administrative subpoenas for financial records. We issue such subpoenas regularly, and our authority to do so has never been called into doubt. The SWIFT subpoena is powerful but narrow, as it allows us to access only that information that is related to terrorism investigations. We are not permitted to browse through the data, nor can we search it for any non-terrorism investigation. In practice, this means that we have accessed only a minute fraction of SWIFT's data.

Multiple layers of strict controls have been put in place to make sure that the information is not misused. Before they can run a search against this data, analysts must first explain how the target of the search is connected to a terrorism investigation. If the link cannot be established, the data cannot be searched. Pursuant to an agreement we reached with the company, SWIFT's auditors are able to monitor those searches in real time and stop any one of them if they have any concerns about the link to terrorism. In addition, a record is kept of every search that is done. These records are all reviewed either by an outside independent auditor, the company's auditors, or both.

The SWIFT data has proven to be one of the most valuable sources of information that we have on terrorist financing. It has enabled us and our colleagues to identify terrorist suspects we didn't know, and to find addresses for those that we did. It has provided key links in our investigations of al Qaida and other deadly terrorist groups.

We have briefed appropriate members of Congress and their staffs on this program. We briefed the central bank governors of all the G-10 countries. We briefed key members of the 9/11 Commission. The reaction from experts -- across the political spectrum -- has been that this is exactly the kind of creative and vigorous approach that is needed to combat the elusive terrorist threat that we face. Indeed, our use of the SWIFT data was one of the principal reasons that the otherwise critical 9/11 Commission Public Discourse Project awarded its only "A-" to our counter-terrorist financing efforts.

Until today, we have not discussed this program in public for an obvious reason: the value of the program came from the fact that terrorists didn't know it existed. They may have heard us talking about "following the money," but they didn't know that we were obtaining terrorist-related data from SWIFT. Many may not have even known what SWIFT was.

With today's revelations, this is unfortunately no longer true. This is a grave loss.

The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves. We cannot expect to continue disrupting their activities if our most valuable programs are exposed on the front page of our newspapers.

I can assure you, however, that we, along with our colleagues in the U.S. Government and abroad, will continue to pursue terrorists aggressively and responsibly, to map their networks and disrupt their lines of support. I believe that this is exactly what the American people expect of us.

Thank you.




So why did the Times have to disclose this program and why should those who leaked this information NOT be punished to the full extent the law allows ?

Because as you can see the world knows ...

Khaleej Times Online >> News >> THE WORLD

US Treasury confirms spying on global financial transactions
(AFP)

23 June 2006



WASHINGTON - US Treasury Secretary John Snow confirmed Friday the existence of a secret finance-tracking program launched shortly after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks as part of America’s counter-terrorism effort.


“I am particularly proud of our Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which, based on intelligence leads, carefully targets financial transactions of suspected foreign terrorists,” Snow said in a statement, confirming US newspaper reports Friday about the secret program.

Snow said that the tracking, through the international banking cooperative Swift, was specifically targeting suspected foreign terrorists and “is not “data mining’, or trolling through the private financial records of Americans.”

“This is part of an overall governmental effort to map terrorist networks and apprehend terrorists around the world,” he said.

The spying program, conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency under the supervision of the Treasury Department, was launched after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, he said.

“By following the money, the US has been able to locate operatives and their financiers, chart terrorist networks, help bring them to justice and save lives.”

Treasury Department Under Secretary Stuart Levey, in an interview with The New York Times, said the program “has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks,” adding that it was “without doubt a legal and proper use of our authorities.”

The government agreed to reveal the existence of the program after it was unable to dissuade the Times from publishing the results of its investigation, the newspaper said.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print this article Email this article


Related News

Four dead as blast hits tourist spot in southern Turkey
Filipino hostages in Nigeria freed
Swedish police close area of capital over bomb threat
Indonesia, Singapore ink special economic zone pact
Johannesburg airport worker’s legs severed by Boeing jumbo jet
Somali Islamists name US-wanted cleric to top post
Click here More News




Top

As usual, I'm not going to wade through 140+ posts just to be sure I'm being original here...but there's a serious distinction between "legitimate national security interest" and "illegal activity of the federal government".

Exposing the former, is illegal, if not always technically treason. Exposing the later is necessary if any civil liberties are to be protected.

Otherwise, you're suggesting the government has limitless power, since anything can be tossed into the shadowy net of "national security". (Which is, apparently, the way the current administration would like things.)

The question in the last few recent cases is whether or not the govenment has crossed the line against its citizens.

Personally, I voted for the cookie. Everyone needs a cookie.

We can always execute them later.

Well, the proof is that, well, somehow the media found out who Plame was. It's not the duty of the media to withhold information. It's the duty of the GOVERNMENT. Plain and simple. It's not OK when leaking benefits the administration as a vendetta. It IS OK when it's the leakage of something with a blurry legality. Both have as much proof as the other, yet I fail to see callings for shooting Rove.

:rolleyes:

Rove was found Innocent by the Grand Jury

Also, the evidence is right there. They broke the law by aiding and abetting the Leakers. If a Rapist where caught on a security camera, I would say the same thing. Or if a Burglar was caught on tape, or a Pedophile. You committ a crime and there is indisputable evidence that you did so, that "Innocent until Proven Guilty" stance is just a formality.

