NationStates Jolt Archive

This story has been in the news for a few days:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C24%5Cstory_24-6-2006_pg4_2

The New York Times disclosed a secret U.S. program called SWIFT that monitored the financial transactions of terrorists. The program was based in Belgium and directly led to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Riduan Isamuddin, who masterminded the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort which killed hundreds of people.By disclosing the program the Times has ended its secrecy and therefore its effectiveness.

Here is a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.

This story has been in the news for a few days:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C24%5Cstory_24-6-2006_pg4_2

The New York Times disclosed a secret U.S. program called SWIFT that monitored the financial transactions of terrorists. The program was based in Belgium and directly led to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Riduan Isamuddin, who masterminded the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort which killed hundreds of people.By disclosing the program the Times has ended its secrecy and therefore its effectiveness.

Here is a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.
i say torture the bloody bastard...

I can assure you of one thing: there is no secret that the US is monitoring you, as much as they pretend there is.

Revealing secret government programs is what newspapers should do. Keeps the government from trying to pull any bullshit on us all.

I can assure you of one thing: there is no secret that the US is monitoring you, as much as they pretend there is.

This entire program was based overseas.

This entire program was based overseas.
What is your point? That the US is usurping other countrie's citizen's right to privacy? No surprise there.

HANG THE MF'ING BASTARDS AT THE NY TIMES THOSE LIBERAL FU(K heads.

Revealing secret government programs is what newspapers should do.

Yeah, you are so right. The Times should have published how the atomic bomb worked so that the Nazi's could read it....Give me a break. This program helped put bloodthirsty terrorists in Prison and did not harm the rights of a single American....yet it has been disclosed. Now it cannot be used. Like I said, this gives aid and comfort to our enemies and is an obvious case of TREASON.

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.

Get real.

What is your point? That the US is usurping other countrie's citizen's right to privacy? No surprise there.

What good is privacy when you are dead?

The U.S. Military does not have an obligation to play patsy at the Hague with a bunch of neo-left lawyers who want terrorists to have jury trials. This program should have never been made public and now the SECURITY OF THE WORLD has been jeapordized as a result of the Times's foolish actions.

Yeah, you are so right. The Times should have published how the atomic bomb worked so that the Nazi's could read it....Give me a break.

Meh. The United States itself didn't know if it would work or not until July 1945. I make that two months after the German surrender.

Get real.

You get real. Look at what treason is defined as. Look at what the Times did. If it is not staggeringly obvious I don't know what to tell you.

You get real. Look at what treason is defined as. Look at what the Times did. If it is not staggeringly obvious I don't know what to tell you.

Read your own linked article there: it was the US Government that revealed the details, not the newspaper. Are the US Government therefore guilty of treason?

Yeah, you are so right. The Times should have published how the atomic bomb worked so that the Nazi's could read it....Give me a break. This program helped put bloodthirsty terrorists in Prison and did not harm the rights of a single American....yet it has been disclosed. Now it cannot be used. Like I said, this gives aid and comfort to our enemies and is an obvious case of TREASON.

Publishing weapons plans is the same as revealing another possibly illegal spying program? We only have the governments word that they are only after terrorists and as far as I'm concerned the Bush governments word is worthless.

It is the government that has committed treason. The NYTimes simply reports it.

Read your own linked article there: it was the US Government that revealed the details, not the newspaper. Are the US Government therefore guilty of treason?

YES!!!

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS GUILTY OF TREASON

I just had to say it... it was too hilarious a comment to pass up...

If This Be Treason, Let Us Make the Most of It.

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS GUILTY OF TREASON
torture him too! the more the merrier...

The times has the right to print what was given them . But just because you have a right doesnt mean its right to use it .

Find the dirt bags that leaked the info and hang them in public .

The times has the right to print what was given them . But just because you have a right doesnt mean its right to use it .

Find the dirt bags that leaked the info and hang them in public .
no, no, no... let's have a private party to hang the whole lot...

The times has the right to print what was given them . But just because you have a right doesnt mean its right to use it .

Find the dirt bags that leaked the info and hang them in public .

And after that we find the dirtbags that leaked Valerie Plame's name... and then award them The Medal of Freedom! America, Fuck Yeah!!

:rolleyes:

What a mind numbingly stupid thread. Posted by a mind bogglingly idiotic poster. The real Barry Goldwater wouldn't even be proud of the idiotic, sycophantic BS posted by this person.

Edited to make a point.

Just to make sure I'm not seeming like a fool... treason is betraying the government right? So I was correct in the oxymoron funnyness of the government committing treason against itself?

Read your own linked article there: it was the US Government that revealed the details, not the newspaper. Are the US Government therefore guilty of treason?


If you were aware of the entire story you would know better. The government gave the story to the Times once they found out about it in order to fully explain themselves. They begged the Times not to blow the operation by making it public right away. The Times did anyway.

It is the government that has committed treason. The NYTimes simply reports it.

The Times gave aid and comfort ( directly) to the terrorists. They should be punished and sentenced to prison time for putting thousands of lives in danger.

The times has the right to print what was given them . But just because you have a right doesnt mean its right to use it .

Find the dirt bags that leaked the info and hang them in public .

The Times has a responsibility to protect human life and not damage the national security of America. I say hang the editor that made the decision to run the story and the leakers from the same gallows!

The Times has a responsibility to protect human life and not damage the national security of America. I say hang the editor that made the decision to run the story and the leakers from the same gallows!

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!

oh America picks it up. We rule.

The Times has a responsibility to protect human life and not damage the national security of America. I say hang the editor that made the decision to run the story and the leakers from the same gallows!
why don't you hang his whole family instead? that's a much more severe punishment for him...

why don't you hang his whole family instead? that's a much more severe punishment for him...

Ah but that would not be Constitutional.

This story has been in the news for a few days:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C24%5Cstory_24-6-2006_pg4_2

The New York Times disclosed a secret U.S. program called SWIFT that monitored the financial transactions of terrorists. The program was based in Belgium and directly led to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Riduan Isamuddin, who masterminded the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort which killed hundreds of people.By disclosing the program the Times has ended its secrecy and therefore its effectiveness.

