Treason at the New York Times

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biker said:
It's common sense, CD. The Ts know that their finances are being tracked. The Bush admin is just going to use this to further their agenda.

It is always refreshing to find folks quite willing to accept and trust the media (who are not looking out for you) over the president (who apparently is). Even if you disagree with the president and the policy what the media is doing is not in your security interest but their financial interest... but you still favor them with your support. :rolleyes:
A better example of a lemming I could not find....
 
If you'd asked me a week ago what the "SWIFT Program" was, then no, I wouldn't have been able to tell you much.

If you'd asked me whether the U.S. government was actively monitoring banking transactions, especially those carried out by telecommunications, I'd have told you that although I wasn't sure, it would not have surprised me. It didn't surprise me when the Times broke the story. I doubt very much that it surprised you.

All of which is irrelevant. The newspaper does not have an obligation to hide government programs--especially the effects of those programs upon American citizens--but to expose them. That's the way it works.
 
Jistorical background

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, in
Schenck v United States (1919) ruled:
We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the
defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would
have been within their constitutional rights. But the character
of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a
man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It
does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering
words that may have all the effect of force.

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear
and present danger that they will bring about the substantive
evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at
war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a
hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured
so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as
protected by any constitutional right.
 
If you consider me a lemming, CD, you're not paying attention to my posts. Additionally, I trust neither the Press or the Pres. Having said that, the more light that can be shed on this admin, the better IMO.

Biker
 
Since nothing is exempt from the press publishing it, would folks who feel that way be OK with them publishing the names and locations of all secret CIA operatives, how about the pictures of all undercover vice and DEA agents.

After all we need to keep tabs on what the government is doing and these spies and secret agents are no doubt violating our rights.

Perhaps they should also publish any secret military plans for operations, and diagrams of our latest weapons, our right to know how our money is being spent and our military is being used.

But wait the Government needs to keep all this secret for security reasons.
But wait we need to know to protect our rights and keep them honest.

Free speach advocates often say that you dont have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire because it endangers lives.
Free speach does not mean free speach has no consequences. Free speach is not a collective right that only applies to the press.

Why then does the press get a free pass yell fire????



The arguement here defies common sense.
 
But wait the Government needs to keep all this secret for security reasons.
But wait we need to know to protect our rights and keep tham honest.
THIS WAS NEVER SECRET.

I swear, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

And CD, if I was using SWIFT, then I would know about their operational plans. But I don't so I didn't. But I'm also not a terrorist, even though I disagree with Bush. :rolleyes:
 
Master Blaster - if the names, photos, addresses, plans, and drawings are handed to the newsmedia by a government employee, then I say YES!

If the government can't keep its own employees under control, then I think the media has an option to publish this info.

Nobody in the government is being prosecuted! The only guys taking it on the chin here is the media. Unfairly, I might add.


PS: for those interested, there are websites which show pictures of some undercover officers as well as their home addresses.
 
If only the problem were really the Admnistration OR the Media rather than BOTH. One implies the other. Bush and the NY Times are doing a sick lambada. We have a deep problem with our culture and the symptoms are W. and leaker(s) and the sophistos at the NYT.
 
WASHINGTON (SatireNewsService) -- Yesterday, September 11, 1943, the New York Times reported that allied cryptanalysts had been, for several years, decoding top-secret Axis war messages. The Times story revealed that thousands of code-breakers working in a suburb of London had broken Germany's Enigma military codes. The vast operation, code-named "ULTRA", had succeeded in regularly reading secret military orders broadcast through the German airwaves. In addition, the Times reported that American code-breakers, in an operation called "MAGIC", had broken Imperial Japan's highly secret military code. MAGIC reportedly had successfully intercepted thousands of secret war messages from the Japanese high command to forces in the field and at sea.

"ULTRA and MAGIC were extremely powerful weapons in our arsenal," said General George Marshall U.S. Army Chief of Staff, following the Times revelations. "Our ability to read enemy orders in real time led directly to our great and critical victory at Midway as well as the defeat of Rommel in North Africa and the shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto's plane last spring. ULTRA was considered an irreplaceable element of our future invasion plans for Europe and MAGIC would have played a powerful role in successfully concluding our war against the brutal Japanese military government."