Oh, and if you are trying to draw me into a flamewar, hate to break it to you, but it won't happen.
Ummm. No, he wasn't. The Grand Jury has no power to declare guilt or innocence, and seeing as they're still meeting, they have yet to make a determination. The reports that Rove is in the clear are one-sided--that side being Rove's attorney speaking and saying he had a letter from Fitzgerald (which he didn't release, btw) that Rove was in the clear. Now, what does that mean? Does it mean that Rove rolled on Libby and maybe others in order to avoid jail? Does it mean that he's fully in the clear? The only people who know that right now are Fitzgerald and his people and Rove and his, and none of them are telling the whole story.

You might try seeing the nuances of a story next time before you type up a post like that one. Save yourself some embarassment.

Just imagine if someone leaked the plans for the allied invasion of Europe during WWII. The Germans would have been able to reinforce there positions and get set to push it back. The government has the obligation and the right to keep some operations and plans secrets for security reasons.
The Germans were fully aware of the attack. They were just outnumbered and unable to commit all their forces.

Otherwise, you're suggesting the government has limitless power, since anything can be tossed into the shadowy net of "national security". (Which is, apparently, the way the current administration would like things.)

Quoted for truth.

The Germans were fully aware of the attack. They were just outnumbered and unable to commit all their forces.

Even because they had other means (radars, spies, etc) to get the info.

so why do the % on the poll add up to greater than 100%?

so why do the % on the poll add up to greater than 100%?
multiple choice poll

It's called "enforcing the laws on the books".

If you don't like the law, call your Congressman and have it revoked, instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to bless whatever a President wants to do.
And if the Congressman tells you to go Fuck yourself because he's a corporate puppet? What do you do then? Vote for the next Corporate Puppet to replace him? Or vote for his opponent who is Also a Corporate Puppet? So many choices. So many choices.

And Barbaric Tribes if your message was siggable, I'd sig it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/9/97/Hamburger_Wahlspruch_%28Rathausinschrift%29.jpg

The Germans were fully aware of the attack. They were just outnumbered and unable to commit all their forces.


Wrong, the Germans knew that an invasion was inevitable, and it was going to happen, but they did not know when it was coming or where it would happen. If they had that information they would have been able to move reserve forces to the point of attack. Because they did not know the when or where the invasion would happen they keep there reserve armor and infantry over 150 miles from the beaches with the hope that they could react quickly. Sure they were out numbered, but the Germans had the advantage, they had reinforced positions. If they were able to move there reserve armor and other forces to the beach heads they could have pushed the allied forces back into the sea and repelled the invasion, once again because they could not predict where the allies were going to land they could not deploy there forces to counter the invasion. So if the plan of attack was leaked they could have reacted faster and defeated the invasion.


Date line 25 May 1944……

New York Times

Today this paper has learned from and anonymous military source that a massive allied invasion of main land Europe is planed for June 6th. The sources has leaked detailed information, the invasion will start in the early morning hours of the 6th headed by US and British airborne forces that will be parachuting behind the German lines in the Normandy area of France. The allied forces will also utilize gliders to transport heavy equipment and other supplies to the forward areas. It appears that the French towns of St Mari Giles and the main cross roads there are a main objective. It has also been learned that allied Special Forces along with the French resistance saboteurs will destroy key rail lines as well as disrupt communications by blowing up phone and telegraph lines. The main troop landings will take place in Normandy, the landing sites have been designated Utah, Omaha, Sword, Gold and Juno. These are the coed names for the allied landing sites, the actual names of the beaches and there locations on the continent are………..

Now how would such information have changes the Germans battle plan????

In a democratic society the government should not need to keep secrets from its citizens. The NSA program is spurious at best. However, it is your society, so you live with it if you want to.
Realistically, if a government keeps no secrets from it's people, they would be conquored inside of a year. Why? Because while they are telling their people all these wonderful things about their intended activities, they would also be telling every enemy the country has those exact same details about all their sensitive operations. Everything they would attempt to do involving any military assets abroad or inteligence gathering would be exposed to anyone and everyone doing everything they could think of to decimate it. Think of it like this, if you were a king, and you had a spy in your neighboring kingdom's court in case he decided to invade you, would you want everyone in your kingdom to know he was there? If the answer is yes, your spy is dead and your neighbor would invade over the insult of having a spy there in the first place. With no spy in the first place, you would be caught by suprise if your neighbor ever invaded. Unfortunatly, in a world where everyone hates everyone who is even slightly different, people have to keep secrets from everyone else, sad as it is. Without those secrets, we leave ourselves open to attack from anyone who wishes us harm. That includes people within our own nation who would wish harm to the current heads of government because they don't agree with them.

Here is a link to an interview of a reporter . I respect him for his work and have read his columns since he was in Philadelphia..he has since written the Book " Black Hawk down " and has done other work .

like he says in the article I have gotten my link from ..the government has people who take oaths to guard our secrets and its the reporters job to find out the truth a mission sometimes directly at odds withl egitamate military and intelligence concerns in keeping things secret . Both sides play an important and vital part in a democratic society . the traditions and liberties of any society are meaningless if it cannot protect itself , but the citizens in a democratic comunity must be well informed to govern themselves intelligently .