Here is a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.

YAY! *does the Treason Dance*

Just to make sure I'm not seeming like a fool... treason is betraying the government right? So I was correct in the oxymoron funnyness of the government committing treason against itself?

Treason is betraying the country. The government did commit treason in the Valerie Plame case.

The Times has a responsibility to protect human life and not damage the national security of America. I say hang the editor that made the decision to run the story and the leakers from the same gallows!

Thankfully people like you don't run this country. Freedom of speech is actually followed. I mean is the NY Times keeping terrorists hidden in its basement? Perhaps if Bush would stop violating the law by spying on people with no warrents then perhaps he wouldn't have this trouble.

What good is privacy when you are dead?

The U.S. Military does not have an obligation to play patsy at the Hague with a bunch of neo-left lawyers who want terrorists to have jury trials. This program should have never been made public and now the SECURITY OF THE WORLD has been jeapordized as a result of the Times's foolish actions.

What good is being alive if you're no longer free?

The NYTimes Commits Freedom
Nation is shocked that such quaint ideas still exist

Ah but that would not be Constitutional.
just make some amendment or something...

If someone should be hanged, I say hang all the neo-fascists that want to rip up the shreds of the constitution and bill of rights so that George Bush can fom his own modern day gestapo to search our homes without warrants, take people away in the dead of the night, deny them the right to trial or to acknowledge whether they have been taken, and start using tortue to make them talk, especially if they have brownish skin and are of middle eastern descent!

Thank god we fought WW II to put an end to fascism and the racism that accompanied it.

The NYTimes Commits Freedom
Nation is shocked that such quaint ideas still exist

How DARE they act as a system of checks and balances safeguarding us against government tyranny! The Bastards! :mad:

Ah but that would not be Constitutional.
there's an alternative... put his family on a rendition flight to Guantanamo and hang them there, where the Constitution doesn't apply...

they should hand out rewards for revealing this stuff. these stupid republicans should get ther a*** of other countries property. they are not the government there, and they shouldnt act like it!

why don't you hang his whole family instead? that's a much more severe punishment for him...

Yay, for collective responsibility!

they should hand out rewards for revealing this stuff. these stupid republicans should get ther a*** of other countries property. they are not the government there, and they shouldnt act like it!
how many times do i have to tell you...

there's an alternative... put his family on a rendition flight to Guantanamo and hang them there, where the Constituition doesn't apply...

And then we can kill two birds with one stone by calling them terrorists who just committed Asymmetrical Warfare to further damage American reputation and troop morale.

Yay, for collective responsibility!
damn right as well... don't they say "behind a great man is a great woman"? his wife is as guilty then and we wouldn't want to leave the children orfans, so hang them too...

Yay, for collective responsibility!

Why do you think we're trying to exterminate every single Muslim in the world?

The Times gave aid and comfort ( directly) to the terrorists. They should be punished and sentenced to prison time for putting thousands of lives in danger.

By the same logic, the US Government willing to weaken the Freedom of the Press because they are afraid of terrorists gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Now if only e can clamp down on women's rights and freedom of religion, "the terrorists" will have gotten pretty much exactly what they wanted.

And you, my friend, for advocating hanging members of the press for reporting on what information SOURCES AT THE GOVERNMENT gave the NYT, are also giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I guess we should hang you too.

Get a rope.

OMG, the republicans now want to just end free speech at this point.

Why do you think we're trying to exterminate every single Muslim in the world?
that's nothing to do with collective responsibility. that's just an excuse. we're exterminating them because they're niggers, even if a bit washed out...

By the same logic, the US Government willing to weaken the Freedom of the Press because they are afraid of terrorists gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Now if only e can clamp down on women's rights and freedom of religion, "the terrorists" will have gotten pretty much exactly what they wanted.

And you, my friend, for advocating hanging members of the press for reporting on what information SOURCES AT THE GOVERNMENT gave the NYT, are also giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I guess we should hang you too.

Get a rope.

*hands you a hemp rope* This seemed appropriate. :)

And then we can kill two birds with one stone by calling them terrorists who just committed Asymmetrical Warfare to further damage American reputation and troop morale.
that just gave me an idea. we should hang them all in one go, using the same knot... save us some time.

*hands you a hemp rope* This seemed appropriate. :)

You use a hemp rope and the terrorists win.

damn right as well... don't they say "behind a great man is a great woman"? his wife is as guilty then and we wouldn't want to leave the children orfans, so hang them too...

I wonder if we can turn that around and say behind every great woman is a great man? Would feminists be peeved?

that's nothing to do with collective responsibility. that's just an excuse. we're exterminating them because they're niggers, even if a bit washed out...

No no no, the "sand ******" angle is just to appeal to the Blue Collar TV crowd. The world knows the Muslims are a Collective Hivemind, therefore if anyone proclaiming to be a Muslim commits acts of terrorism and murder, the whole community is Collectively Responsible.

This story has been in the news for a few days:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C24%5Cstory_24-6-2006_pg4_2

The New York Times disclosed a secret U.S. program called SWIFT that monitored the financial transactions of terrorists. The program was based in Belgium and directly led to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Riduan Isamuddin, who masterminded the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort which killed hundreds of people.By disclosing the program the Times has ended its secrecy and therefore its effectiveness.

Here is a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.
Here's another quote from the U.S. Constitution:
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.

I wonder if we can turn that around and say behind every great woman is a great man? Would feminists be peeved?
well, it's just a matter of who sits on top in bed really...

You use a hemp rope and the terrorists win.

Oops. Maybe you should hang me too. :(

By the same logic, the US Government willing to weaken the Freedom of the Press because they are afraid of terrorists gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Now if only e can clamp down on women's rights and freedom of religion, "the terrorists" will have gotten pretty much exactly what they wanted.

You know that the press only talks about things likethe increasing U.S. casualties in Iraq and war crimes being commited by our troops because they are trying to ruin our morale and thereby letting the terrorists win. It is a conspiracy of the media I tell you! Osama has paid them off! :eek:

You know that the press only talks about things likethe increasing U.S. casualties in Iraq and war crimes being commited by our troops because they are trying to ruin our morale and thereby letting the terrorists win. It is a conspiracy of the media I tell you! Osama has paid them off! :eek:

I think that the fact that newspapers still print Family Circus is treason.