The decision to publish the story has sparked passionate controversy and was preceded by intense lobbying of Times executives from President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill to withhold publication.

Mr. Churchill in a transatlantic telephone call reportedly pleaded with Times executives to suppress the story, stating that in wartime, "the truth is so valuable to our enemies that it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies and deceptions."

Mr. Roosevelt reportedly argued that the ULTRA and MAGIC operations had prevented "dastardly acts" by the enemy and that the revelation of these secrets would set back the allied invasion of Europe and the defeat of Japan "by years", causing the unnecessary deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Times publisher Arthur Hays "Paunch" Sulzburger defended the decision stating: "it is in the public interest to know how this war is being fought. It is part of the continuing national debate over the aggressive measures employed by this administration and the British government." Sulzberger reported that Times executives weighed both governments' arguments carefully. However, in the end the Times determined that the possibility of government misuse was too great to ignore. "The program . . . is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires information," said Sulzberger.

Peace groups and administration critics lauded the Times' decision to publish the story. "This administration has performed numerous illegal acts during this illegal war," said Norman Chomsky, professor of phrenology and astrology at MIT and a leading critic of the American and British war efforts. "We have attacked Italy, which never attacked us. We have illegally sold arms to the British, we have illegally targeted Admiral Yamamoto for assassination, we have illegally jailed and executed so-called 'German spies' without benefit of trial. This administration is far worse than the regimes of Hitler, Tojo or Mussolini. It is drunk on power."

Privacy advocates also questioned the ability of the users of MAGIC and ULTRA to maintain the rights of people who might have been innocently short-waving private messages to friends and relatives inside Germany and Japan as well as occupied countries. The ACLU issued the following statement: "The revelation of these highly-questionable systems, MAGIC and ULTRA, raises the need to have a public review system in place to determine whether any particular intercepted transmission is important to the war effort. Preferably these reviews would be by a court of law with established procedures and appellate review. Certainly the governments of Germany and Japan would have standing in such a situation."

Following the publication, Prime Minister Churchill called the action by the Times, "a devastating loss equal in consequence to defeat on the battlefield."

President Roosevelt condemned the revelations as "tremendously damaging to the allies, profoundly helpful to Hitler and Tojo, and utterly destructive to free men and women everywhere." The President called on Attorney General Francis Biddle to immediately take action to prosecute the Times for treason, saying: "I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us."

In the face of these unprecedented criticisms, Sulzberger has remained adamant. "It would be better that Hitler and Tojo win this war than that we give up our ability to publish these secrets," he said. "If we fail to publish, the so-called "Axis" wins," he said.
 
You avoided the question... how much did you know about the SWIFT program last week?

David,

Steve was right. THIS WAS NEVER A SECRET. Apparently, you avoided even
reading my last post. Our government had never concealed this monitoring.
A particular program name is irrelevant. It's kind of like shooting bullets at
the BGs and saying "they didn't know we're shooting bullets at them." Of
course, they do. The entire cartridge specifications are publicly posted on
the internet by the federal gov, companies sell the same kind of bullets
(technology) to both civilians and other governments (friendly and hostile),
and the BGs have been pulling the bullets (Federal Indictments) out of their
bodies for a couple decades now.
 
You avoided the question... how much did you know about the SWIFT program last week?
Please go back and re-read my last post. I will repost the relevant section here for your convenience:
And CD, if I was using SWIFT, then I would know about their operational plans. But I don't so I didn't. But I'm also not a terrorist, even though I disagree with Bush.
 
Thin Black Line said:
THIS WAS NEVER A SECRET. Apparently, you avoided even reading my last post. Our government had never concealed this monitoring.

I read your post... There is a very large difference and a large gulf between a program not being a secret and a program appearing on the front page of The New York Times. Apparently, however, you have not read my posts where I have made this fact plain.

Since you seem to be an advocate for the Times, a question for you:

Since there was nothing illegal implied by the Times on the SWIFT program, on behalf of the administration, why did the Times report on it and devote to it front-page status? The answer to that question will enlighten you why so Americans found this behavior by the Times offensive and treasonous...
 
