NY Times and intelligence leaks

[scaeagles]

Just because you know something does not mean you should make it public, does it?

International banking transaction surveillance program reported on by NY Times (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/060626164552.42jdcx2d.html)

Early reports are that this program has no controversy surrounding it as the NSA monitoring program did. This was a program to monitor internaitonal financial transactions to identify and track terrorist operations. Follow the money.

The NY Times apparently had 20 different sources for their story. There are calls for charges under various intelligence and espionage laws.

Just because you know something as a reporter, should you report it? Or is it a case of shooting the messenger? I am disgusted hat 20 people would divulge such a classified program to anyone in the press, and am also disgusted that the NY Times couldn't bring iself to hold the story.

If a reported knew of D-Day before it happened, should they have reported on it?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The UN Security council report from 2002, which is still viewable online stated:

"“The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.”

So how was this just leaked when the information has been available online since 2002? Also, it is my understanding that the WSJ ran the same story. Why is the NY Times being singled out?

[scaeagles]

As far as the UN security council report, can't speak to it. I guess that perhaps terrorists might monitor such, but I do know here has been success with the program after the UN reported it and prior to the NY Times leak.

As for the WSJ, they would deserve the same treatment as the NYT should the stories prove to violate law.

I am not trying to pick on the NYT - I would harshly criticize anyone who reports on classified programs such as this.

[Alex]

There is a difference between saying "phone lines can be tapped" and "hey, Claude Jones, the drug dealer on 43rd and 16th, the Feds have been tapping your phone lines since last Tuesday."

Odds are this is somewhere in between and I don't know enough to know exactly where. But that seems somewhat irrelevant. Pretty much everybody seems to agree that it was a legal program and the hook on which Bill Keller hung running the story was that it was "open" to abuse. Not that abuse was happening (as is a case more easily made with the wiretapping story) but just that it could happen.

If a legal program is legally classified, I don't like the idea of the editorial team at a newspaper deciding what gets to remain classified. However, I also support most of the protections that allow the New York Times to run such stories (even if I think them misguided) so I probably have to live with the tradeoff.

That said, the government is thoroughly justified in tracking and punishing whoever is leaking the information to the New York Times.


ETA: Being somewhat familiar with banking regulation I can also say that pretty much any large transation (whether domestic or international) is either monitored by the government or regulations require banks to keep certain information should the government ever decide they want it. Smart terrorists will know this as it is not a secret and will work to avoid it already. But then odds are good that relatively few of the terrorists are smart.

[Gemini Cricket]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

^ This is a bipartisan amendment that protects Americans' rights. What Bush is doing is against everything the Amendment stands for. His wire tapping and now snooping into our bank records is outrageous. What is his probable cause to search all the individuals he's looking into? This 'war on terrorism' is a blank check for the man. He should be impeached.

I applaud the NY Times. They're not always my favorite paper, but they did what was right. I'd rather know the shady things this Administration is doing than pretend that they are incapable of wrongdoing.

[scaeagles]

A bipartisan amendment? What exactly does that mean?

Hate to tell you this GC, but there are laws on the books already related to monitoring of the US banking industry which have been upheld as Constitutional that have absolutely nothing to do with anything the Bush administration has done.

[scaeagles]

Intelligence about those communications implicates no legally recognized privacy interests. To begin with, they are predominantly foreign, and international. To the extent the U.S. Constitution might be thought to apply, the Supreme Court held nearly 30 years ago that records in the hands of third parties — including financial records maintained by banks — are not private, and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, to the extent Congress later supplemented privacy protections by statute, those laws regulated disclosures by financial institutions. SWIFT (Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is not a financial institution.


Source (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI=)

[Gemini Cricket]

A bipartisan amendment? What exactly does that mean?
What do you think it means?
Hate to tell you this GC, but there are laws on the books already related to monitoring of the US banking industry which have been upheld as Constitutional that have absolutely nothing to do with anything the Bush administration has done.
Sure. This whole thing is in the news and Bush is so pissed off about it because he and his Administration have nothing to do with it. Uh huh.

Anyone who supports Bush at this point in time needs to find better heroes.
:rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

Calling the fourth amendment, which is part of the bill of rights, a bipartisan amendment shows a lack of historical knowledge. There wasn't a two party system at that point in the history of the US. The Constitutional convention at which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned had nothing to do with bipartisanship in the least. This is why I was trying to get you to define it.