Oops. Maybe you should hang me too. :(

By the scrotums I say. The damned things might be invulnerable, but we don't know about the connection strength.

look, if there really is treason, take em out back and shoot em. :sniper:

there is freedom of press, but not if the press commits treason. and republicans arent out to take away any of your rights, at least the real ones arent. bush is a big government conservative, and a big government conservative is BAD. but bill clinton was way worse. hell, we wouldnt be in this mess if it werent for him.

look, if there really is treason, take em out back and shoot em. :sniper:

there is freedom of press, but not if the press commits treason. and republicans arent out to take away any of your rights, at least the real ones arent. bush is a big government conservative, and a big government conservative is BAD. but bill clinton was way worse. hell, we wouldnt be in this mess if it werent for him.

Tell me, without using rhetoric, how exactly was Bill Clinton worse? Were you even out of your pupa when Clinton was President?

look, if there really is treason, take em out back and shoot em. :sniper:

there is freedom of press, but not if the press commits treason. and republicans arent out to take away any of your rights, at least the real ones arent. bush is a big government conservative, and a big government conservative is BAD. but bill clinton was way worse. hell, we wouldnt be in this mess if it werent for him.
how, exactly, is revealing that the government is spying even news at this point? It isn't even surprising, and isn't stoping them from doing this program, nor any others. Oh no, the terrorists know about us spying on them:eek: :rolleyes:

Tell me, without using rhetoric, how exactly was Bill Clinton worse? Were you even out of your pupa when Clinton was President?
I was wondering that myself...but figured it wasn't worth the effort to type it.

look, if there really is treason, take em out back and shoot em. :sniper:

there is freedom of press, but not if the press commits treason. and republicans arent out to take away any of your rights, at least the real ones arent. bush is a big government conservative, and a big government conservative is BAD. but bill clinton was way worse. hell, we wouldnt be in this mess if it werent for him.
damn right Barrygoldwater... I mean Jarmand...

By the scrotums I say. The damned things might be invulnerable, but we don't know about the connection strength.

:eek:

:(

I've been lifted off the ground by them before. :(

how, exactly, is revealing that the government is spying even news at this point? It isn't even surprising, and isn't stoping them from doing this program, nor any others. Oh no, the terrorists know about us spying on them:eek: :rolleyes:

Aw, you know that making Bush or America in general look bad in any way is a crime to some people. There is NOTHING wrong with our president! There is NOTHING wrong with our country! USA! USA! Just try reasoning with these people without being accused of hating this country because you question things. Really aggravating.

Ah but that would not be Constitutional.
Curse the evil 1st amendment and the lack of foresight amoung the framers to allow for the stripping of rights whenever the president felt like it!

No no no, the "sand ******" angle is just to appeal to the Blue Collar TV crowd. The world knows the Muslims are a Collective Hivemind, therefore if anyone proclaiming to be a Muslim commits acts of terrorism and murder, the whole community is Collectively Responsible.

Look, lets forget this "Muslim" crap. We all know that all Muslims don't form a Hive Mind. It's all the brown people. They all have one collective conscience. Why do you think we always bomb the fuck outta brown people?

Aw, you know that making Bush or America in general look bad in any way is a crime to some people. There is NOTHING wrong with our president! There is NOTHING wrong with our country! USA! USA! Just try reasoning with these people without being accused of hating this country because you question things. Really aggravating.
tell me about it. If I have to claim to hate this country to criticize it, then so be it. But I will criticize.

Thankfully people like you don't run this country. Freedom of speech is actually followed. I mean is the NY Times keeping terrorists hidden in its basement? Perhaps if Bush would stop violating the law by spying on people with no warrents then perhaps he wouldn't have this trouble.

We don't need warrents for this. It spies on overseas financial transactions that are performed by foreigners.

Now you see I knoew this would get off topic. This is not the Bush is evil thread. if you want to compain about Bush go to the thread about that. This thread is about what the Times did. It was treason. They aided the enemies of America. End of story.

We don't need warrents for this. It spies on overseas financial transactions that are performed by foreigners.

Must be nice that a foreign power can spy on your finances. I bet we wouldn't tolerate France checking Americans financial transactions to make sure we aren't planning on attacking theircountry with terrorist attacks.

Now you see I knoew this would get off topic. This is not the Bush is evil thread. if you want to compain about Bush go to the thread about that. This thread is about what the Times did. It was treason. They aided the enemies of America. End of story.

It is a logical progression. The only reason this is newsworthy is because of the shit that Bush pulls every day. If he would only actually follow the law and get warrants then what story would the Times have?

the way i see is the goverment really has no right to do things in other countrys without their permission. so it is good that the paper found this(don't get me wrong i'm behind america 100%. i probley have red white and blue blood). i'm just not behind everything the U.S does.

Now you see I knoew this would get off topic. This is not the Bush is evil thread. if you want to compain about Bush go to the thread about that. This thread is about what the Times did. It was treason. They aided the enemies of America. End of story.
you mean...a man who authorizes spying might get flack for it? *gasp*

Look, lets forget this "Muslim" crap. We all know that all Muslims don't form a Hive Mind. It's all the brown people. They all have one collective conscience. Why do you think we always bomb the fuck outta brown people?

Makes a lot of sense. Who do we bomb the fuck out of en masse? Brown People. Who do we arrest and deport at the borders en masse? Brown People. Who do the airports pay attention to most? Brown People.

This thread is about what the Times did. It was treason. They aided the enemies of America. End of story.
Er... no, again, freedom of the press.

You really hate the first amendment don't you Barry?

If it ain't slander, they can print it, even if it was illegally obtained information.

:eek:

:(

I've been lifted off the ground by them before. :(

Damnit LG, how much of your body is invulnerable anyways?

I think it's important to look at the motivation of the NYTimes here. Was there intention to harm the interests of the US by aiding an enemy? More likely their motivation was increasing their sales. Therefore not treason.

