NYT discloses secret program to track terrorist finances.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554907/

 

This nation is at war. We are at war and we have the NYT disclosing classified programs which are designed to prosecute this war. This type of behavior is no different than if they had somehow gotten the plans for the D-Day invasion and splashed them across the front page of their newspaper. This rag newspaper is actively undermining the war effort in order to pursue its leftist agenda and it must be stopped NOW.

 

The Attorney General needs to find out who is responsible for leaking this information, and get a list of everyone who wrote this story, every editor who greenlighted this story, the entire board of directors and the president and owners of the NYT and prosecute the whole lot of them. This is treason, cut and dried, and they should be dealt with the exact same way anyone else who commits treason during a time of war is dealt with. The whole lot of them should be stood up in front of a firing squad.

[Rex Kickass]

How is it cut and dried treason when they were the third paper to publish the story?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

How is it cut and dried treason when they were the third paper to publish the story?

 

 

OOOOOO Someone else committed treason so let me play along too!!!!

 

 

YIPPIE SKIPPY!

[Rex Kickass]

I love how everyone mentions the New York Times and neglects the LA Times, and the more conservative Wall Street Journal gets a pass...

 

And now those who say they want to defend our freedom are calling for restricting the press.

[kapkomet]

The NYSlimes were the 'exclusive', supposedly, and the other papers copied it.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I love how everyone mentions the New York Times and neglects the LA Times, and the more conservative Wall Street Journal gets a pass...

 

And now those who say they want to defend our freedom are calling for restricting the press.

 

 

Dont you get it Rex?! We have thousands of people in harms way, millions more at home who are still vulnerable to attack and now a classified program used to track down and stop the money sources of our enemies is outed in the media like some celebrity's secret wedding plans.

 

 

Where is the accountability Rex?? Where is any regard for national security?!

 

 

Its clear that the media in this country hasn't even the slightest journalistic integrity. It's willing to commit treason in order to sell newspapers. We need to make some examples of these pricks.

[kapkomet]

Where is the accountability Rex?? Where is any regard for national security?!

 

/waits for the standard 'we're trampling on "rights" ' response or the famous Ben Franklin quote...

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554907/

 

This nation is at war. We are at war and we have the NYT disclosing classified programs which are designed to prosecute this war. This type of behavior is no different than if they had somehow gotten the plans for the D-Day invasion and splashed them across the front page of their newspaper. This rag newspaper is actively undermining the war effort in order to pursue its leftist agenda and it must be stopped NOW.

 

The Attorney General needs to find out who is responsible for leaking this information, and get a list of everyone who wrote this story, every editor who greenlighted this story, the entire board of directors and the president and owners of the NYT and prosecute the whole lot of them. This is treason, cut and dried, and they should be dealt with the exact same way anyone else who commits treason during a time of war is dealt with. The whole lot of them should be stood up in front of a firing squad.

Why I do I keep hearing this "We're at war!" "There's a war on!"

 

CONGRESS NEVER DECLARED WAR. So, we're not at war. And yes, we've already gone through this in the SCOTUS case New York Times vs US where the justices ruled that prior restraint of classified documents (in this case, the Pentagon Papers) was un-Constitutional and the press had a right to print stories regarding the information. You should really check out some of the majority opinion in that case.

 

And oh yes, for further discussion, I advise a checkout of the Heller quote in my profile.

[kapkomet]

Why I do I keep hearing this "We're at war!" "There's a war on!"

 

CONGRESS NEVER DECLARED WAR. So, we're not at war. And yes, we've already gone through this in the SCOTUS case New York Times vs US where the justices ruled that prior restraint of classified documents (in this case, the Pentagon Papers) was un-Constitutional and the press had a right to print stories regarding the information. You should really check out some of the majority opinion in that case.

 

And oh yes, for further discussion, I advise a checkout of the Heller quote in my profile.

So the words "DECLARE WAR" is what meets the standard, and nothing else, such as (paraphrasing) any means necessary to enforce UN Resolution 1444?

 

Nevermind. Why am I even bothering? It's obvious that no one will ever change their minds around here. Screw it.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So the words "DECLARE WAR" is what meets the standard, and nothing else, such as (paraphrasing) any means necessary to enforce UN Resolution 1444?

 

Nevermind. Why am I even bothering? It's obvious that no one will ever change their minds around here. Screw it.

It's just more of a peeve for me that we're "at war" without declaring war. Separation of powers much?

 

But yeah -- jist of this thread is that, like it or not, the SCOTUS declared in 1971 that prior restraint in the case of classified info (in that case, the Pentagon Papers) was un-Constitutional and that papers have a right to print.

 

Link: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case25.htm

[Rex Kickass]

Nuke, have you read the article in question?

[kapkomet]

LCR, the words "declare war" doesn't have to be used. But, it was declared by Congress giving the President the authority to use "any means necessary"...

