NYT discloses secret program to track terrorist finances.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think he ever compared the two. He just lead off his article with some hyperbole. You looked at that and since you're so "grounded" chose not to continue reading. If you stop reading everytime someone exaggerates the first line of their article, then you probably aren't finishing too many articles.

Honestly, when an article opens up with a comparison so ridiculous it illicits open laughter, I generally stop reading. Unless of course the column/article is intended to be comedy, which I don't think this was.

[Cknolls]

I get the point -- I got it the first time, thanks -- but I don't buy it. That's one hell of a stretch, especially since the program wasn't even outed in THAT much detail.

 

Is that like being kind of pregnant?????

[NorthSideSox72]

Its funny, I am seeing conservatives here make the same arguments (elementally) that they accuse liberals of using, and vice versa.

 

For example... The government extends its arms into surveillance, further than many Democrats and Libertarians would like. Dems compare the behavior to Hilter. GOP'ers say its hyperbole and ludicrous, that its a very small intrusion in the scale of things.

 

Now here, we have a column in a handful of papers (not just the NYT) that "outs" the existence of a surveillance program. GOP'ers scream "treason!", and Dems say it represents no harm to ongoing ops.

 

Just an observation. Same tactics, different subjects, opposite parties.

[Cknolls]

This supreme court aint the same one that was sitting in the 1960's and 70's. They will slam dunk the NYT if it comes to that.

Ah yes the living constitution. Isn't that what liberals call it????

 

I think fearmongering is what this is. Those kooky conservatives get to blame the New York Times and get to huff and puff about how liberals are destroying america. Given that its likely that Valerie Plame was involved in an intel program on the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, that seems far worse than what the NYT did here.

 

This is how the right can get its numbers up a little more.

 

nothing more... nothing less

 

BTW: Where was the outrage when high ranking members of the administration outed an undercover CIA agent to a reporter for a national newspaper?

 

 

Undercover??????????? Let's play the same game. Prove there was harm with her supposed blown undercover status.. Fitz does not think so or he would have prosecuted the leakers, right?????

[KipWellsFan]

Ah yes the living constitution. Isn't that what liberals call it????

Undercover??????????? Let's play the same game. Prove there was harm with her supposed blown undercover status.. Fitz does not think so or he would have prosecuted the leakers, right?????

 

Every sign points to retaliation for the Niger article and that they don't want similar people to go public with information about the administration. It's all intimidation. Maybe you haven't noticed yet but it seems like everyone who was involved with the administration comes out angry.

Edited June 27, 2006 by KipWellsFan

[Cknolls]

Every sign points to retaliation for the Niger article and that they don't want similar people to go public with information about the administration. It's all intimidation. Maybe you haven't noticed yet but it seems like everyone who was involved with the administration comes out angry.

 

 

Wilson lied about his trip.. It's called setting the record straight. The oft qouted last refuge of the left, the (9/11) Commision Report, said Wilson was full o' s***.

 

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. ... 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.

 

Do you know who said this??????

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Ah the glorious smell of partisanship in the morning.

 

Funding Al Qaeda, giving them weapons, money and training = good foreign policy

 

Printing a paper that shows a program that anybody with half a brain could figure out would be in operation (Come on, you mean to tell me that nobody was thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, the government would be tracking money? It's common f***ing sense) = TREASON

 

They've been using the "follow the money" tactic for years to try to nail the major drug cartels (I'm looking at you, Colombia) Why is it so much of a stretch that they'd use it for terror investigations? I fail to see how the knee-jerkers here would be shocked, let alone terrorists who likely have figured that it is a given that their finances are being tracked.

 

And don't tell anybody -- but SWIFT has been around since 1973. Oh s***, I told a secret!

[Gregory Pratt]

Is that like being kind of pregnant?????

 

Rarely has someone ever said something to me that was so incoherent as to leave me baffled.

 

Congratulations!

[WCSox]

Actually I think that is exactly where the outrage comes from. There was everything under the sun looking for investigations, calling for resignations, looking for indictments to be handed out etc when the CIA stuff happened from the democratic side of the aisle, yet when the NYT does something similar seemingly the opposite happens. I think that is why the conservative media is so quick to grab onto this and point out the apparent hypocracy of it all.

 

^^^

 

The calls for treason charges are a bit out of line, IMO, but it's very clear that the NYT is doing everything it can to undermine the Bush administration. There is no compelling "public interest" to dislcose the federal government's tracking of the financial records of terrorists, given that the action is perfectly legal (financial transactions are not priviliged) and that Congress is well-aware of it.

 

Subpoena the authors at the Times and force them to disclose the scumbags who leaked the info - that's pretty much all you can do. It's unfortunate that the far-left cares more about undermining the current administration than protecting American lives. :headshake

[Gregory Pratt]

Ah the glorious smell of partisanship in the morning.

 

Funding Al Qaeda, giving them weapons, money and training = good foreign policy

 

Printing a paper that shows a program that anybody with half a brain could figure out would be in operation (Come on, you mean to tell me that nobody was thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, the government would be tracking money? It's common f***ing sense) = TREASON

 

They've been using the "follow the money" tactic for years to try to nail the major drug cartels (I'm looking at you, Colombia) Why is it so much of a stretch that they'd use it for terror investigations? I fail to see how the knee-jerkers here would be shocked, let alone terrorists who likely have figured that it is a given that their finances are being tracked.

 

And don't tell anybody -- but SWIFT has been around since 1973. Oh s***, I told a secret!