The actions of the anonymous source in leaking the story to that paper (and others apparently) does however look a lot like treason.
If that person was convinced that the secrecy of the process was being abused, that the financial snooping was in fact unconstitutional, their name should be the first thing they disclosed. Far more likely they leaked this story because it makes the current Administration and their "war on terror" look bad.
They should have the balls to put their career, and possibly their liberty, on the line, or else keep the secrets they have sworn to keep.

In this case, arguably a massive invasion of people's privacy has been committed. The program caught one terrorist. Drawing the line as to whether that should be secret is a difficult one, and a highly political one. Editors cannot help participating, but they should tend towards the naive "It's a great story, and a scoop" position, lest they become simple mouthpieces of a (possibly corrupt) government.

And ultimately, if the NYTimes refused to publish it but the source still wanted it known, without disclosing their name, the traitor could just pony up a thousand bucks to a spammer. The story would get out.

This story has been in the news for a few days:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C24%5Cstory_24-6-2006_pg4_2

The New York Times disclosed a secret U.S. program called SWIFT that monitored the financial transactions of terrorists. The program was based in Belgium and directly led to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Riduan Isamuddin, who masterminded the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort which killed hundreds of people.By disclosing the program the Times has ended its secrecy and therefore its effectiveness.

Here is a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.

If the government is really so terrible at counterintelligence that they can't keep a secret from a reporter, then how are they going to keep a secret from terrorists?

If it got found out that easily, then it wasn't working that well in the first place.

Oh, and SWIFT is a really dumb acronym.

If the government is really so terrible at counterintelligence that they can't keep a secret from a reporter, then how are they going to keep a secret from terrorists?

If it got found out that easily, then it wasn't working that well in the first place.

Oh, and SWIFT is a really dumb acronym.

SWIFT isn't even the U.S. program. It is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Run by a bank that does thousands of transactions. The U.S. just takes a peak at the information. I don't see a name for the spying program in the article...

Oh, and SWIFT is a really dumb acronym.

The original post is wrong there. According to the article mentioned, SWIFT is a commercial operation which banks use. There are dumber names ;) EDIT: Utracia beat me to it. Gotta type faster
EDIT (2): Is the Daily Times of (huh?) Pakistan really the only source we're going to rely on?

Damnit LG, how much of your body is invulnerable anyways?
It's not the tensile strength of his happysacks that arouses (oo-er!) my interests. The fact they're still working after all the abuse they've gone through amazes me.
How the hell has he managed to sire two children? If mine'd had 1/2 the damage his have, I think anything more vigarous than a slow walk down a flight a stairs in tight underwear would give me an apoplexy.

It's not the tensile strength of his happysacks that arouses (oo-er!) my interests. The fact they're still working after all the abuse they've gone through amazes me.
How the hell has he managed to sire two children? If mine'd had 1/2 the damage his have, I think anything more vigarous than a slow walk down a flight a stairs in tight underwear would give me an apoplexy.

Please .... pleeease tell me that's a mispost. :D

It's not the tensile strength of his happysacks that arouses (oo-er!) my interests. The fact they're still working after all the abuse they've gone through amazes me.
How the hell has he managed to sire two children? If mine'd had 1/2 the damage his have, I think anything more vigarous than a slow walk down a flight a stairs in tight underwear would give me an apoplexy.

Hey, you didn't think that the only rubbery red balls clowns have are on their noses, did you?

So where are the people who broke the existence of Delta Forces or the existence of the NSA itself? Are they in jail? TREASON!!!!

Yes! Hang The New York Times! The New York Times is a person! One single person! Hang it!! Tie the noose around the fifteenth floor!

Damnit LG, how much of your body is invulnerable anyways?

Even when injured, my healing factor kicks in. :)

When I broke my wrist, my doctor said he'd never seen bones mend that fast. :)

It's not the tensile strength of his happysacks that arouses (oo-er!) my interests. The fact they're still working after all the abuse they've gone through amazes me.
How the hell has he managed to sire two children? If mine'd had 1/2 the damage his have, I think anything more vigarous than a slow walk down a flight a stairs in tight underwear would give me an apoplexy.

I'm a medical miracle. :)

Now you see I knoew this would get off topic. This is not the Bush is evil thread. if you want to compain about Bush go to the thread about that. This thread is about what the Times did. It was treason. They aided the enemies of America. End of story.

Hey, it's the Bush administration that's making a stink about a method that's been known to terrorists for years (they're not stupid.) Certainly a President has power over his PR, right?

We don't need warrents for this. It spies on overseas financial transactions that are performed by foreigners.
Oh, you cant get warrants for it. Because you have no freaking right to spy there. But then, its only bloddy furriners, so its alright.
Well, no, it isnt. Its invasion of privacy. See, those people who live not in the blessed USA have the right to be totally left alone by the Bush administration, opposed to you guys. So unless you claim americans have rights superiour to those residents of other countries, in which case i personally think you should be ass-raped by elephants with syphillis, why do you play the apologist for law-breakers?

I believe you are all missing something. The obvious here, is that the program is obsolete, so the US government divulged the information for a tactical reason. If accounts are being monitored, then moving/removing them would raise suspicion and a subsequent investigation. A new program is probably in effect as we speak, and giving knowledge of the former program only assists in their efforts.

Oh, you cant get warrants for it. Because you have no freaking right to spy there. But then, its only bloddy furriners, so its alright.
Well, no, it isnt. Its invasion of privacy. See, those people who live not in the blessed USA have the right to be totally left alone by the Bush administration, opposed to you guys. So unless you claim americans have rights superiour to those residents of other countries, in which case i personally think you should be ass-raped by elephants with syphillis, why do you play the apologist for law-breakers?

While it may be true that no one has a right to spy on anyone else, I hope you're aware that international espionage occurs between governments and big corporations on a daily basis. Its often illegal, but its a political and corporate reality. In fact, it is such a consistent reality, and such a significant part of the inner-workings of politics, that its absurd to be shocked when you hear about it.

I know this, but still it gets me riled up when people foam at the mouth for their illegal activities being exposed.