I didn't say Bush had nothing to do with it. The SWIFT monitoring is new in the post 9/11 era. Monitoring of bank records is not (note the reference to Supreme Court decision over 30 years old saying domestic banking records are not private). Been around for a long, long time, prior to the Bush administration. Yet everything that you consider to be an invasion of privacy is somehow the fault of and directly caused by the Bush administration.

Be pissed at the program. Fine. I have no problem with someone who wants to argue against it.

Anyone who is so blinded by political rage that requires finger pointing in the same direction for everything they dislike, regardless of the history of those things, is irrational and cannot be taken seriously on such subjects.

Due to the confrontational content of my post, please note that my signature line does not apply to any conversation I have with anyone here. I just put it in because I thought it was funny.

[innerSpaceman]

I just don't get the broohaha at all. Was it ever a secret that our gov't was monitoring international financial transactions for possible terrorist connections? How is leaking such a "d'uh" piece of information treasonous or espionage in any way? What am I missing?

[scaeagles]

The official outing of an active intelligence gathering program is problematic. It is common knowledge that US monitors domestic banking transactions and does so legally (which is why I find the outrage about the existance of the program laughable in talking about how it is a violaton of some sort of privacy to Americans when domestic banking has been ruled to not be protected by the 4th amendment). I am not sure how common the SWIFT monitoring was. Regardless of opinion about if it is "d'uh" or not, it is classifed.

The program has proven successful though the only announced apprehension in the wake of the story involved an Indonesian terrorist in 2002, I believe.

Hypothetical - I have intel on 15 subjects. If I arrest them all at the same time, the linkage is more easily made as to how i gathered the intelligence on them. If I monitor and space out such apprehensions, the methods of intelligence gathering can be more easily kept secret.

[wendybeth]

I find it a bit humorous that the very party that was behind the outting of an undercover CIA agent for political purposes is now crying "treason" in this situation. Truthfully, I don't know enough about the legalities involved here to really comment, but I can't help but note that my outrage has been somewhat lessoned due to what has transpired before.

[Alex]

So that would be the "two wrongs make a right" school of political thought?

[Gemini Cricket]

Anyone who is so blinded by political rage that requires finger pointing in the same direction for everything they dislike, regardless of the history of those things, is irrational and cannot be taken seriously on such subjects.
I'd love to hear you argue a case for Bush where you don't say 'Yeah, well someone else did it first' as your defense of this Administration.

The 4th Amendment was written with the people in mind. Not who believes what. You're saying that all the framers thought the same way just because there were no parties? Despite their differences, they had everyone in mind, not just their political interests. I think the current Administration needs to think on that.

I don't know if this current program that Bush is defending goes further into personal records or not. I don't know if my bank records are going to be analyzed. But I wouldn't be surprised if everyone was being monitored.

Your arguments that my opinions are nothing more than blind political rage is laughable. Go ahead, discount them. I could care less. It's true, I have a hard time embracing anything positive that Bush and his cronies can do. 100% true. It's like finding a bright side to Jack Abramoff for me. 'Yeah, he's done some wrong things but you're ignoring the good stuff he has done.' All credibility is gone for me once someone supremely fu cks up. And fu cking up in Iraq is a big one for me right now. 'Yeah, Bush messed up and 2500 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. But he did just create one of the biggest marine sanctuaries in the Pacific near your home state. Why don't you give him credit for that?' Oh yeah, I forgot. All is forgiven. Thanks, Dubya!

And as far as blaming the newspapers for covering this story... I'm tired of hearing from this Administration that any dissenting voice against Bush is:
1. Aiding terrorists.
2. Bad for morale with the troops.
3. Unpatriotic
4. Extreme activism

That's tired Roveian rhetoric.

[scaeagles]

I'd love to hear you argue a case for Bush where you don't say 'Yeah, well someone else did it first' as your defense of this Administration.

And I'd love to hear you speak with historical context and realize that often times what you think is something new and shocking has been going on forever. The perception is that these things are new and Bush is an evil man for starting such things.

I didn't defend the program based on someone else starting it. I defended by saying it legal and that the Supreme Court over 30 years ago said that banking records are not private and therefore are not subject to 4th Amendment protections.

