thecowboy

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Way to give away a secret method of counter-terrorism that was actually WORKING. I guess you can tell what I think about it. My question is: Who is to blame? The editors who let it out, or the fine folks within the government who leaked the information?

Dr. Weezil

What part of "the government can't spy on Americans in any way shape of form" don't you understand?

That being said, the point is, it's a scam, a distraction. If the NYT was really part of a watchdog press and intended to take the goverment to task, there's so many more important scandals to deal with, like lying to start wars of conquest, nation-wide vote fraud, state-sponsored drug running, sponsorship of despots the world over, etc. etc. They're trying to toss the masses a bone to try and keep their relevance a bit longer, but failing miserably.

So basically, it's VERY old news, and not particularly important news at that. Really working? That makes me chuckle.

And what about the CIA leak case, huh? Frankly, I'm no fan of the CIA, but when a bunch of crooks so high up mess with such serious business as to dance with treason, you have to take notice of their arrogance and their hypocrisy.

So to answer your question:

1. Criminal administration
2. Impotent Congress
3. Government shill corporate Press

thecowboy

1. Read the article. The publication in question states that the treasury program wasn't spying on anybody that wasn't a suspected terrorist. If the gov wants to get records on somebody, they have to apply to get it. Even though a warrant isn't needed there are levels of security and approval that must be gone through in order to get records. So where do you get that they are spying on Americans, unless those americans are suspected terrorists.

2. The underseceretary of the Treasury who ran this program stated that the disclosure of the tactics used by them to fight terrorists has been devastating to the effort. This IS big news. The biggest newspaper in the country has just given the terrorists a boost. You want to talk about treason? What else could be called treason than aiding the enemy?

3. What about the CIA leak case? She was never a covert agent and therefore could not have her identity leaked. This case is over. All parties have been exonerated.

Questions:
4. criminal administration: What law(s) has the administration broken to make them criminal? specifically please because I'd really like to know.

5. impotent congress: What exactly makes them impotent?

6. Government shill corporate Press? No idea what you mean by this

thecowboy

stupid number bug

kwyk

Ditto what he said. The president was the first one to report that we were watching bank accounts, and al qaeda basically stopped using conventional banking methodology as a result. It's all a bunch of hooey. Just another example of this totally incompetent idiot of an administration walkinig all over the constitution, chalking it up to national security, and trying to waffle their way out of it when they get caught. Kudos to the NY Times. It is eras like this when we most need our 4th branch of government. If they don't watch out for us, we'll end up losing the very rights to our own government that nearly 3000 of our children have already died "defending" in another country.

thecowboy

Once again, read the article. It did not report that we were watching bank accounts, everyone already knows that. It reported the method of tracking the money that terrorist organizations send and receive.

As far as walking all over the constitution: The article stated that what the administration was doing was perfectly legal.

The article also stated that the program only tracked those who are suspected terrorists, not your everyday american.

Please read the article and know what it said before you defend those who wrote it, it really makes you seem incompetent.

Three comments on your last sentence: 1. like you said, defending in another country, as in not in America. How many terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11? Zero. 2. We've tried the not defending thing before with Clinton. We were attacked on foreign soil numerous times and did nothing about it and the attacks did not stop. Would you rather we did nothing about 9/11 and have those 3000 of our children die in vain? 3. The money tracking program was successfully helping with the war on terror, if you are worried about more people dying, then why do you want our methods of finding the people who are killing them splashed across a newspaper?

Graffin

Minor hijack here, but just because a technicality eliminated any possibility of a criminal conviction, does it make it ethical to have put her life in danger?

joerockhead

Back to the Real subject - The NYT.

I have to watch the damn news at work, because we have to know if there is a major issue going on somewhere that would affect us. So we can be prepared.
I hat it, as it is repeated over and over and over and over and...

Anyway, The call for the NYT to be prosecuted is what bother's me. I think that they should be stand up and admit, they only did it for the $$$. More salesof the paper, name in the news, selling more news. MAKE THEMSELVES MORE MONEY!!