" How you feel about the trade off between press freedom and national security is partly a matter of perception . The stauchest defendersof government power tend to see our leaders as honest capable and benevolent. skeptics aremore inclined to believe them avaricious, bumbling and concerned with keeping and expanding their own power .
There is TRUTH in BOTH views ".

The bottom line is when the government starts locking up reporters for reporting..instead of those who have taken oaths of security and hold official titles its time to break out the rifles and man the barracades because our government has declared war on all of us . Thats my opinion of course but I feel the danger to our freedom from arresting or controlling the press and free speech is more harmfull than any " terrorist " attack could ever be ..because no matter how many they kill and no matter how many barbaric ways they do it, as long as we keep our freedom and our liberty ..they can never win .

At any rate enough ranting...here's the interview link..

www.go.philly.com/bowden

edit...I have no idea why the link is not up yet..its in the editorial section of the Sunday paper as an on line extra.

At any rate you can ask him yourself and if you care to find out more about US intelligence and operational failures ...and success check mout the Blog

http://iran.theatlantic.com/blog/index.php?/archives/2006/04.html
http://iran.theatlantic.com/blog/index.php?/archives/2006/06/P1.html

You can gain some insight ..if you too young to remember the Iranian hostage crisis and the end of the Democrats as a viable party for national security issues .

http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=192800-1&template=2

Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam, is about the 444 day Iran hostage crisis that began in November 1979.

Its going to be long war folks .

to much information= no information at all

the leaking of military/gv't secrets makes the enemy change tatics
then aur info is useless
it is an ongoing cycle

Wrong, the Germans knew that an invasion was inevitable, and it was going to happen, but they did not know when it was coming or where it would happen. If they had that information they would have been able to move reserve forces to the point of attack. Because they did not know the when or where the invasion would happen they keep there reserve armor and infantry over 150 miles from the beaches with the hope that they could react quickly. Sure they were out numbered, but the Germans had the advantage, they had reinforced positions. If they were able to move there reserve armor and other forces to the beach heads they could have pushed the allied forces back into the sea and repelled the invasion, once again because they could not predict where the allies were going to land they could not deploy there forces to counter the invasion. So if the plan of attack was leaked they could have reacted faster and defeated the invasion.


Date line 25 May 1944……

New York Times

Today this paper has learned from and anonymous military source that a massive allied invasion of main land Europe is planed for June 6th. The sources has leaked detailed information, the invasion will start in the early morning hours of the 6th headed by US and British airborne forces that will be parachuting behind the German lines in the Normandy area of France. The allied forces will also utilize gliders to transport heavy equipment and other supplies to the forward areas. It appears that the French towns of St Mari Giles and the main cross roads there are a main objective. It has also been learned that allied Special Forces along with the French resistance saboteurs will destroy key rail lines as well as disrupt communications by blowing up phone and telegraph lines. The main troop landings will take place in Normandy, the landing sites have been designated Utah, Omaha, Sword, Gold and Juno. These are the coed names for the allied landing sites, the actual names of the beaches and there locations on the continent are………..

Now how would such information have changes the Germans battle plan????

They would have released the divisions of their best troops and armor that they were saving for the invasion of the Calias...the allies would have had been hard pressed not to have been thrown bavk into the ocean as the Germans could move divisions of armored troops faster than the allies could ever land them , thus the need for the deception and the secrecy .

D-Day: The Invasion of Normandy

When on D-Day-June 6, 1944-Allied armies landed in Normandy on
the northwestern coast of France, possibly the one most critical event
of World War II unfolded; for upon the outcome of the invasion hung
the fate of Europe. If the invasion failed, the United States might
turn its full attention to the enemy in the Pacific-Japan-leaving
Britain alone, with most of its resources spent in mounting the
invasion. That would enable Nazi Germany to muster all its strength
against the Soviet Union. By the time American forces returned to
Europe-if indeed, they ever returned-Germany might be master of the
entire continent.

Although fewer Allied ground troops went ashore on D-Day than
on the first day of the earlier invasion of Sicily, the invasion of
Normandy was in total history's greatest amphibious operation,
involving on the first day 5,000 ships, the largest armada ever
assembled; 11,000 aircraft (following months of preliminary
bombardment); and approximately 154,000 British, Canadian and
American soldiers, including 23,000 arriving by parachute and glider.
The invasion also involved a long-range deception plan on a scale the
world had never before seen and the clandestine operations of tens of
thousands of Allied resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied countries of
western Europe.

American General Dwight D. Eisenhower was named supreme
commander for the allies in Europe. British General, Sir Frederick
Morgan, established a combined American-British headquarters known as
COSSAC, for Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander. COSSAC
developed a number of plans for the Allies, most notable was that of
Operation Overlord, a full scale invasion of France across the English
Channel.

Eisenhower felt that COSSAC's plan was a sound operation.
After reviewing the disastrous hit-and-run raid in 1942 in Dieppe,
planners decided that the strength of German defenses required not a
number of separate assaults by relatively small units but an immense
concentration of power in a single main landing. The invasion site
would have to be close to at least one major port and airbase to allow
for efficient supply lines. Possible sites included among others, the
Pas de Calais across the Strait of Dover, and the beaches of Cotentin.
It was decided by the Allies that the beaches of Cotentin would be the
landing site for Operation Overlord.