 

What am I missing, besides semantics?

 

And yea, the press can print whatever they want. Wooo hooo. But they have blood on their hands. That's it.

[Rex Kickass]

Kap, have you read the article?

[minors]

How is it cut and dried treason when they were the third paper to publish the story?

 

Are you kidding me? Of all the things in Nuke's post and you point out that it was the 3rd paper to publish it. I personally don't care if they are the 1st,10th or 2000th it is still treason. This type of behavior is also like lets say the NYT got the Plans for the Manhattan project and posted them on the newspaper and gave a copy to Japan.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And yea, the press can print whatever they want. Wooo hooo. But they have blood on their hands. That's it.

Kap, that's a lame ass cop-out and we both know it.

 

Endangering the freedoms we're fighting for by exercising them! Yay! If you listen closely, you can hear Jefferson doing barrel rolls in his coffin: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

 

From Times vs US, Some members of the Court, notably Justice Potter Stewart, did believe in this notion of a citizen's right to know, and Stewart put forward the theory of the press serving as a surrogate for the people, ferreting out information for them and securing the material to which they had a right. Not all members of the Court endorsed this "functional" theory of the press, but Chief Justice Burger later commented that despite the split vote, the justices were "actually unanimous." In many ways, this was true. All of the justices did believe in the basic doctrine of no prior restraint, first set out in the Near case, and with the exception of Justices Black and Douglas, who took an absolutist stance against any government censorship of any issue at any time, the entire Court agreed that government should not censor the press, that no prior restraint was the rule except in very unusual circumstances.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The Pentagon papers gave a history of what had already happened to a point. What the NYT is engaged in right now is actively divulging current battle plans to the enemy. This is the same effect as if they had got wind that a raid was going to be conducted at x time against target x.

 

First of all there is little comparison between the 2 and secondly I bet you a bundle that if they try these traitors today that this court would rule in favor of the government.

[minors]

Why I do I keep hearing this "We're at war!" "There's a war on!"

 

CONGRESS NEVER DECLARED WAR. So, we're not at war. And yes, we've already gone through this in the SCOTUS case New York Times vs US where the justices ruled that prior restraint of classified documents (in this case, the Pentagon Papers) was un-Constitutional and the press had a right to print stories regarding the information. You should really check out some of the majority opinion in that case.

 

And oh yes, for further discussion, I advise a checkout of the Heller quote in my profile.

 

You are so far out of the realm it isn't funny. You think it OK to spill secrets to the terrorists I am just tired of all these liberals trying to defend these thugs. We didn't declare war on Vietnam either so that means 58,000 people weren't killed either? I think when someone attacks you on the homeland they declared war on you. I also think you would be in the verrry slim majority of people thinking we are not in a war.

[Rex Kickass]

Are you kidding me? Of all the things in Nuke's post and you point out that it was the 3rd paper to publish it. I personally don't care if they are the 1st,10th or 2000th it is still treason. This type of behavior is also like lets say the NYT got the Plans for the Manhattan project and posted them on the newspaper and gave a copy to Japan.

Minors, have you read the article in question?

 

You are so far out of the realm it isn't funny. You think it OK to spill secrets to the terrorists I am just tired of all these liberals trying to defend these thugs. We didn't declare war on Vietnam either so that means 58,000 people weren't killed either? I think when someone attacks you on the homeland they declared war on you. I also think you would be in the verrry slim majority of people thinking we are not in a war.

We didn't exert war powers in the US to fight in Vietnam.

[bmags]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554907/

 

This nation is at war. We are at war and we have the NYT disclosing classified programs which are designed to prosecute this war. This type of behavior is no different than if they had somehow gotten the plans for the D-Day invasion and splashed them across the front page of their newspaper. This rag newspaper is actively undermining the war effort in order to pursue its leftist agenda and it must be stopped NOW.

 

The Attorney General needs to find out who is responsible for leaking this information, and get a list of everyone who wrote this story, every editor who greenlighted this story, the entire board of directors and the president and owners of the NYT and prosecute the whole lot of them. This is treason, cut and dried, and they should be dealt with the exact same way anyone else who commits treason during a time of war is dealt with. The whole lot of them should be stood up in front of a firing squad.

 

if the war on terrorism is at war we will never have peace, and never a time where we have a truly free press...

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Kap, that's a lame ass cop-out and we both know it.

 

Endangering the freedoms we're fighting for by exercising them! Yay! If you listen closely, you can hear Jefferson doing barrel rolls in his coffin: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

 

From Times vs US, Some members of the Court, notably Justice Potter Stewart, did believe in this notion of a citizen's right to know, and Stewart put forward the theory of the press serving as a surrogate for the people, ferreting out information for them and securing the material to which they had a right. Not all members of the Court endorsed this "functional" theory of the press, but Chief Justice Burger later commented that despite the split vote, the justices were "actually unanimous." In many ways, this was true. All of the justices did believe in the basic doctrine of no prior restraint, first set out in the Near case, and with the exception of Justices Black and Douglas, who took an absolutist stance against any government censorship of any issue at any time, the entire Court agreed that government should not censor the press, that no prior restraint was the rule except in very unusual circumstances.