I didn't say the framers had no differences. I said the term bipartisan made no sense in this context.

I am critical of policies that I dislike. Like border policy. I praise policies I like. Like tax policy. This was true with previous administrations as well. With Clinton, I liked NAFTA and Bosnia. I disliked his health care plans. Without trying to redebate those, I am only pointing out that I have the ability to look at the proposed policy and make a decision about my preference to that policy. You should try that sometime.

I don't think I've ever said "I'll excuse Bush's immigration policy because I like his tax policy." Far from it.

I am amused by the arrogance of some who think the government has interest in their conversation with Aunt Maybell about her bunyons or about the $40 ATM withdrawal. The government hasn't the manpower to monitor everything, nor do I think they want to.

(edited a grammatical typo)

[Gemini Cricket]

And I love to hear you speak with historical context...
You'd love to hear me let Bush off for everything he's done because people in his position in the past have also made mistakes.

How can I speak historically of a man who has taken away many of the rights that many of his predecessors fought to uphold? This guy's working backwards.

[scaeagles]

To the contrary. I don't even let Bush off on what I think is stupid. Please refer to border policy and spending discussions.

Please provide a specific list of what rights Bush has taken away from you.

[SacTown Chronic]

When the self appointed morals police own the White House, you can bet your ass they are interested in my conversation with Aunt Maybell.

When evangelical Christians choose to force their beliefs down our throats via the political process instead of trying to convert us (as per their marching orders from God) - that is to say, no longer our saviours but our would-be oppressors - the only logical response, in my mind, is eternal vigilance and a willingness to defend every inch of our freedom by any means neccessary.

So, no, I don't think the NYT should keep this information from the public eye. When it comes to my government in general, and this government in particular,...the more transparency, the better. And if that means I die a free man at the hands of a terrorist instead of living to a ripe old age in a not-so-free America, well, so much the better.

[Nephythys]

To the contrary. I don't even let Bush off on what I think is stupid. Please refer to border policy and spending discussions.

Please provide a specific list of what rights Bush has taken away from you.


and please also provide evidence that anyone "outed" a CIA agent for political reasons- if a special prosecutor could find no proof of it- nor can anyone here. It's this notion that if you say it often enough it might come true.

[scaeagles]

Sac, while exceptionally well written, I am curious.....what information in terms of intelligence gathering methods or classified programs should be permitted to remain secretive?

The subject program wasn't illegal. Legal precendence has said banking records are not private information.

Morals police...could I not claim that about any and every social program that has been imposed upon us by the morals police? Medicare, welfare, food stamps, whatever. I don't want anyone to accuse me of not supporting such programs as a safety not, but are not they imposed because the leaders in power at the time determined that it was the right and/or moral thing to do? Rhetorically, because Jesus said we should feed the hungry, doesn't that mean it is a violation of church and state to actually feed them?

If something has a moral overtone or basis it does not mean it is unacceptable. There can be disagreement about whether it is a good idea, but simply because there are moral overtones doesn't mean that an idea should be thrown out of the political process. It should be allowed in the political process, voted on as anything else would be, and ruled on in the courts if necessary. I would suggest the process is working rather well, as the Lawrence v. Texas case would seem to indicate in getting rid of laws that have no constitutional basis.

[SacTown Chronic]

My thoughts on the specific issue of tracking banking transactions and the NYT's bean-spilling is that it's much ado about nothing. Bush's ridiculous comments about how revelation of this program puts America at risk strikes me as protesting too much. I mean, really, any American over the age of twelve knows the government tracks the financial activities of any and all suspected criminals. Any terrorist too dumb to know this probably lacks the financial resources to even catch the government's eye and is best suited for wearing the dynamite vest.

Most likely the leak came from the administration itself. Election year and all that rot. Bush gets to rail against the liberal media while at the same time the public gets a harmless peek into the inner workings of a hardon terror administration. Win-win, baby!

[scaeagles]

I find your theory to be plausible, actually.

[Gemini Cricket]

A number of people from within the Administration divuldged this info to the NY Times. So why isn't Bush investigating who leaked the info? Why shoot the messenger by targeting the NY Times?

Also, I hope this is clear to everyone how this issue is out there to take focus away from more pressing matters. This issue, the gay marriage issue, the flag burning issue are all being used to distract from failures in Iraq and is in spin mode to rally the GOP supporters. It's as simple as that.