David,

Not an advocate for the times --just a member of Joshua's Band of
Trumpeteers when it comes to the eventual triumph of reason.

I don't need to be "enlightened" at all. I did my time both in civilian gov't
and in the sandbox where I was plenty "enlightened." You need to leave
your dark bunker in the beltway bubble and talk to the common man about
the NYT and this created controversy. This is the usual old BS political
posturing and you'd be surprised how most people see right through it.

They're too busy trying to keep up with their ARMs (mortgages) and
wondering if they'll have a job next year thanks to unenforced borders
and a bankrupted economy to spend the time complaining or writing about
this latest East Coast drama escapade.
 
Extremely hard to get questions answered on this board with all the posturing...
I know I've gotten mine answered:

Release of secret military positions during wartime by FOX reporter = "technical misunderstanding"

Release of non-secret foreign financial investigation by NYT reporter = "treason"

I think that about sums it up for me. ;)
 
If I wanted to disinform terrorists about how I was
tracking their finances, I would leak a phony story
to the New Yoek Times. They are like Mikey in the
commercials, they'll eat anything.
 
With rights and privilige comes responsibility.

you can agree or disagree with the war, or how it is waged.

but whether you play semantically and call it a continuance of PGWI, WOT, a police action or whatever at the end of the day it is the same. We have men and women overseas in harms way. it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and fits the definition of sedition.

IMO, to print that story, whether asked not to or told not to puts them beyond the pale. then again, it is the same NYT where Jason Blair wrote ficticiously for quite a spell.

To those defending it with "the information was already out there", and "the terrorist are smart, don't you think they knew?". As the story goes, apparently not. there were possibly more stings in the pipeline. This may in some ways be a clever enemy, but they don't approach our level of sophistication. Many still communicate in unguarded emails to each other.

So I say that even if they didn't have a legal obligation to withhold the story then they had a moral obligation, which they failed. and yes the leaker or leakers should be punished.

and anyone who believes that the NYT was doing this to protect our rights, and inform us of an agregious invasion of privacy, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd be glad to sell you.
 
I think The New York Times is doing a fine job.

I am not in the market for a bridge at this time.
 
These elitist POS who wrap themselves in the first amendment disgust me, and soon or later their lies and spin should land them in bad places.
Yikes.

Don't get me wrong, I think the times is a rag. If the times knew it wasn't much of a secret. If you can find information about swift at swift.com its not much of a secret. If you want to buy into the times sensationalization of the story making it into more than it is, thats your thing.

If anyone has the right to be mad, it sounds like Belgium to me.
The Belgian government says it will look into U.S. data mining of private financial records held by SWIFT -- a Brussels-based global banking entity.

"We need to ask what are the legal frontiers in this case and whether it is right that a U.S. civil servant could look at private transactions without the approval of a Belgian judge," government spokesman Didier Seus said Monday.
 
The Belgian government says it will look into U.S. data mining of private financial records held by SWIFT -- a Brussels-based global banking entity.
Don't know where you got this Soybomb but it sure looks like it is going to be more difficult for the intelligence services to get information.

.
.
.

Thanks to the traitors at the NY Times.
 
Huffing and puffing. Positioning for public consumption.

Just off hand I'd think USG is one of the better customers of those who engage in international funds transfers. Huff and puff for the benefit of the peeps but keep doin' bidness.
 
"You need to leave your dark bunker in the beltway bubble and talk to the common man about the NYT and this created controversy. This is the usual old BS political posturing and you'd be surprised how most people see right through it."

Clear, concise and to the point.

The NY Times does have a pretty good Sunday crossword puzzle. :cool:

John
 
One more time since apparently it didn't stick the first time around for some of the hard heads: this program WAS NOT a secret. It had already been described to the UN in a report by counterterrorism financial experts back in 2002 that anyone with a web browser would have been able to find.

The terrorists know and have known (because we've already used these sorts of methods to catch terrorists) that we're scrutinizing their funds. If you doubt this...you need a TV and a newspaper subscription.

It's kinda sad how right wing partisans are whipped into a NYT hating froth so easily and are so easily manipulated--especially when there's nothing to this story. Doubly so when you consider that none of you are calling for the WSJ's head, even though they ran a concurrent story. Sad. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top