In my opinion, the primary reason that the invasion worked was
deception. Deception to mislead the Germans as to the time and place
of the invasion. To accomplish this, the British already had a plan
known as Jael, which involved whispering campaigns in diplomatic posts
around the world and various distractions to keep German eyes focused
anywhere but on the coast of northwestern France. An important point
to the deception was Ultra, code name for intelligence obtained from
intercepts of German radio traffic. This was made possible by the
British early in the war having broken the code of the standard German
radio enciphering machine, the Enigma. Through Ultra the Allied high
command knew what the Germans expected the Allies to do and thus could
plant information either to reinforce an existing false view or to
feed information through German agents, most of it false but enough of
it true-and thus sometimes involving sacrifice of Allied troops,
agents or resistance forces in occupied countries-to maintain the
credibility of the German agents....etc.

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/124.htm


Operation Fortitude was the codename for the deception operations used by the Allied forces during World War II in connection with the Normandy landings. It was divided into Fortitude North, a threat to invade Norway, and Fortitude South, designed to induce the Germans to believe that the main invasion of France would occur in the Pas de Calais rather than Normandy. Fortitude South was one of the most successful deception operations of the war, and arguably the most important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude

Thats enough info for you to get enough to learn how important the deception was to the effort to defeat Germany in WW II .


Just some friendly back up Mr Ha8tuall...:D

Most of what the NSA does is "extra" legal, to keep it secret they don't even ask congress to give them permission. Thus it's not against the law by not being a part of law.

The lawyers over at the New York Times know this. The Times prints secrets to make money, not to serve any sacred public interest. So each party involved is garbage and each can't keep spying on or ratting out the other unless the staus quo stays the same.

Treason is relative these days. When Miss Lewinsky was with Bill Clinton the Secret Service failed to log her comings and goings from the White House. This broke their oath and was actually a Federal crime, they could easily have been brought up on treason charges. Sending the Times reporters to prison cannot be done without revealing even more sensitive details, so the wheel keeps turning.

I'll leave the Right for the Left when we start having secret trials for this kind of thing, as long as it stays in the public eye let the games continue.

We are on our third leak that exposes national security programs and gives the details to terrorist organizations as to how we are trying to track them.

The new York Times claims " it is in the Public interest " so they just print articles exposing the mechanics of how we are tracking terrorist organizations ...despite the fact that the programs are classified top secret ...

IMO the news papers have the right to print the stuff...guaranteed under the first ammendment...but ...people will die because of it..

the real treason comes from those who leak TS material to the press ...

Should they be shot or just put in jail ? How many more top secret programs can be leaked to the press ?

can you imagine this crap durring WW II ?

At any rate what do you think should be done .

Depends on the secrets. In the recent case of the NYT the secrets happened to be apparant illegal actions by the NSA. Revealing these is not treason, nor should it be. Allowing illegal acts to be protected by false secrecy concerns is a grave danger to the state of the republic...

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/nyt.jpg

Depends on the secrets. In the recent case of the NYT the secrets happened to be apparant illegal actions by the NSA. Revealing these is not treason, nor should it be. Allowing illegal acts to be protected by false secrecy concerns is a grave danger to the state of the republic...

I know how hard it is to actually read about what the story is actually about but although the NSA program for listening to terrorist talk to people in the US has a tiny bit of merit reguarding debate...it is still a top secret program and those that leaked it commited a crime.

But you missed the entire point ...you are not even responding to the latest incident of a secret program being reveiled...one that has NO questions reguarding its legality .

June 23, 2006
JS-4334

Statement of Under Secretary Stuart Levey on
the
Terrorist Finance Tracking Program

My job, as Under Secretary for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, is to track the movement of money of terrorists and other national security threats, and do everything I can to disrupt those money flows. I take this job extremely seriously, as do the hundreds of dedicated people at Treasury and our partner agencies who focus on combating terrorist financing and protecting innocent people around the world from vicious and senseless attack.

"Following the money" is one of the most valuable methods we have to identify and find terrorists. If a terrorist operative that you're watching sends or receives money from another person, you know that there's a link between the two. Money trails don't lie. And, to wire money through a bank, a person needs to provide a name, address, and account number – exactly the kind of concrete leads that that can move an investigation forward and allow us to take action.

As a part of our efforts to track the funds of terrorists, we are confirming that we have subpoenaed records on terrorist-related transactions from SWIFT.

SWIFT is the premier messaging service used by banks around the world to issue international transfers, which makes its data exceptionally valuable. I would note that SWIFT is predominantly used for overseas transfers. It does not contain information on ordinary transactions that would be made by individuals in the United States, such as deposits, withdrawals, checks, or electronic bill payments.

The legal basis for this subpoena is routine and absolutely clear. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a statute passed in 1977, allows us to issue administrative subpoenas for financial records. We issue such subpoenas regularly, and our authority to do so has never been called into doubt. The SWIFT subpoena is powerful but narrow, as it allows us to access only that information that is related to terrorism investigations. We are not permitted to browse through the data, nor can we search it for any non-terrorism investigation. In practice, this means that we have accessed only a minute fraction of SWIFT's data.