I know this, but still it gets me riled up when people foam at the mouth for their illegal activities being exposed.

Silly Jester, rights are for Americans.

Here is a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.

*points*

Traitor!

Barrygoldwater published a link on the internet to the New York Times Article, revealing the SWIFT Programme to a wider audience!

You are guilty of Treason!

*carries a torch, quickly gathers pitchfork bearing angry crowd*

Heretic! Anti Christ! Traitor! Defiler of US National Security! You shall be denounced!

Burn at the stake! Burn at the stake!

Traitor! Get Thee To a Concentration Camp, traitor and subversive!

This retro Mcarthyite-transfused-with-Witch Finder General Witch Hunts mixed with Nazi/Stalinist type denouncements is fun after all.

What good is privacy when you are dead?

The U.S. Military does not have an obligation to play patsy at the Hague with a bunch of neo-left lawyers who want terrorists to have jury trials. This program should have never been made public and now the SECURITY OF THE WORLD has been jeapordized as a result of the Times's foolish actions.

Hyperbole called. It wonders if you can keep the noise down.

Oh no you don't Bush, get the hell out of my bank accounts! I really doubt that he had any authorisation whatsoever for this by the countries he was investigating, upon which it is not treason but uncovering government illegal activites. Something for which I am truely thankful.

http://images.ucomics.com/images/nq/medium.html

Silly Jester, rights are for Americans.
You make just as much sense as arguing that Americans don't have rights, so Al Qaida was justified in blowing up WTC. This is an international forum, in case you hadn't noticed, the people you try to argue with are scary foreigners. And yes, we have exactly the same rights as you.

Does anyone know the name of some old law that has recently come to attention that was used in the past to persecute reporters under the guise of treason for speaking out against the government?

Yeah, you are so right. The Times should have published how the atomic bomb worked so that the Nazi's could read it....Give me a break. This program helped put bloodthirsty terrorists in Prison and did not harm the rights of a single American....yet it has been disclosed. Now it cannot be used. Like I said, this gives aid and comfort to our enemies and is an obvious case of TREASON.

Do you you care, even a little bit, about foreigner's rights? As I'm not USian, I'm not shure if I have the right to privacy or in my constitution is written "but in case of risk for the US national security these rights are bullshit". I think the newspaper made the right thing, as long as it was quite illegal. I think Guantanamo contitues a bigger treason to the your country than this, but yopu prefer to judge Clinton for been sucked by Lewinsky. Impeachment now!

If you were aware of the entire story you would know better. The government gave the story to the Times once they found out about it in order to fully explain themselves. They begged the Times not to blow the operation by making it public right away. The Times did anyway.

So the gov knew before it was published, and as the gov can arrest people that comitted or are near to comite treason, and they didn't, it's not treason.

Does anyone know the name of some old law that has recently come to attention that was used in the past to persecute reporters under the guise of treason for speaking out against the government?
"Recently come to attention" I don't know, but you might be thinking about the 'spy law' during WWI.

...but yopu prefer to judge Clinton for been sucked by Lewinsky. Impeachment now!
Oh, Clinton showed a obvious lack of morals by doing that, not like GWB does with his wiretapping, desinformation and spying on finacial transactions, which are things only a person of unreproachfull morals would do.

While it may be true that no one has a right to spy on anyone else, I hope you're aware that international espionage occurs between governments and big corporations on a daily basis. Its often illegal, but its a political and corporate reality. In fact, it is such a consistent reality, and such a significant part of the inner-workings of politics, that its absurd to be shocked when you hear about it.

Of course is a normal thing, as murder and many other things that are still ilegal. We have not to be shocked but ficht against that. As I always say, bad things are supposed to the bad guys to be done, but is worse when the "good ones" do it.

The NY Times has fufilled their duty to the people as a Newspaper. They have not commited treason, because these programs are illegal activities in the first place.

Now you see I knoew this would get off topic. This is not the Bush is evil thread. if you want to compain about Bush go to the thread about that. This thread is about what the Times did. It was treason. They aided the enemies of America. End of story.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Nice try. It isn't treason just because you know how to cut and paste the definition and imagine that the Times article qualifies. By your incredibly vague interpretation, everyone who let the 9/11 hijackers slip by gave "aid and comfort to the enemy". Are we prosecuting airport security at Logan airport? No.

You can blowhard and bully all you want. You're entitled to do exactly that. And I'm entitled to reply that I think your vessel doesn't hold water.

We don't need warrents for this. It spies on overseas financial transactions that are performed by foreigners.

That's ok then. You're implying that its fine for me to look at your financial transactions cos I am not in the US and therefore I will be "spying on overseas financial transactions that are performed by foreigners"

I just looked into your shopping transactions last month, you filthy pervert ;)

This story has been in the news for a few days:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C24%5Cstory_24-6-2006_pg4_2

The New York Times disclosed a secret U.S. program called SWIFT that monitored the financial transactions of terrorists. The program was based in Belgium and directly led to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Riduan Isamuddin, who masterminded the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort which killed hundreds of people.By disclosing the program the Times has ended its secrecy and therefore its effectiveness.

Here is a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.

Please say you're being sarcastic?

"Aid and Comfort" doesn't mean figurative aid and comfort, or spiritual aid and comfort, or doing something that could hypothetically in some way do something benificial for the enemy. "OMG! he left a banana peel on the ground that a cop might slip on preventing him from finishing his beat where he might notice a terrorist casing a monument that he plans to blow up later. That litterbug is giving aid and comfort to our enemy." Or, "OMG, that reporter pointed out that our President is a criminal, that makes us look bad and encourages terrorists to attack us. That reporter is aiding and comforting the enemy by pointing out that they're right about something."

"Aid and Comfort" comes from a time when if a group wanted to hurt your country they had to form militias and attack. "Aid" means that you helped them carry out an attack or hid them from the authorities. "Comfort" means you gave them food and shelter.

If you're not being sarcastic, you're a moron.

I see a pretty general consensus here that the operation being leaked and talked about is spying. Espionage. The targets, being that SWIFT is a client of multinational banks (but mostly european) are not just one country's nationals, so it's not exactly spying on Belgium. It's worse, in fact. It's spying on private citizens of many countries (including US.)