[scaeagles]

So why isn't Bush investigating who leaked the info? Why shoot the messenger by targeting the NY Times?

Not trying to be snarky (seriously), but has there been an announcement that that there would be no investigation?

The NY Times knew the program was classified prior to publishing it. They are not innocent.

I know something about you. Someone told me a secret about you. I pronounce this to the world. Who are you mad at? Most likely the friend who told me and me for making it public. You aren't going to excuse me, are you?

[Gemini Cricket]

Not trying to be snarky (seriously), but has there been an announcement that that there would be no investigation?
What I'm saying is, why is the focus on the newspaper and not the 20 people who went to the paper? Why isn't he coming out saying that he'd find out who leaked the info?
The NY Times knew the program was classified prior to publishing it. They are not innocent.
They aren't innocent, but I'm glad I know about this program now. In fact, if the phone tapping story wasn't leaked we would have never heard about it. I'm someone who likes to know what's up.
Now certain politicians are saying the NY Times is being treasonous. Talk about McCarthy-esque!
I know something about you. Someone told me a secret about you. I pronounce this to the world. Who are you mad at? Most likely the friend who told me and me for making it public. You aren't going to excuse me, are you?
It's not the same. It would be more like if I knew a secret, let a lot of people in on it and 20 of them leaked the story to you. If your job in the hypothetical situation was to report the news, you're doing your job... Of course I'd be mad at you, but I'd be madder at the 20 people I thought I could trust to keep my secret.
Then again, I wouldn't be doing anything shady that would cause a lot of controversy to begin with.
:)

[scaeagles]

Now certain politicians are saying the NY Times is being treasonous.

trea·son n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (emphasis mine)

Would not reporting on (and leaking, for that matter) a classified program on the surveillance of terrorists who wish to bring harm to us be the very definition of treason?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Would not reporting on (and leaking, for that matter) a classified program on the surveillance of terrorists who wish to bring harm to us be the very definition of treason?I find the act of questioning our government about as far from teason as possible. One of the things that used to separate the American ideology from the rest of the world is that information is not dangerous, information is not illegal, information is freedom. That's the beauty of the freedom of press, that's the beauty of the freedom of speech (which was written into the Constitution in order to protect our right to question our government, not Howard Stern's right to talk about vaginas).

It may be that all of these programs, including the wire tapping, turn out to be perfectly legal and justifiable. What angers me is Bush's attitude that to even question whether they are or not is inherently unamerican. As far as I'm concerned, it's about as American as it gets.

[scaeagles]

I find the act of questioning our government about as far from teason as possible.

Good lord, GD. There is a huge difference between questioning the government and revealing classified programs. Any cries of treason for questioning if we should be in Iraq are ridiculous. Cries of treason for revealing classified terrorist surveillance methods? Certainly not.

This is WAY beyond questioning the government.

Certain information most certainly can be and is dangerous. Loose lips sink ships and all. There is a reason certain things are classified.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Good lord, GD. There is a huge difference between questioning the government and revealing classified programs. Any cries of treason for questioning if we should be in Iraq are ridiculous. Cries of treason for revealing classified terrorist surveillance methods? Certainly not.
But it's gone beyond cries of treason for revealing the information. Bush has urged people to drop lawsuits that came up after the program was already leaked because "it might risk national security." Sorry, bub, but just because you want to continue to sneak around doesn't mean citizens have to give up their right to protect their freedoms.

I believe anyone who has classified clearence that leaks classified information should be prosecuted. But I don't believe the people who receive that information have any obligation to keep it a secret once it's been leaked. If Bush can't inspire his people to work with him on this oh-so-vital programs, that's a problem he has to deal with internally. It's not a problem that or should be solved by going after the messenger.

[scaeagles]

But it's gone beyond cries of treason for revealing the information. Bush has urged people to drop lawsuits that came up after the program was already leaked because "it might risk national security." Sorry, bub, but just because you want to continue to sneak around doesn't mean citizens have to give up their right to protect their freedoms.

Without addressing the merits of that argument, that steps beyond the original scope of what I was addressing, being whether or not the revealing of classified information in his instance could be considered treasonous. It is not unreasonable to suggest it.