Multiple layers of strict controls have been put in place to make sure that the information is not misused. Before they can run a search against this data, analysts must first explain how the target of the search is connected to a terrorism investigation. If the link cannot be established, the data cannot be searched. Pursuant to an agreement we reached with the company, SWIFT's auditors are able to monitor those searches in real time and stop any one of them if they have any concerns about the link to terrorism. In addition, a record is kept of every search that is done. These records are all reviewed either by an outside independent auditor, the company's auditors, or both.

The SWIFT data has proven to be one of the most valuable sources of information that we have on terrorist financing. It has enabled us and our colleagues to identify terrorist suspects we didn't know, and to find addresses for those that we did. It has provided key links in our investigations of al Qaida and other deadly terrorist groups.

We have briefed appropriate members of Congress and their staffs on this program. We briefed the central bank governors of all the G-10 countries. We briefed key members of the 9/11 Commission. The reaction from experts -- across the political spectrum -- has been that this is exactly the kind of creative and vigorous approach that is needed to combat the elusive terrorist threat that we face. Indeed, our use of the SWIFT data was one of the principal reasons that the otherwise critical 9/11 Commission Public Discourse Project awarded its only "A-" to our counter-terrorist financing efforts.

Until today, we have not discussed this program in public for an obvious reason: the value of the program came from the fact that terrorists didn't know it existed. They may have heard us talking about "following the money," but they didn't know that we were obtaining terrorist-related data from SWIFT. Many may not have even known what SWIFT was.

With today's revelations, this is unfortunately no longer true. This is a grave loss.

The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves. We cannot expect to continue disrupting their activities if our most valuable programs are exposed on the front page of our newspapers.

I can assure you, however, that we, along with our colleagues in the U.S. Government and abroad, will continue to pursue terrorists aggressively and responsibly, to map their networks and disrupt their lines of support. I believe that this is exactly what the American people expect of us.

Thank you.

At least know what you are complaining about before you rant on .;)

The NY Times Editor in Chief Bill Keller responded to criticism (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/media/25keller-letter.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc) over running the story. Here's the most important part of his response:
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. 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.

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.

It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. 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.

Tell you what.
I wonder how well this demand of, "The people have the right to know" crap would have worked during WWII. Remember the Normandy Invasion? It was a kept a secret to make sure no one else found out about it. Especially the Nazis. Even the President begged the media not to make a peep about it, because it would have caused BIG problems, and the element of secrecy would have been lost.
Now, if they had done what the media is doing today, Normandy would have been a huge failure, and thousands more Allied soldiers would have been killed. Secrecy is the name of the game. A nation needs to keep secrets. You tell the people that the government is listening in on them and tell them how they are doing it, dontcha think the terrorists will be paying attention too? Hell, even during WWII the Nazis were paying attention to our media. What makes you so sure the enemy of today isnt? And they will respond accordingly and make it even more difficult to track them. I reallt doubt the government is interested in what you had for breakfast or what "he said she said" on the phone. They are listening in on TERRORISTS. Just wait for the next attack.
remember TOP SECRET means TOP SECRET!
not everyone should hear about everything that the government is doing.

The problem is, my friend, you don't seem to appreciate what the contention is.

I am an example of millions of people in this country, who are perfectly aware that governments keep secrets, are even HAPPY for that to be the case...

But, THIS givernment is not keeping 'Normandy' secrets. These are not war plans, or details of invasion.

THIS government, is screwing around in the personal, private lives of Americans (and others). Not only that - but it is doing so BEYOND the amount of screwing around that is ALREADY allowed.

Do I object to monitored calls? No - but I DO object to the fact that THIS government has decided to SKIP the warrant phase.

It isn't 'secrets' that are the problem... it's the fact that it is OUR OWN LIVES that are being messed with, and we are having THAT information declared 'too secret' for US to know.

what else should the public have a right to know?
How about the location of every single nuclear ballistic
missile submarine? Or the frequencies of our Milsat communications?
Or how about the location of every single hidden bunker that
conatins nuclear weapons? Or how about how to detect a
Stealth Fighter?
I mean people have a right to know these things too, right?
*rolls eyes*

No parallel. You are making an appeal to absurdity.

Lackawana 6
Miami 7

those are 13 people who conspired to attack the US, and there are more we don't know about. These "KGBesque" enforcement practices have stopped attacks. And if you want to see info on a real Gulag or the Real KGB, just wiki it, what we are doing is nothing like it.

Prove the link?

The news has so far implied the Miami crew were entrapped trying to buy weapons. What does that have to do with call monitoring, or S.W.I.F.T.?

I believe that similar arguments were made about Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine (often referred to as "Aviation Leak").

The KGB admitted after the Cold War that Aviation Week was its primary source of information on Western weapon systems and research direction.

No one was prosecuted then, although many calls were made for it to happen.

First off its not the medias fault for printing the leaks .
If you bothered to read the OP ...They have a first ammendment right to act in what they think is the publics best interest and the publics right to know.
Whithout a free press we become a Fascist nation run by whomever can controll information and suppress dissent .


What the hell are you talking about?

I don't know who you think this part is aimed at - but it has nothing to do with any argument I made.


But we are at WAR . So the leaking of our strategy to combat the people we are at WAR with is TREASON . Leaking top secret information is UNLAWFULL at the minimum . The leakers are the criminals NOT the press.