NYT Was irresponsible. They should have had the guts / balls to say "No, lets not print this". But they won't because they want $$$$ All the media is Greedy and wants the $$$.

The person the leaked the classified documents and facts is the person that should be jailed. Fucker should lose his (or her) home and car and retirement.

It is people like that that really piss me off.

on a Side note -

DR. Weezil, You clearly hate the goverment and our country. Are you an American?
And since you seem to know of so manythings that are going wrong, what are you doing to change things for the better, besides whinin and bitchin?

If people whine aqnd complain and bitch, but still milk the Gov't, then what kind of a person is that? Stand up for what you believe and work to make change, if you feel it is wrong.

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

kwyk

As far as tracking money vs watching bank accounts, you're splitting hairs. How else are you tracking money if you're not watching the movement of money between accounts? And the success of the program you are defending is not clear cut. To the contrary most experts I've heard have stated that it wasn't all that successful. Those claiming it was a big success have mostly been republican congressmen with a vested political interest in supporting the program, not terrorism experts who actually would know such things. The president announced the program himself shortly after 9/11 and al qaeda adjusted their practices, resulting in a program that was less effective than it could have been simply because the president himself told the terrorists what he was doing.

As far as walking all over the constitution, I stated it was yet another example of such activity. The supreme court decides that. Not the Times. As to legality of Bush's many questionable activities, that remains to be seen. His policies in Guantanamo have now been curbed by the supreme court, and that might be the tip of the iceberg.

As for only tracking suspected terrorists, the problem is who is deciding who needs tracking? There are no checks and balances on that decision making process. Just like his bypassing the courts specifically established for determining the legality of wiretaps, those decisions need to be monitored by someone in the judiciary, not just left up to the executive branch.

Would I rather not do anything about 9/11? Of course not. That would be "incompetent". But going into Iraq was a huge mistake, and has nothing to do with 9/11. This administration manipulated information to sell the public on the need for that invasion, (read that as "lied to us" if you prefer) and it has not only diverted our forces from actually going after terrorism at its source, but it has put us at infinitely more risk for attacks because it does nothing but reinforce the notion of us being a hegemonic society, out to control the region and its resources. That after all, is a primary reason for terrorism in the first place. You're right, there have been no further attacks at home, but in my opinion we are at more risk that ever before. Like an earthquake waiting to happen, the longer it waits, the more force that builds, and the bigger the reaction when it happens. It makes no sense to me to believe that when the hate for us in the world has increased many times over since 9/11, one would believe we are safer and less prone to another attack.

As for me appearing "incompetent", I wasn't aware that this forum was for insulting others. Anyway, when one establishes an opinion based on lack of information, which you apparently felt was the case since you kept telling me to read the article, the word would be "uniformed", not incompetent. You have no idea as to my competence about anything, and have no way of judging such. And anyone who feels those who disagree with them are incompetent, is nothing short of foolish.

thecowboy

If I wanted to insult you I would call you an idiot. That I did not do. I would have called you uninformed if you said that you were forming an opinion based on incomplete information. But the way you said things would make the uninformed reader think that you did have all the information. That is where you become incompetent. Stating an opinion about an issue you are not informed about.

in·com·pe·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kmp-tnt)
adj.
1. Not qualified in legal terms: a defendant who was incompetent to stand trial.
2. Inadequate for or unsuited to a particular purpose or application.
3. Devoid of those qualities requisite for effective conduct or action.

See definition #2 and #3. Thanks for playing.

Mr.Brown

The Government

ddoubleez

1: No matter what the article says, AT&T, worldcom and a few other companies have indicated that there has been large scale data mining of domestic calls...... A law was broken, infact many........

2: I am stupid, can you explain this?

3: Wrong!

4: Answer: Lying to congress to go to war is a federal crime.......

5: Answer: The broken record here, but signing statements.....