As far as dropping lawsuits.....any discussion of this classified program would reveal more methodology, I would suspect. What is wrong with urging anything anyway? And as previously mentioned, bank records have already been ruled on by the SC to not be privileged information.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Without addressing the merits of that argument, that steps beyond the original scope of what I was addressing, being whether or not the revealing of classified information in his instance could be considered treasonous. It is not unreasonable to suggest it.Perhaps, but that requires some pretty liberal stertching of the definition of "purposely aiding". I mean, if that's treason, than so is the many times we've all posted about how easy it is to get through Disneyland bag checks with knives in our pockets. Heck, that's worse as we provide a specific method for our enemies to defeat security.

What is wrong with urging anything anyway?What's wrong is that it continues the implication that "you're either for us or against us." Either you simply take for granted that our government is doing the right thing, don't question it, waive your flag, and cheer 'em on...or you're trying to undermine America. I'm insulted by that attitude, and insulted that our leader has it.

[Alex]

Do we agree that there exists a need for our government to be able to classify information for the benefit of the country?

If you don't agree with that statement then obviously a newspaper can never be wrong in revealing any classified information that comes into its possession.

However, if there is a value to the government being able to hide certain information then who decides when it is ok to break that veil?

If CNN had learned the details our attack on Zarqawi and hour before it happened and went on the air spilling all of the details. Would that be right? After all, I too like to know things. Do I have the right to know that my government is about to commit a targetted killing?

Obviously that leak is not the same thing as this leak, it is just to probe whether you think there is ever information that the press could come to possess that it should not divulge.

I'm guessing that nobody is at either extreme on this issue. That nobody thinks either that the government is absolute in its right to determine the secrets to be kept (I have no problem with the publication of the Pentagon Papers) or that the government has zero right to decide that some information need be kept secret.

So then we're just haggling over where the line is, not whether there is actually a line. For me, I am uncomfortable with the decision being solely in the hands of three people in a New York City highrise in personal political opposition to the person they are reporting on. This is a situation where there is no claim that a law is being broken (as can be claimed with the domestic call monitoring) or even that there has been a change in legal methods.

As I said earlier in this thread, I am of an overall position that what the Times did is a cost of allowing the press to generally be free. However, it is comical to watch people engage in the synchronized dance of hypocrisy on the issue of leak punishment (where people take equal and opposite positions on the issue depending on whether the specific case fits their worldview of which party is evil). But that doesn't mean they aren't bad people.

And GC, I have no doubt at all that they are trying to find out who leaked the information.

[Gemini Cricket]

And GC, I have no doubt at all that they are trying to find out who leaked the information.
So why not say this as well while they lambast the NY Times? Because it plays better for the GOP to act like the NY Times is a threat to our country. Our country seems so fragile if the NY Times can bring it down with one story...

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'll defend someone's rights, even if I think they're idiots for exercising them. Do I think it's "right" to publish classified information that has clear national security information, as in Alex's Zarqawi example? I suppose not. But neither do I think it's criminal or teasonous. Just stupid. I think the only situation where I'd change that tune is if the paper were actively seeking to find classified information (e.g. paying classified informants, obtaining classified docs by illegal means, etc.). Otherwise, if someone with classified status comes to them, then the legal consequences should be on the person doing the leaking.

[Alex]

So we, as citizens of this country, have no obligation to assist the government in keeping the secrets it is rightfully keeping?

The obligation is purely on an amorphous concept of "the government" preventing 1.2 million federal employees from saying things to the press that they shouldn't?

I agree that the legal responsibility falls to the leaker. But I allege that moral responsibility is shared by both parties. I doubt you'll ever see legal charges against any publication because of this story but I also have no problem with trying to turn public opinion against them for having printed the story.

Again, I don't feel that treason was committed, but it sounds to me like you feel it is impossible to publish information with treasonous intent.

[Alex]

obtaining classified docs by illegal means, etc.

I didn't notice this, but by definition classified information will be received by illegal means. There is no legal way to give classified information to a reporter without first declassifying it.

[Alex]

So why not say this as well while they lambast the NY Times? Because it plays better for the GOP to act like the NY Times is a threat to our country. Our country seems so fragile if the NY Times can bring it down with one story...

As soon as someone makes that claim of fragility you'll have a good point.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

However, it is comical to watch people engage in the synchronized dance of hypocrisy

I liked this...