Unless I'm very much mistaken - there has been no war declared ON the US people, by the US government. Information about my phonecalls to friends in other countries, has nothing to do with any war we've DECLARED.

Thus - such communications have no place being claimed as 'top secret' by our government... and there is no way our media should be prevented from discussing the matter.


But even so...... can you imagine the New York Times printing this headline after MIDWAY..

The Japanese Navy was soundly defeated due to the top secret code breakers in Washington who have been reading japanese codes since 1941..
A chain of radio intecept stations stretching from the Aleution Islands to Australia according to an unnamed but high placed source , has been collecting Japanese communications and forwarding it so the unnamed group of code breakers , According to our source these individual have had the cooperation of individuals actually behind enemy lines in the many islands captured durring the first years of the current war in the Pacific .

Again - you appeal to ridicule. Monitoring cash transactions has no parallel in military battlefield strategy. We are not talking about intercepting enemy communications here - we are talking about monitoring our own people.

I presume you chaps have heard of criminals. The regular ones who steal your car or rob shops and banks. They evade detection. Therefore they must be using some security protocols in the course of their activities.

CSI and Columbo reveal those methods. This means your average TV slob is being trained by the left wing media to be a terrorist criminal. I won't even mention '24'.

Censorship is not a privilege, it's a Right. I say amend the constitution to say
"You should only have freedom of speech when it agrees with the government. Under pain of death"

What the hell are you talking about?

I don't know who you think this part is aimed at - but it has nothing to do with any argument I made.



Unless I'm very much mistaken - there has been no war declared ON the US people, by the US government. Information about my phonecalls to friends in other countries, has nothing to do with any war we've DECLARED.

Thus - such communications have no place being claimed as 'top secret' by our government... and there is no way our media should be prevented from discussing the matter.



Again - you appeal to ridicule. Monitoring cash transactions has no parallel in military battlefield strategy. We are not talking about intercepting enemy communications here - we are talking about monitoring our own people.


You are as usual patheticaly wrong . We are monitoring communications from both outside our country and inside our country to suspected terrorist and terrorist organizations..thats what the NSA is responsible for..collecting and interpreting calling patterns and intercepting communications to gain intelligence on threats .

and the second thing that was leaked was the treasury dept and others tracking of finacing and movement of money to and from terror groups.
The terrorist who have attacked us were in this country recieving cash and other assistance from outside this country..now let me know when the little light bulb starts to flicker over the top of your head .

Monitoring CASH trasactions is a tool in the war on terror...the war that is fought with cells of jihadist that need cash to function in countries other than their own. Its no different than tracking ammunition to the front to determine were the next attack will take place. try wrapping your tiny brain cells around that concept .

Again - you appeal to ridicule. Monitoring cash transactions has no parallel in military battlefield strategy. We are not talking about intercepting enemy communications here - we are talking about monitoring our own people

Now when I went to wiki and looked for appeal to ridicule ...I found the above quote used as a prime example .


June 23, 2006
JS-4334

Statement of Under Secretary Stuart Levey on
the
Terrorist Finance Tracking Program

My job, as Under Secretary for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, is to track the movement of money of terrorists and other national security threats, and do everything I can to disrupt those money flows. I take this job extremely seriously, as do the hundreds of dedicated people at Treasury and our partner agencies who focus on combating terrorist financing and protecting innocent people around the world from vicious and senseless attack.

"Following the money" is one of the most valuable methods we have to identify and find terrorists. If a terrorist operative that you're watching sends or receives money from another person, you know that there's a link between the two. Money trails don't lie. And, to wire money through a bank, a person needs to provide a name, address, and account number – exactly the kind of concrete leads that that can move an investigation forward and allow us to take action.

As a part of our efforts to track the funds of terrorists, we are confirming that we have subpoenaed records on terrorist-related transactions from SWIFT.

SWIFT is the premier messaging service used by banks around the world to issue international transfers, which makes its data exceptionally valuable. I would note that SWIFT is predominantly used for overseas transfers. It does not contain information on ordinary transactions that would be made by individuals in the United States, such as deposits, withdrawals, checks, or electronic bill payments.

The legal basis for this subpoena is routine and absolutely clear. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a statute passed in 1977, allows us to issue administrative subpoenas for financial records. We issue such subpoenas regularly, and our authority to do so has never been called into doubt. The SWIFT subpoena is powerful but narrow, as it allows us to access only that information that is related to terrorism investigations. We are not permitted to browse through the data, nor can we search it for any non-terrorism investigation. In practice, this means that we have accessed only a minute fraction of SWIFT's data.

Multiple layers of strict controls have been put in place to make sure that the information is not misused. Before they can run a search against this data, analysts must first explain how the target of the search is connected to a terrorism investigation. If the link cannot be established, the data cannot be searched. Pursuant to an agreement we reached with the company, SWIFT's auditors are able to monitor those searches in real time and stop any one of them if they have any concerns about the link to terrorism. In addition, a record is kept of every search that is done. These records are all reviewed either by an outside independent auditor, the company's auditors, or both.

The SWIFT data has proven to be one of the most valuable sources of information that we have on terrorist financing. It has enabled us and our colleagues to identify terrorist suspects we didn't know, and to find addresses for those that we did. It has provided key links in our investigations of al Qaida and other deadly terrorist groups.