Someone leaked this information. TO A NEWSPAPER. It wasn't their intention to tip off the terrorists, or the Belgian govt (tho they might have done that too,) so much as EVERYONE. And this person was prepared to identify themselves to the NY Times, and possibly other papers. Or else it would never have been published.

Does anyone seriously think that the NY Times not publishing would have kept this under wraps? If they hadn't, it would be Belgian papers with the scoop, and every European paper in the next edition. And they'd be hopping mad at the idea that the US govt tried to gag their own press.

This isn't just a freedom of speech thing. No other country's press could be accused of treason for exposing a US spying operation, so accusing a US paper of it is anti-competetive! It's deliberately restricting a US publication which operates in a global market.

Does anyone seriously think that the NY Times not publishing would have kept this under wraps? If they hadn't, it would be Belgian papers with the scoop, and every European paper in the next edition. And they'd be hopping mad at the idea that the US govt tried to gag their own press.

This isn't just a freedom of speech thing. No other country's press could be accused of treason for exposing a US spying operation, so accusing a US paper of it is anti-competetive! It's deliberately restricting a US publication which operates in a global market.

Correct. It's not so much the fault of the Times. More so of whoever leaked the information to the press in the first place. And more generally speaking, I think the administration is underestimating the intelligence of most terrorists. I'm quite sure terrorists assume their actions will be spied on and they take necessary precautions. So while I don't think it was such a good move for anyone to leak information about a secret program, it's no big deal.

Correct. It's not so much the fault of the Times. More so of whoever leaked the information to the press in the first place. And more generally speaking, I think the administration is underestimating the intelligence of most terrorists. I'm quite sure terrorists assume their actions will be spied on and they take necessary precautions. So while I don't think it was such a good move for anyone to leak information about a secret program, it's no big deal.

No, they're not underestimating anything. They're not using it to get terrorists. They're just trying to establish the precedent that they can do whatever they want. It's exactly the same as the warrantless wiretaps, and the fact that the PATRIOT act has not resulted in a single terrorist arrest.

The U.S. Military does not have an obligation to play patsy at the Hague with a bunch of neo-left lawyers who want terrorists to have jury trials.

So you're saying we shouldn't give them jury trials? So you're a totalitarian fascist then right? Well I'll make sure that when you make your putsch for power and declare yourself Fuhrer that YOU dont get a godamn jury trial. Who the hell do you think you are? Jury trials for all no matter the charge(even treason) is part of the constitution. Does the neocon conspiracy want to ditch that too? You sure are doing a great job at representing the right and their beliefs you dumbass. Go sterilize yourself, you'll do the genepool a favor.

the person who started this should talk to senator Mcarthy from the 50's i bet you two will have lots in common.

If the goverment uses anything to spy on me, its commiting treason and should be removed, the people who reveal the goverment spying, should be given rewards for being such great patriots

What good is privacy when you are dead?


What good is being alive if you're no longer free?

This is the most reasonable thing I've seen in this thread.

No, they're not underestimating anything. They're not using it to get terrorists. They're just trying to establish the precedent that they can do whatever they want. It's exactly the same as the warrantless wiretaps, and the fact that the PATRIOT act has not resulted in a single terrorist arrest.

Do you have any proof of this or are you just saying that because you hate the administration as I do. I believe the administration is overstepping their limits but their motivation IS related to terrorists, misguided as their methods are.

Ok, the author of this one is an abecedarianistic, conservative douche when it evidently comes to the rights endowed to the citizens and organizations of this nation. There's a little something we like to call the first ammendment, in which is enumerated the rights of free speech among all citizens an associations in this country. That includes the freedom of the press to print what is poignant and viable to national sentiment and debate. Basically the NYtimes is perfectly justified in printing any and all information reguarding government activities; seeing as how the government's decisions, good or bad, directly affect the citizens within its jurisdiction. Therefore, it is the governments responsibility to keep more diplomatically sensitive materials out of the hands of the press if it does not want it mentioned in the media. If the government wants to protect "nationally sensitive" data, it should be more surupticious and fastudious in the information it affords the media. So I say to you sir, the government is your traitor, not the NYtimes.

Ok, the author of this one is an abecedarianistic, conservative douche when it evidently comes to the rights endowed to the citizens and organizations of this nation. There's a little something we like to call the first ammendment, in which is enumerated the rights of free speech among all citizens an associations in this country. That includes the freedom of the press to print what is poignant and viable to national sentiment and debate. Basically the NYtimes is perfectly justified in printing any and all information reguarding government activities; seeing as how the government's decisions, good or bad, directly affect the citizens within its jurisdiction. Therefore, it is the governments responsibility to keep more diplomatically sensitive materials out of the hands of the press if it does not want it mentioned in the media. If the government wants to protect "nationally sensitive" data, it should be more surupticious and fastudious in the information it affords the media. So I say to you sir, the government is your traitor, not the NYtimes.

Been hittin' the thesaurus there, have we?

i hate to break it to the NY times, but this wasnt terribly secret.

i worked in financial regulation and was well aware SWIFT were sharing information with the CIA. I recall it getting play in the financial press in late 2001.

Bush contradicted himself when he says Congress had been told of this yet says the NYT broke a secret.

And one thing is certain: if I knew the CIA were tracking flows in this way, you can be bloody sure that Al Quada were onto it.

Storm in a teacup and has far more to do with posturing than any exposure of not very secret money laundering investigations

The New York Times disclosed a secret U.S. program called SWIFT that monitored the financial transactions of terrorists. The program was based in Belgium and directly led to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Riduan Isamuddin, who masterminded the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort which killed hundreds of people.By disclosing the program the Times has ended its secrecy and therefore its effectiveness.

Here is a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The blowing of this vital secret operation has both aided and comforted the enemies of the United States. The New York Times is guilty of treason.

Maybe if the NYT gave guns and explosives and a billion dollars to terrorists I would agree.

Read your own linked article there: it was the US Government that revealed the details, not the newspaper. Are the US Government therefore guilty of treason?