I'm still amazed that people reveal classified information. Back when I used to deal with it, we had the pants threatened off of us if we were to lose the information, much less release it to the public....

[Ghoulish Delight]

Again, I don't feel that treason was committed, but it sounds to me like you feel it is impossible to publish information with treasonous intent.I think we actually agree on this point. Like I said, while I don't think it's criminal, it's possible for it to be ill-advised, stupid, and "wrong".

And by "illegal means", I meant along the lines of paying a janitor to swipe documents, or flat out breaking and entering. Anything other than someone with classified information choosing on their own to approach someone without clearence to leak info.

[Gemini Cricket]

As soon as someone makes that claim of fragility you'll have a good point.
Use what ever word you want instead of 'fragility'. But think of all the times that this administration has claimed that their war on terror has been compromised because someone in the "liberal" media printed something.

[Alex]

Claiming the war on terror has been compromised is not claiming that the country has been brought down which is what you said.

[Alex]

I think we actually agree on this point. Like I said, while I don't think it's criminal, it's possible for it to be ill-advised, stupid, and "wrong".

So where do you fall on this particular instance? What makes it "wrong" (even if it isn't legally criminal) or not wrong in this case?

[Ghoulish Delight]

So where do you fall on this particular instance? What makes it "wrong" (even if it isn't legally criminal) or not wrong in this case?
In this particular case, it's just a bit sad. Desperate smear attempt with no apparant motivation other than to make the administration look bad. But I don't consider it much of a threat to national security since, "the government pays attention to international bank transactions" is hardly the headline of the century. If any terrorist didn't know that already, then they'll be dumb enough to be caught in some other manner.

[scaeagles]

It depends, though, GD. There is a difference between "The US can utilize financial information from international banking transactions to track known terrorists" and "The US is analyzing international finanacial transactions to assist in identifying terrorists".

The first was widely known. I do not believe the second was widely known at all, and that is the thrust of the program.

So to me, deciding what classified information isn't that important and which classified information is can only be made by those with the current authority to classify and declassify. Otherwise there is no such thing as classified.

[Gemini Cricket]

Claiming the war on terror has been compromised is not claiming that the country has been brought down which is what you said.
Hello... Call that what you will. My point is still the same.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

And yet, still not one mention of prosecuting the WSJ for doing the same thing that the NYT did. All I head from everyone in the administration and Right-wing talk shows is about what the evil NYT's did. Not one word anywhere about the conservative Wall Street Journal.

[scaeagles]

Tom Delay was associated with Jack Abramoff and was forced to step down from leadership. But what about Harry Reid? He's associated with Jack Abramoff but maintains his leadership position.

If I posted something like that, cries would abound from this board saying the only way I could justify Delay was to point out wrong doing by someone else.

Is that what you're doing MBC? I don't disagree that the WSJ and any leakers of the info should face some sort of penalty along with the NYT. But that doesn't change what the NYT has done.

I would be interested to hear what you think about the NYT, WSJ, the leakers, treason, and freedom of the press in relation to classified material.

[Alex]

Not that I approve of the WSJ doing it any more than the NY Times, the NY Times published first. Something can only be leaked in this manner once.


The other two newspapers were willing to comply with the government's request not to publish the story and only did so once the New York Times did so anyway.

Ultimately, I think that is what really upsets a lot of people about this one. The wiretapping story has a much stronger case for dissemination and yet the NYT waited a year to run it. On this story there is no real argument for why it needs to be reported now (the spector of future abuse was raised but that doesn't justify disclosure now of an otherwise legal operation) and rejected bi-partisan requests from both the White House and Congress to hold the story.

That's just how the newspaper world works. They'll sometimes agree to keep a secret but once that secret is revealed anyway they will cover it.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I would be interested to hear what you think about the NYT, WSJ, the leakers, treason, and freedom of the press in relation to classified material.

Have to meet a client in a few minutes, but I'll try to respond later. :)

[Alex]

Hello... Call that what you will. My point is still the same.

Ok, then we're back to your original comment. The point of which seems to be:

It is awfully silly to claim that this leak will bring America down since that would mean America is awfully fragile.

Since nobody has made that claim, your post, while accurate, has no bearing on anything being discussed.

However, if that point is not the point you were making (and remains the same) could you please clear it up because I see no alternate reading for it.