 

[Rex Kickass]

^^^

 

The calls for treason charges are a bit out of line, IMO, but it's very clear that the NYT is doing everything it can to undermine the Bush administration. There is no compelling "public interest" to dislcose the federal government's tracking of the financial records of terrorists, given that the action is perfectly legal (financial transactions are not priviliged) and that Congress is well-aware of it.

 

Subpoena the authors at the Times and force them to disclose the scumbags who leaked the info - that's pretty much all you can do. It's unfortunate that the far-left cares more about undermining the current administration than protecting American lives. :headshake

 

What about the reporters at the Wall Street Journal and LA Times that put the story to bed at the same time?

 

What about the people reporting on the report?

 

What about us for talking about it?

[Soxbadger]

My only post is,

 

Whatever you want for the NYT, you better want the same for the Wall Street Journal.

 

So if you want to put the death blow on basically the preeminent financial newspaper in the US, go ahead.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Isn't this the "Clinton did it too" defense that gets blown off when used by a Republician? I thought we weren't supposed to use that as a valid arguement anymore?

 

My only post is,

 

Whatever you want for the NYT, you better want the same for the Wall Street Journal.

 

So if you want to put the death blow on basically the preeminent financial newspaper in the US, go ahead.

 

The WSJ is so not needed in today's instant news world it isn't even funny. By the time something hits print there, it has been factored into the major world markets for hours. Besides I don't get that line of thought anyways, if someone does something wrong, should they not get the punishment just because it is harsh? I don't think either paper deserves to be punished for what happened, but the arguement just doesn't hold water for me personally.

[Soxbadger]

I dont think their will be any punishment. I dont think they did anything wrong.

 

But I just think its strange to see everyone trying to go after the NYT, when the WSJ did the exact same thing.

 

To me it just seems based around the fact the NYT is seen as "Liberal".

[WCSox]

What about the reporters at the Wall Street Journal and LA Times that put the story to bed at the same time?

 

What about the people reporting on the report?

 

What about us for talking about it?

 

It's my understanding that the NYT journalists were the ones who obtained the classified information from the informant(s). They were the ones who decided to use this information. The fact that the (liberal) LA Times and (conservative) WSJ got ahold of the information (via the NYT) and published stories to keep up with their competitior is a moot point.

 

Your last two questions are so ridiculous that I won't bother answering them.

 

 

My only post is,

 

Whatever you want for the NYT, you better want the same for the Wall Street Journal.

 

So if you want to put the death blow on basically the preeminent financial newspaper in the US, go ahead.

 

What seems to be getting lost in this discussion is the fact that the Times were THE FIRST to obtain the (illegal) information and THE FIRST to decide to print it, despite several weeks of pleas from the White Houst not to. For all we know, the NYT may have intentionally leaked it to the WSJ and LAT.

[Cknolls]

Subpoeana the reporters, if they refuse to reveal leakers, jail awaits.

[Rex Kickass]

Isn't this the "Clinton did it too" defense that gets blown off when used by a Republician? I thought we weren't supposed to use that as a valid arguement anymore?

 

Nope, I am saying if you tar one, you should tar them all.

 

It's my understanding that the NYT journalists were the ones who obtained the classified information from the informant(s). They were the ones who decided to use this information. The fact that the (liberal) LA Times and (conservative) WSJ got ahold of the information (via the NYT) and published stories to keep up with their competitior is a moot point.

 

Your last two questions are so ridiculous that I won't bother answering them.

What seems to be getting lost in this discussion is the fact that the Times were THE FIRST to obtain the (illegal) information and THE FIRST to decide to print it, despite several weeks of pleas from the White Houst not to. For all we know, the NYT may have intentionally leaked it to the WSJ and LAT.

 

The LA Times and the NYT story broke at the same time, on Friday. Im not actually sure that the NY Times story made it in print on Friday, but rather on the web instead about mid morning.

 

The LAT and NYT are owned by different companies.

[southsider2k5]

Nope, I am saying if you tar one, you should tar them all.

The LA Times and the NYT story broke at the same time, on Friday. Im not actually sure that the NY Times story made it in print on Friday, but rather on the web instead about mid morning.

 

The LAT and NYT are owned by different companies.

 

Isn't the LAT owned by the Tribco?

[Soxy]

Isn't the LAT owned by the Tribco?

Yes.

[WCSox]

Nope, I am saying if you tar one, you should tar them all.

The LA Times and the NYT story broke at the same time, on Friday. Im not actually sure that the NY Times story made it in print on Friday, but rather on the web instead about mid morning.

 

So, the LAT and the WSJ are just as much to blame as the NYT, even when the NYT were the ones who originally obtained the illegally-leaked information and told the White House to go f*** themselves when asked to not print the classified information? I don't believe that.

 

Somebody wrote a column in the Washington Post the other day comparing the NYT to (paraphrasing) "obnoxious adolescents kicking the shins of their parents while living comforably under their roof." I couldn't agree more.

[Rex Kickass]

The LA Times printed the same information on the same day. The Wall Street Journal did as well.

[WCSox]

The LA Times printed the same information on the same day. The Wall Street Journal did as well.

 

The NYT had the information weeks before either and told the White House to go to hell when asked not to print it. Way to ignore my point.

[kapkomet]

I made that point, oh, about the third post of this thread. It conveniently gets ignored.

[Rex Kickass]

The other thing that conveniently gets ignored is that the LA Times was also asked by the administration weeks ago and also chose to ignore their request.

[kapkomet]

I'm going to say this again.

 

THE NEW YORK SLIMES ARE THE ONE WHO HAD THE STORY FIRST.

 

Quit trying to divide where the blame resides. Thank you.