BUZZZZZ!!!! wrong answer boyo!
"Still, news of the secret programme, which the government agreed to reveal after it was unable to dissuade The Times from publishing the results of its investigation, is likely to stir up debate over the right to infringe on privacy for national security reasons."

The Times were going to publish it anyway, so the government gave in and agreed to reveal it because the dipshits at the Times we still gonna do it because they had their heads up their asses, instead of understanding that what they were doing is aiding the enemy! So Fuck the Times and hang every traitorous bastard that gave the ok and went ahead with it, and shut down that new "Al Jazeera 2" magazine. screw em.

Thanks alot NYT, thanks. Now I can't sleep as well at night knowing some terrorist scumbag out there as a better chance at killing me.



HERES TO YOU NEW YORK TIMES: :upyours:





Haha, just kidding. It's not too big of a deal. The government should have just pretended it wasn't true.

Maybe if the NYT gave guns and explosives and a billion dollars to terrorists I would agree.

Ahem, telling Al Qaeda how were are spying on them is HELPING THE ENEMY!!! How thick headed are you????
Imagine you are a criminal, watching TV, while on the run from the cops. They keep on managing to find you no matter how hard you try to cover your tracks. Then on the TV, the newsman tells us how the police are able to track criminals. So, you are the the criminal, what would you do with that information? Do you ignore it, or take advantage of it? I'll give you 5 seconds to think that over.

Thanks alot NYT, thanks. Now I can't sleep as well at night knowing some terrorist scumbag out there as a better chance at killing me.



HERES TO YOU NEW YORK TIMES: :upyours:





Haha, just kidding. It's not too big of a deal. The government should have just pretended it wasn't true.

Well, if they did, they;d be accused of trying to cover it up. And then more shit hits the fan!

Thanks alot NYT, thanks. Now I can't sleep as well at night knowing some terrorist scumbag out there as a better chance at killing me.


HERES TO YOU NEW YORK TIMES: :upyours:


Haha, just kidding. It's not too big of a deal. The government should have just pretended it wasn't true.

Ahem, telling Al Qaeda how were are spying on them is HELPING THE ENEMY!!! How thick headed are you????
Imagine you are a criminal, watching TV, while on the run from the cops. They keep on managing to find you no matter how hard you try to cover your tracks. Then on the TV, the newsman tells us how the police are able to track criminals. So, you are the the criminal, what would you do with that information? Do you ignore it, or take advantage of it? I'll give you 5 seconds to think that over.

but the US government announced this to the financial community in 2001! Who is being thick headed?

Ahem, telling Al Qaeda how were are spying on them is HELPING THE ENEMY!!! How thick headed are you????
Imagine you are a criminal, watching TV, while on the run from the cops. They keep on managing to find you no matter how hard you try to cover your tracks. Then on the TV, the newsman tells us how the police are able to track criminals. So, you are the the criminal, what would you do with that information? Do you ignore it, or take advantage of it? I'll give you 5 seconds to think that over.

Im no terrorist, but even if I didnt know the program existed I wouldnt be using American bank accounts. Its the smart thing to do. All the government is doing is looking at financial records of innocent Americans.

In late 2001 and early 2002 most of the countries housing major financial centres froze bank accounts worth millions suspected of being terrorist-related. There are UN reports dating back to 2002 regarding the investigation of claims that the major terrorist groups were using gold and gems to transfer funds to avoid the banking systems.

The fact that governments are actively cooperating and sharing information in trying to trace financial movements is NOT news.

And I bet the heads of terrorist organisations take more notice of current affairs than some posters here.

Go do some searching on news sites. The only thing that surprises me is that anyone was shocked about this part of it at all.

The important part is really the potential lack of safeguards and the related security. Unless there is some transparency then there is no limit to what or who can be investigated with or without reasonable suspicion.

Who knows? Maybe if this had been started 30 years ago they might have been able to track all the funding going from the US to the IRA so they could blow up kids in Enniskillen.

In late 2001 and early 2002 most of the countries housing major financial centres froze bank accounts worth millions suspected of being terrorist-related. There are UN reports dating back to 2002 regarding the investigation of claims that the major terrorist groups were using gold and gems to transfer funds to avoid the banking systems.

The fact that governments are actively cooperating and sharing information in trying to trace financial movements is NOT news.

And I bet the heads of terrorist organisations take more notice of current affairs than some posters here.

Go do some searching on news sites. The only thing that surprises me is that anyone was shocked about this part of it at all.

The important part is really the potential lack of safeguards and the related security. Unless there is some transparency then there is no limit to what or who can be investigated with or without reasonable suspicion.

Who knows? Maybe if this had been started 30 years ago they might have been able to track all the funding going from the US to the IRA so they could blow up kids in Enniskillen.

I agree with all that and then you ruin it with hyperbole. No child was hurt in Eniskillen.

Anyway, do I have this straight. The 101st keyboard want vengence because the NYT wrote an article about a CIA line into a clearing house that every trader and banking compliance officer knew about anyway which had been announced in congress?

Why are the right so damn stupid sometimes?

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.


This is the Times editorial from after 9/11...so why did they " out " the program they demanded?

This is the Times editorial from after 9/11...so why did they " out " the program they demanded?

did they 'out it' though?

What good is privacy when you are dead?

The U.S. Military does not have an obligation to play patsy at the Hague with a bunch of neo-left lawyers who want terrorists to have jury trials. This program should have never been made public and now the SECURITY OF THE WORLD has been jeapordized as a result of the Times's foolish actions.
That's one of the most backwards comments I've ever seen. I thought that the USA was supposed to have the fairest laws in the world. Not giving people trials, that you've illegally locked up, is utter crap.

And more people will have died in the time that you have 3 meals and a bath in a day of starvation and lack of water than have ever died by what the US loves to call terrorism.

If This Be Treason, Let Us Make the Most of It.

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Great man, Mr. Henry.

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Great man, Mr. Henry.

Is that where New Hampshire got their state motto that's plastered on all their license plates? "Live free or DIE!" :sniper:

Hardcore, man.