Other, of course, than the intentional use of hyperbole to enflame your point, making it seem more obvious than it really is. But since that is what you are so upset about other people doing, that can't possibly be it.

[innerSpaceman]

I'd just like to point out that while bank records have indeed been SupremeCourtly decreed not private, what the Times and the Journal and others revealed IS illegal activity on the part of the Bush administration.

It is still a legal requirement that a warrant be issued, that a court of some kind say it's ok to snoop at bank records. The reason this is a newsworthy story is the pattern of abuse this program continues from the thread of the NSA phone surveillance method. Court approval and warrants could easily be obtained, and yet the Bush administration thumbs its nose at bothering. It's not so much what they do (since a court might allow it anyway), it's that they flaunt the American system of checks & balances, and instead insist on behaving like a dictatorship ... simply because they want to and want to establish unfettered powers for the presidency as an institution.

Same thing with the signing statements that Bush has issued, claiming his administration does not have to obey laws passed by Congress. He has issued more of these than all other presidents combined, and it's noteworthy that Republican senator Arlen Spector has declared an intention to sue the White House over this nefarious practice.

Bush is clearly demonstrating a doctrine of being unchecked by the courts and unchecked by Congress. If this is not trying to set up the presidency as a dictatorate, then I don't know what is.

[Alex]

That's simply not true that a warrant is necessary in this situation.

U.S. v. Miller removed from financial records the protection of the 4th Amendment.

See v. City of Seattle gave SC endorsement of administrative subpeonas.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president authority to use administrative subpoenas to compel production of financial documents in a time of emergency.

In 2002 and every year since then the President has notified Congress that he was using the powers granted to him un the IEEPA to pursue terrorists globally (an expansion of the annual "terrorism" state of emergency that has been in effect for the Middle East since 1995).

The IEEPA requires that the White House report to congress on such issues. The White House, Treasury Department, and Congressional intelligence committees all say that this reporting has been happening.

You can debate the value of such a program and whether it should happen, but so far I have seen nobody raise any kind of compelling case that it was illegal. The closest the New York Times came was saying that "some legal scholars express concern about the program." The ACLU (an organization I generally support) has come right out and said it is illegal but have not said what laws were broken.

[Alex]

I should temper what I've said. I don't know that it simply isn't true. I do know that so far I haven't seen anybody make a compelling case that it is true (so far it has simply been "truth by declaration" hoping to make it so) or a compelling refutation of the case that it is legal.

[innerSpaceman]

Hmmm, I wish I didn't find this story so ho-hum and much adieu, or I might be tempted to check into the facts more.

[Alex]

You're of the opinion that the president is in violation of the constitution. That he intends to remain in violation of the constitution, and that all three branches of government so far have no problem with this violation of the constitution and you find it a ho-hum story and much ado about nothing?

[Gemini Cricket]

It is awfully silly to claim that this leak will bring America down since that would mean America is awfully fragile.

That is exactly my point, which you have yet to address. What I am saying is that people like Bush and Cheney are blaming the press for leaking information that Bush himself, days after 9/11, said he was going to do. They are also saying that this is bad for America. If everything dissenting voice is bad for America, then are they saying this country is fragile? Too vulnerable for this sort of exposure? It's the same claim the GOP used against anyone who is critical of the war in Iraq. 'Don't say that, it's bad for the morale of the troops.' Again, are they saying that the troops are too fragile to weather such criticism.

I think you understand my post(s), Alex. But often when I come up with a point you suddenly attack the way it is written instead of addressing the point that I have no doubt you understand (not agree with, but understand). I refuse to believe that after 5 years of posting in threads with you that you are so confused and unclear by what I mean when I talk about this Administration.

[Alex]

I didn't attack the way it was written. If your point is that people are claiming this leak will bring America down then your point is irrelevant since nobody has said that. When question you changed it to claiming that people were saying it would compromrise the war on terrorism. This is much more valid, but when questioned again you changed it back.

Therefore, since I assume you don't intend to be irrelevant that you haven't quite said what you meant. But I stand corrected.

Apparently you equate someone saying that something is bad with saying it is maximally destructive. I do think I understand your posts about the administration. You are so irrationally vitriolic that it doesn't matter to you if your claims and statements about the administratin make any sense so long as they fulfill your belief that they are essentially pure evil and deception. That this view then enables you to do exactly that which you claim to hate so much in them (manipulation and ignoring of facts to serve predetermined ends) and bristle at any suggestion that you provide support for the claims you make. Your discussion on issues related to the president generally boil down to "I don't care about facts! He's a doo doo head!"