We have briefed appropriate members of Congress and their staffs on this program. We briefed the central bank governors of all the G-10 countries. We briefed key members of the 9/11 Commission. The reaction from experts -- across the political spectrum -- has been that this is exactly the kind of creative and vigorous approach that is needed to combat the elusive terrorist threat that we face. Indeed, our use of the SWIFT data was one of the principal reasons that the otherwise critical 9/11 Commission Public Discourse Project awarded its only "A-" to our counter-terrorist financing efforts.

Until today, we have not discussed this program in public for an obvious reason: the value of the program came from the fact that terrorists didn't know it existed. They may have heard us talking about "following the money," but they didn't know that we were obtaining terrorist-related data from SWIFT. Many may not have even known what SWIFT was.

With today's revelations, this is unfortunately no longer true. This is a grave loss.

The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves. We cannot expect to continue disrupting their activities if our most valuable programs are exposed on the front page of our newspapers.

I can assure you, however, that we, along with our colleagues in the U.S. Government and abroad, will continue to pursue terrorists aggressively and responsibly, to map their networks and disrupt their lines of support. I believe that this is exactly what the American people expect of us.

Thank you.


I should just tag that . And you idle one should attempt to read it...there are not many big words .

The NY Times Editor in Chief Bill Keller responded to criticism (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/media/25keller-letter.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc) over running the story. Here's the most important part of his response:



I aggree with the Times...they have a duty like every other part of the press to report what they find to the people of the US . Not only is it their right but an obligation.

The people that need to be shot are those we trust to keep our secrets . Those that have taken oaths and have accepted the office and have decided to expose secrets they are sworn an obligated to keep . They are the danger not a free press .

I aggree with the Times...they have a duty like every other part of the press to report what they find to the people of the US . Not only is it their right but an obligation.

The people that need to be shot are those we trust to keep our secrets . Those that have taken oaths and have accepted the office and have decided to expose secrets they are sworn an obligated to keep . They are the danger not a free press .
So you have to ask yourself, what is it about this program that would cause a source to be willing to risk jail to tell the story to the press? After all, leakers know they're risking jail when they leak--there is no certain privilege for journalists to protect their sources. Judy Miller and Matt Cooper were reminded of that very recently.

So here's the rub. Is the program legal? The Bush administration says it is, which sets off my bullshit meter immediately, but this has been going on for a while, so maybe it's legit. The point Keller made is still applicable--no one has ever been able to challenge the legality of it because it was a secret program, and it's not like judges get to make rulings on issues that don't come before them.

So you have to ask yourself, what is it about this program that would cause a source to be willing to risk jail to tell the story to the press? After all, leakers know they're risking jail when they leak--there is no certain privilege for journalists to protect their sources. Judy Miller and Matt Cooper were reminded of that very recently.

So here's the rub. Is the program legal? The Bush administration says it is, which sets off my bullshit meter immediately, but this has been going on for a while, so maybe it's legit. The point Keller made is still applicable--no one has ever been able to challenge the legality of it because it was a secret program, and it's not like judges get to make rulings on issues that don't come before them.


It can't be too secret. Apparently, Congress was informed of the program.

It can't be too secret. Apparently, Congress was informed of the program.

The house and the senate intelligence are both informed on ongoing NSA and other sensative programs..its part of the oversite built in to the system after watergate...the pentagon papers and the bay of pigs fiasco.

These leaks are harmfull partisan political bullshit mixed with just plain stupidity .

Especially the asshole who is leaking the finance traking program..you have to question that idiots motives...I actually can see how someone might think the phone monitoring by the NSA may be debatable ..and though misguided I am willing to give that nitwit at least the benifit of the doubt...but the program that follows money to terrorist OPERATING in the US and other copunties ???

That person or persons needs to be tracked down and shot ..they are either Islamic sympathisers or they just did it for cash .

how the hell can you fight a war if your best weapons and best defense gets leaked ?

And not for anything ...this administration is starting to really peg my asshole meter to new record hights....Bungling brothers circus is my new name for the Bush administration.

They leak worse than a submarine with screen doors....and do nothing about it . They are managing to fuck stuff up DESPITE the best efforts of the proffesionals...and yes the buck stops at the Presidents desk .
Either fire the assholes who surround you or fucking retire .

And dont even get me thinking about how much worse it would be with Kerry and his gang of assholes that cant think straight...nor have an origional thought ..nor even keep one thought long enough for it to stick in their heads.


With the gang of buffoons we have running things we are well and truly all blued screwed and tattoo'd

We cant afford to lose ....I better start seeing some assholes either hung or getting shot for leaking this stuff .

Santorum the human jerkoff is the first victim...at any rate..the first I get a chance to help remove from office..They need to recieve a real strong message along with all the asshole cut and run idiots .

Throw the bums out . And keep the morons out of office .

I fear we are all doomed.

Why are idiots calling for the people who run the times to be prosecuted ?

A congressman who should know better and the talking heads...


The Times cant be touched..the right to freedom of the press cant be violated by the government so why do they bother with the bullshit rants against the news paper ?


When will they call for those that leaked the info...the ones that commited a crime to be caught an punished .

WTF is wrong with these assholes ?

You are as usual patheticaly wrong .


