Re: OT: My New Bumper Sticker


"memiki" <memiki@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151355363.928749.128920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ed Jay wrote:
memiki scribed:

Ed Jay wrote:

I've heard Conservatives whine that the New York Times is one of the
most
liberal rags available. But, my recollection of the Times is that they
were the ones who spoke for the administration during the run up to
war.
Remember Judy Miller?

Hi Ed -- Whadda ya think about The Times' Thurs/Fri disclosure of a
secret program that seeks to investigate and block terrorists by
tracing financial records through a banking consortium in Brussels?

I guess they may have done wrong by hacking into Belgium's system, but
I'm
not surprised that they're tracking financial transactions. I'm in favor
of it. I would have thought they were doing it all along.

They didn't "do wrong", Ed. They broke a variety of laws -- US privacy laws,
European privacy laws, International law, and if a private corporation had
done what they did, the US Attorney would prosecute. This is yet another
example of how far Bush, et al will go to ignore the law in order to do
whatever the hell they want under the dubious guise of "war on terror".

Ed -- Actually, I was speaking of The Times publishing the story. I
feel it is wrong and that in this situation, they should have used some
self-monitoring and restraint of their "freedom of the press".

Why? Bush was wrong. The US was wrong. Why should the Press muzzle
themselves because Bush doesn't want his dirty sectrets aired? Here's a good
idea -- if Bush didn't do it, they wouldn't have anything to report. It
isn't the duty of the Press to hide Bush's dirty laundry, but for Bush to
not create it.

We are living in a terrorist world and anything that might damage an
anti-terrorist program does not benefit our country IMO.

<sigh> The Truth and Freedom are NEVER harned when the truth is revealed and
governments are held accountable for their misdeeds. NEVER. EVER. However,
when a government isn't held accountable and the Press are restricted or
forced to approve of government actions, then Freedom is definitely harmed.

I hope they find the "anonymous" Government person who leaked the story
and how much he got paid.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4001287.html

There's nothing in the linked story that indicates the person who leaked the
informaiton was paid anything. Or were you just badmouthing the source
because you can't reconcile the criminality of the Bush adminsitration with
your own faith in them?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More Or Less Freedom
    ... We have less freedom since the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was ... We have less freedom because we let Bush abuse people's civil ... because we let the federal government interfere in a husband's right ... Slagging the Courts ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: More Or Less Freedom
    ... We have less freedom since the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was ... We have less freedom because we let Bush abuse people's civil ... because we let the federal government interfere in a husband's right ... Slagging the Courts ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Chavez And Ahmadinejad: Democrats Best Friends. They Use The Same Democrat Talking Points.
    ... The Bush invented 'Free Speech Zone' whichy effectively limits free ... The Bush executive order restricting the use of the Freedom of ... FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public ... attempts on American liberty. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Chavez And Ahmadinejad: Democrats Best Friends. They Use The Same Democrat Talking Points.
    ... The Bush invented 'Free Speech Zone' whichy effectively limits free ... The Bush executive order restricting the use of the Freedom of ... Americans not involved in terrorism' and fights any attempt any ... FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public ...
    (alt.politics.bush)