Re: The New York Times at War With America

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 21:44:59 -0700, El Castor
<anyonethere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Thumper <jaylsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:53:36 -0700, El Castor
<anyonethere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Thumper <jaylsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:19:52 -0700, El Castor
<anyonethere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Rita <nitany_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:37:44 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:16:14 -0400, Thumper <jaylsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:33:36 -0700, El Castor
<anyonethere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Jean Smith <gotermite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

El Castor wrote:
Fred Ghadry <falko282@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Earl wrote:

So we are not permitted to stop a paper from publishing secrets
ahead of time, and no president has ever had the nerve to bring
them to court for espionage/intelligence disclosure violations
after the secrets are published..

What strikes me most about these cases is how little secrecy seems to
mean. F'rinstance, if in fact the Chicago Tribune revealed publicly that
we had broken Japanese codes at Midway, how did their reporters find
that out? Seems to me that should have been a closely held secret within
the government, and in fact the reading I've done seems to bear out that
code-breaking success in WW2 was known to only very, very few trusted
top officers. The "secrets" that the NYT has revealed don't seem to have
been all that secret, or else their reporters have access or clearance
for the government's most "secret" operations. Perhaps the operation
wasn't "secret", but the government would have preferred that its
existence not be advertised widely.

Secrets like this one are known to a lot of people. All it takes is
one self righteous jackass with a political axe to grind, and it get's
leaked. At the very least, the reporters should be hauled before a
grand jury and compelled to reveal their sources, or be locked up, but
if we don't have the guts to prosecute the leaker, it's hard to
understand how we could ever bring ourselves to go after the
co-conspirators at the Times.

Like they say,"The Truth will out."
http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/truthwillout.html

In this case it is the efforts of the administration to turn us
into an Orwellian dictatorship, where the decider decides what
laws to obey today. In this case we are just asked to trust
employees to not abuse the data that they collect, as usual.
And as usual, they collect everyone's in the hope of finding
that special someone. They'd close Osama's bank account. Wouldn't they?

It's good to hear of progress for the folks in Guantanamo.
We can't abide the efforts to undo America.

It's legal, congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle were
briefed, and the existence of the program was classified. People like
you are selling this country down the drain and amply deserve to be
eye witnesses at the next terrorist attack. Too bad you couldn't have
been on hand to watch those poor wretches jump hand in hand from the
WTC. Perhaps the sight might have brought you to your senses, but I
doubt it. And I repeat, it's legal, congressional leaders on both
sides of the aisle were briefed, and the existence of the program was
classified. The very definition of espionage.


No one knows if it's legal. it is still in question.




What's not in question is that the Bush administration will
always try to bypass court or congressional restraints on its
own power in any way it thinks it might be able to get away
with it or at least fake its way through, using the letter of the
law especially when some reading of the letter can be
trumped up to provide some ridiculously nitpicky legal cover
that blatantly violates the spirit of the law.

It's like when they mislead the public: they do it even
when it's not necessary, just to stay in practice, and they
don't even seem to care how it looks to any sensible
person. In fact, I get the feeling that the weaselier an
argument is, the more they see that weaseliness as a
sign of the strength of their position.

Their position, overall, is to assert the primacy of the executive
powers. So they have to assert this in every case, whether or
not it is actually important to do so. Raising the power of the
executive over that of the Congress and the courts, is, of course
just what our Constitution was crafted to avoid, since too much
power to the executive smacks too closely of the divine right
of kings. Often, it seems, Congress lets them get by with this.
Now, faced with the Supreme Court ruling on military tribunals,
they are going to work on Congress to go along with their view.

There is a specific law which makes this absolutely and unquestionably
legal. It was legal when Jimmy Carter was president! It was passed by
a Democrat controlled congress for God's sake.

Read what Richard Clarke has to say on the subject:

"The International Economic Emergency Powers Act, passed in 1977,
provides the president with enormous authority over financial
transactions by America's enemies. International initiatives against
money laundering have been under way for a decade, and have been aimed
not only at terrorists but also at drug cartels, corrupt foreign
officials and a host of criminal organizations. These initiatives,
combined with treaties and international agreements, should leave no
one with any presumption of privacy when moving money electronically
between countries. Indeed, since 2001, banks have been obliged to
report even transactions entirely within the United States if there is
reason to believe illegal activity is involved. Thus we find the
privacy and illegality arguments wildly overblown."
http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2031&Itemid=27

I WANT the US to track terrorist finances. I WANT the US government to
track terrorist phone calls. Frankly I don't care what YOU want --
your mono maniacal agenda consists of ONE thing -- HATE BUSH. If a
nuclear bomb was about to go off in Times Square you people would be
arguing that opening the box that contained it was an invasion of
privacy! I have had it with you people, and so have the majority of
Americans.

And in closing let me say once again that the NY Times deliberately
revealed a LEGAL SECRET PROGRAM, and in doing so aided the enemies of
the United States. If that is not espionage and treason, I don't know
what is!


The notion of an unending "war on terror" has been used over and
over as an excuse for not asking Congress "to advise and consent"
before taking measures that are at the very least debatably
constitutional. Asserting that the U.S. is engaged in such a war
has been quite a brilliant ploy and one that many in this group seem
to accept as unquestionable.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
Jonathan Swift


I'm not going to look it up now but that was superseded by another law
in 1978. Ed Markey told about it on Hardball. The government is
required to give notification to those investigated within 48 hours of
investigating anyone.

I'm not going to even attempt to disprove a negative. You offer some
proof of what you just said -- if you expect to be believed.


Ha, ha. You still think you can run me around? Shove it.
Thumper

Of course you can't prove it.


Of course I can but the last time I proved something to you it was
ignored by you. I told you then to feel free to disprove anything I
say but I won't be run around by you again. You Republicans are
really all alike.
Thumper
The truth is that you doin't care if it's legal. If Bush does it
you're for it.

Really? If Bush does it I'm for it? Just off the top of my head, here
are some things that Bush has done that I am not for.

* Support of massive spending programs and failure to veto one single
spending bill.
* Support of steel tariffs.
* Restrictions on stem cell research.
* Nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
* Failure to secure the borders.

That's just what comes to mind at the moment.

Jeff

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
Jonathan Swift


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
Jonathan Swift

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The New York Times at War With America
    ... Seems to me that should have been a closely held secret within ... Raising the power of the ... Often, it seems, Congress lets them get by with this. ... "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The New York Times at War With America
    ... them to court for espionage/intelligence disclosure violations ... Seems to me that should have been a closely held secret within ... Raising the power of the ... Often, it seems, Congress lets them get by with this. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The New York Times at War With America
    ... them to court for espionage/intelligence disclosure violations ... Seems to me that should have been a closely held secret within ... Raising the power of the ... Often, it seems, Congress lets them get by with this. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Stock Market
    ... Most civilized people do not talk abotu money. ... keep it their little secret. ... And if they don't they try to get Congress to take it away from those ... Which is the main reason people don't talk ...
    (misc.writing)
  • London Guardian predicting a Democratic KEN STAR to come after exPresident Cheney.
    ... vice-president Dick Cheney could be forced to testify to Congress over ... could see top officials from the administration of President George W ... policy and a secret CIA assassination programme, ...
    (soc.retirement)