An insult? Not a good start.

A matter of opinion, and one that you fail to prove... I'm not too upset by your reliance on attempts to insult, when your argument is clearly so incapable of 'doing the job'.


We are monitoring communications from both outside our country and inside our country to suspected terrorist and terrorist organizations..


According to who? I have Irish family. The IRA are Irish. Therefore - it could be assumed that ANY money I send to Ireland is linked to terror.

After all - a suggestion of a link is needed - not PROOF of a link.


thats what the NSA is responsible for..collecting and interpreting calling patterns and intercepting communications to gain intelligence on threats .


No - it isn't. Those are things that might come under the NSA remit, though.


The terrorist who have attacked us were in this country recieving cash and other assistance from outside this country..now let me know when the little light bulb starts to flicker over the top of your head .


Except the most recent lot in Miami, who had NO conections to external terror groups.

Makes something of a lie of the argument, no?


Monitoring CASH trasactions is a tool in the war on terror...the war that is fought with cells of jihadist that need cash to function in countries other than their own. Its no different than tracking ammunition to the front to determine were the next attack will take place. try wrapping your tiny brain cells around that concept .


It is very different - because of a number of things.

ONE: ammunition is solid-state, and investigation of it can be checked... transmission data can be intercepted with no one the wiser... which means - the NSA COULD be checking EVERYONE's bank records.

TWO: There WERE safety protocols on the wiretapping issue - and the current regime overrode them. Like the need for a warrant (96% of warrant applications were granted immediately, and ALL were resolved within 24 hours).

THREE: It is scapegoating. You can claim all terrorism requires money transfer... well, maybe it requires food, too? And... medical attention? And... reading of certain materials? Thus - the NSA should monitor ALL of those avenues too?

(I will not be at ALL surprised to find an NYT account in a few months, detailing how the NSA has been monitoring library action).

FOUR: "Tiny brain cells"? Another insult? DO you honestly believe your ad hominem approach will bear fruit?


Now when I went to wiki and looked for appeal to ridicule ...I found the above quote used as a prime example .


In other words... you got nothing, huh?


I should just tag that . And you idle one should attempt to read it...there are not many big words .

I read it already. Another insult? It's getting boring already. I read it - and it is an opinion piece... and it is questionable... highly debatable even. If for NO other reason than Stuart Levey misrepresents his job description in the opening lines. Also - you'll notice he brings up the same issue of 'controls' that I mentioned earlier... explaining how the system is safe from abuse... even WHILE investigations are underway into the ABUSE of the wiretap system.

2001 New York Times editorial ("Finances of Terror") (access limited to TimesSelect):

Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.

Osama bin Laden originally rose to prominence because his inherited fortune allowed him to bankroll Arab volunteers fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Since then, he has acquired funds from a panoply of Islamic charities and illegal and legal businesses, including export-import and commodity trading firms, and is estimated to have as much as $300 million at his disposal.

Some of these businesses move funds through major commercial banks that lack the procedures to monitor such transactions properly. Locally, terrorists can utilize tiny unregulated storefront financial centers, including what are known as hawala banks, which people in South Asian immigrant communities in the United States and other Western countries use to transfer money abroad. Though some smaller financial transactions are likely to slip through undetected even after new rules are in place, much of the financing needed for major attacks could dry up.

Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations. The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them.

The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws. Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.

New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.

If America is going to wage a war against terrorism, it must indeed act on all fronts. In 2006, it needs to act on the home front and direct its attention to those whose war on the administration is unconstrained by the espionage laws of the United States.


So why did the times out the program they begged for in the first place ?

Whats their motavation?

So why did the times out the program they begged for in the first place ?

Whats their motavation?

You understand what an 'editorial' is, right?

Edit: I'm also confused... you cite it as a 2001 article, and yet the article mentions, in the last line, 2006 policy. That would make it a 2005 or 2006 article, surely?

No link, so I can't check your source...

You understand what an 'editorial' is, right?

Edit: I'm also confused... you cite it as a 2001 article, and yet the article mentions, in the last line, 2006 policy. That would make it a 2005 or 2006 article, surely?

No link, so I can't check your source...


Go to NY Times...pay to subsribe...and look up their 2001 editorial titled. "Finances of Terror"


Its archived.


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F2071EFE3D5B0C738DDDAB0994D9404482

FREE PREVIEW Sign In to E-Mail This

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE MONEY; Terror Money Hard to Block, Officials Find


*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. December 10, 2001, Monday
By KURT EICHENWALD (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 5, 3233 words
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 3233 WORDS -In Afghanistan, the hunt for Osama bin Laden is narrowing. But on the war's financial front, the government is only now beginning to come to grips with Al Qaeda's money-raising apparatus, which officials say is so far-flung and diversified that it could survive even if Mr. bin Laden is...

To read the rest of this archive article, upgrade to TimesSelect or purchase as a single article.

anyone accusing the NY Times to try to profit from this is forgetting a few points:

1. they had to know it was bound to back fire among some readers.
2. they must have known it from past experience.
3. they were risking being called unpatriotic (like this thread proves).
4. they are risking loosing advertising and readers.

so why would they still go ahead? take it from the editor:
Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report

The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, has sent to readers who have written to him about The Times's publication of information about the government's examination of international banking records:

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. 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