 

 

Im sorry LCR but nobody has any "right" to know anything about classified battle plans except those who came up with them and those responsible for executing them. If you want to bring Jefferson into this how about we rewind to the Revolutionary War and have Ye Olde New York Times print a leaked copy of the Franco/American battle plans at Yorktown or Saratoga. Methinks Jefferson would not be quite so sympathetic to your opinions.

 

You are so far out of the realm it isn't funny. You think it OK to spill secrets to the terrorists I am just tired of all these liberals trying to defend these thugs. We didn't declare war on Vietnam either so that means 58,000 people weren't killed either? I think when someone attacks you on the homeland they declared war on you. I also think you would be in the verrry slim majority of people thinking we are not in a war.

 

 

Its also worthy to note that the threat we face is not confined to any national boundary. If it was as cut and dried as Japan attacking us then yes, a declaration of war is appropriate. However since our enemy know no national boundaries what are we to do? Have Congress declare war on a person or an ideology or a group of people? People who wave the "you gotta declare war" card fail to realize this ( or just leave it out as a matter of convienience )

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Im sorry LCR but nobody has any "right" to know anything about classified battle plans except those who came up with them and those responsible for executing them. If you want to bring Jefferson into this how about we rewind to the Revolutionary War and have Ye Olde New York Times print a leaked copy of the Franco/American battle plans at Yorktown or Saratoga. Methinks Jefferson would not be quite so sympathetic to your opinions.

Its also worthy to note that the threat we face is not confined to any national boundary. If it was as cut and dried as Japan attacking us then yes, a declaration of war is appropriate. However since our enemy know no national boundaries what are we to do? Have Congress declare war on a person or an ideology or a group of people? People who wave the "you gotta declare war" card fail to realize this ( or just leave it out as a matter of convienience )

It is amazing how we're supposed to give up our freedoms because of some guerillas. I think the Founders knew about guerilla fighting and the threat it could pose to a state. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE GUERILLAS! Yet, these guys still came out with a Constitution the SCOTUS rules with and ruled in 1971 with the way they did.

 

/Sit, Obey and Let the State Have Its Unquestioned, Unchecked Power

[bmags]

Im sorry LCR but nobody has any "right" to know anything about classified battle plans except those who came up with them and those responsible for executing them. wave the "you gotta declare war" card fail to realize this ( or just leave it out as a matter of convienience )

 

Fortunately for everyone, the government has checks to make sure it doesn't just make up rules as it goes along. This is not wartime, and the supreme court should not see it as such if it has any precedent at all...

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It is amazing how we're supposed to give up our freedoms because of some guerillas. I think the Founders knew about guerilla fighting and the threat it could pose to a state. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE GUERILLAS! Yet, these guys still came out with a Constitution the SCOTUS rules with and ruled in 1971 with the way they did.

 

/Sit, Obey and Let the State Have Its Unquestioned, Unchecked Power

 

 

And herein lies the disconnect between us.

 

 

You simply have no clue whatsoever the consequenses of classified information reaching the wrong people. You simply have no idea what it is like to conduct a raid on a building and have the guys inside tipped off that you're coming. The NYT leaking this information to Al Qaeda is no different from some worm getting a sniff about an op we have laid on and telling the intended target about it. The price for such conduct is paid in blood.

[Rex Kickass]

Has anyone here, besides me, read the article?

 

I'm getting the impression that the answer is "no." Which is probably a good thing, because when I read the article, I didn't understand the big deal. I didn't see what was so secret.

 

The government is looking through a system to track specific financial transactions by specific people through literally thousands of financial institutions. Because of what the service they are monitoring actually is, there is a loophole in US law that makes this kind of surveillance legal. However, there was some debate about that at first and some questions remain as regard to invasion of privacy within the bodies who conduct the investigation - as well as the partner businesses who keep a representative present during the searches to make sure no inappropriate searches are performed.

 

If anything this article puts the administration in a general positive light - because it worked to address privacy concerns to make sure that the actual information was handled responsibly. The crux of the article seems to me to be whether or not privacy concerns were well handled.

[minors]

It is amazing how we're supposed to give up our freedoms because of some guerillas. I think the Founders knew about guerilla fighting and the threat it could pose to a state. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE GUERILLAS! Yet, these guys still came out with a Constitution the SCOTUS rules with and ruled in 1971 with the way they did.

 

/Sit, Obey and Let the State Have Its Unquestioned, Unchecked Power

 

 

So it OK to leak info to these terrorists? I just hope someone you know isn't a victim in the next attack. You just don't leak this info to the terrorists plain and simple.