Is that where New Hampshire got their state motto that's plastered on all their license plates? "Live free or DIE!" :sniper:

Hardcore, man.

Except that quite a few Ameicans nowadays can't seem to live up to that ideal. They prefer "Live in slavery than not at all."

Freedom's overrated anyways. Keep people well fed and sufficiently entertained, and they won't even bother about it.

Give them ET and McDonalds, circus' and bread. Nah.

Wouldn't stop this though http://scottishloyalists.com/paramilitaries/stone.htm

BUZZZZZ!!!! wrong answer boyo!
"Still, news of the secret programme, which the government agreed to reveal after it was unable to dissuade The Times from publishing the results of its investigation, is likely to stir up debate over the right to infringe on privacy for national security reasons."

The Times were going to publish it anyway, so the government gave in and agreed to reveal it because the dipshits at the Times we still gonna do it because they had their heads up their asses, instead of understanding that what they were doing is aiding the enemy! So Fuck the Times and hang every traitorous bastard that gave the ok and went ahead with it, and shut down that new "Al Jazeera 2" magazine. screw em.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the US government has the power to order a ban on publication of certain news stories, no? It seems like they didn't care to ban this one.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the US government has the power to order a ban on publication of certain news stories, no? It seems like they didn't care to ban this one.

That's going to work when a journalist investigates the story themselves, and finds something secret. Their editor looks at it, has some doubts about the safety of publishing, asks the administration about it. Admin says no. An editor would have to be crazy to then give the story to another outlet. Looks treasonous, makes no commercial sense.

Won't work when someone is determined to leak the info. Wouldn't have worked for watergate, for instance.

And if this thing blows up to the size of Iran/Contra, or even to the size of the NSA wiretaps, banning the story would look very, very bad.

Won't work when someone is determined to leak the info. Wouldn't have worked for watergate, for instance.

And if this thing blows up to the size of Iran/Contra, or even to the size of the NSA wiretaps, banning the story would look very, very bad.

Weren't the actual details of bodies returning to the US during the first Gulf War covered by a ban? What I'm suggesting is that if the government were so concerned about the story concerning SWIFT from getting out into the open (ignoring, for the moment, that it appears to have been an open secret all along anyhow), then they could have prevented the NYT from actually publishing.

Yeah, you are so right. The Times should have published how the atomic bomb worked so that the Nazi's could read it....Give me a break. This program helped put bloodthirsty terrorists in Prison and did not harm the rights of a single American....yet it has been disclosed. Now it cannot be used. Like I said, this gives aid and comfort to our enemies and is an obvious case of TREASON.

Where are these so called Terrorists in Prison??? Hmm, Magically disappeared didn't they?

And I think the average American doesn't want the NSA to know every single thing they buy or sell from overseas. The ENTIRE Bush Administration should be charged with Treason for Lying about Iraq. Not to mention the leak THEY did.

The bloffinating of Peter King can be easily recognized as "short guy" syndrome. Like Kenneth Starr or Joe McCarthy, he thinks he's more important than he really is.

Cheney looked a bit more plausibly displeased at the story. I find him difficult to read -- he could probably lie right to my face, and I wouldn't know.

But what really surprised me was how angry Bush seemed to be. Whatever you think of him as a leader, he's no great actor. He really seems to think this is a black-and-white case. That after years of financial surveillance, barely secret to start with, revealing the name of one company who co-operated is going to make a huge difference.
And he widened to field, in the news conference of a couple days ago. He appealed for the media's "help" by keeping quiet about every type of investigation.

This is just a guess, backed with no quotes or figures. Based only on the apparent fear and loathing exhibited by these three senior figures: there's worse, and they're scared of it coming out. Worse? Perhaps fabrication of evidence. Cover-up of financial links between their government and Saudi terrorists. Bribery of foreign politicians. Something in that ballpark.

For anyone who's enjoying my wool-gathering here (you're still reading, right?:) ) I'll further speculate that bans could already be in place on stories. That's the idea of a ban, right? The NY Times sticking its chin out on this story could just be a way of saying "we've got a real story, but it's banned. Watch this space!"
If so, it will out. They can't censor every foreign paper and radio station, and they certainly can't censor the internet.

I agree with all that and then you ruin it with hyperbole. No child was hurt in Eniskillen.

Anyway, do I have this straight. The 101st keyboard want vengence because the NYT wrote an article about a CIA line into a clearing house that every trader and banking compliance officer knew about anyway which had been announced in congress?

Why are the right so damn stupid sometimes?

Ya got me. Didn't check. Just used Enniskillen cos its a distinctive name where other incidents were not and may be less familiar. It was a trap comment with a point behind it to possibly make people think of things in a wider context and maybe even send this off down a different track.

There is so much discussion about terrorism solely regarding moslems. There has been terrorism for years in various countries which has nothing to do with islam. There has also been support of terrorist groups by people in the USA (and Britain, etc. I only single out the US because that's what this thread has been about). Add to that the manipulation of political situations in other countries by various western nations (Britain being the past masters and should know better by now) and you have an interesting moral position.

I think this is a quote but I can't be arsed to check:
"If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist" (GWB)

FWIW, I agree, so long as you insert the word "knowingly".

Now this monitoring, legal or otherwise, moral or otherwise may turn up terrorist activities other than those they are concentrating on i.e. moslem terrorists such as Al-Qaeda. It could turn up other groups or individuals involved in other parts of the world.

All of this is speculation of course. It may do no such thing because of the masses of data to investigate.

So aside from the question of the "treasonous" behaviour involved in announcing to the world something bloody obvious, there is what I see as the real question over how do we balance security and privacy. Is it worth having your every move known by some faceless anonymous official in order to shut down the funding of terror organisations?

p.s. " Thirteen children are among the injured."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/8/newsid_2515000/2515113.stm

I finally checked out of curiosity, but as I said above, was not really the point.

Yay, for collective responsibility!
In fact, why not ahng his famillys cousains and relatives....and there ralatives...and there relatives! In fact, seeing as everyones related to everyone, so they all must be responcable lets hang everyones! That'll show those terrorists! If everyones dead they can't blow us up!