In this thread you have simultaneously said that the leak is no big deal because it is common knowledge and practice. You have also said it is a huge deal that should get Bush imeached. And then you criticized people for saying that this leak could bring down America, which nobody has said and is the point I took issue with. It is very easy to "win" a debate when you get to make up what the other side says.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I would be interested to hear what you think about the NYT, WSJ, the leakers, treason, and freedom of the press in relation to classified material.

Finally, a chance to respond. :)

Quite honestly, I believe this story was intentionally leaked to the NYT so that the administration could then attack them. Otherwise, they have far worse problems than what the Times chose to report. If the Times commited treason then there are a number of traitors in this administration. The Times would have no story to report if it hadn't been leaked to them from the administration. And considering that this administration already has a history of leaking information to the media whenever it serves their purposes, I find it a plausable scenario (not much different from when they passed a document to CBS news, then crucified Dan Rather when he reported it). Standard operating procedure. This would also explain why there is no mention of the Wall St. Journal anywhere to be found. Regardless of who leaked it first, they are equally guilty for publishing the story, IMO.

[Gemini Cricket]

I didn't attack the way it was written...
And you still don't answer my question. Your post is ridiculous.

My opinion of this Administration is not going to change. The way I say things isn't going to change either. Either get used to it or get over it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ahem. Settle.

[innerSpaceman]

You're of the opinion that the president is in violation of the constitution. That he intends to remain in violation of the constitution, and that all three branches of government so far have no problem with this violation of the constitution and you find it a ho-hum story and much ado about nothing?
Yes, because this story is one of the smallest pieces of the puzzle that assembles into a picture of dictatorship. I was just trying to justify why there is any kind of outcry about the bank transaction surveillance, but it's really a minor spoonful in the pot of Bush's crimes against the Constitution and his sacret oath to defend it.

[Alex]

My opinion of this Administration is not going to change. The way I say things isn't going to change either. Either get used to it or get over it.
What question have you asked? I'll happily ask any one you'd like answered that I can.

[Name]

It's nice to see nothing has changed.

[Alex]

Oh never mind. In a few hours I hit the road for five days and by the time I get back I assume everything will have moved on so I won't be answering any questions.

We'll just have to live with thinking the other ridiculous.

[wendybeth]

I'm quite certain the Bush Administration will have committed another egregious constitutional breach by then. They seem to be fairly consistent in that area.

[€uroMeinke]

I guess I have to wonder just how secret somethin is, if it is uncovered by a reporter. If they can uncover it, I would presume any "enemy" we miht have would just start sending it's folks to journalism school to do whatever required intelligence work was needed. Seems in the end they're doin the admin a favor by pointing out breeches in the system. Obviously there are people with clearance talking to people they shouldn't - that's what really should be getting attention.

[Name]

I guess I have to wonder just how secret somethin is, if it is uncovered by a reporter. If they can uncover it, I would presume any "enemy" we miht have would just start sending it's folks to journalism school to do whatever required intelligence work was needed. Seems in the end they're doin the admin a favor by pointing out breeches in the system. Obviously there are people with clearance talking to people they shouldn't - that's what really should be getting attention.
Oh, stop making sense damn you......


:p





You know I am just being a smart ass right....


and I plead drunk otherwise....

[Alex]

I guess I have to wonder just how secret somethin is, if it is uncovered by a reporter. If they can uncover it, I would presume any "enemy" we miht have would just start sending it's folks to journalism school to do whatever required intelligence work was needed. Seems in the end they're doin the admin a favor by pointing out breeches in the system. Obviously there are people with clearance talking to people they shouldn't - that's what really should be getting attention.

I guess I'm not clear on why only one side of the equation should get attention. It strikes me as like saying that you should thank me for exposing how unsmart it is to hide your spare key under the doormat by stealing your television.

While I'm sure the reason it isn't being widely discussed it political expediency I have no doubt that they are trying to find out who leaked the information and if found the person will be at least fired. Unless, of course, it was the same person who coordinates the bin Laden tapes in which case it might be a resource too valuable to lose.

Similarly, I wonder why people who thought it was so important to find the leaker in the Valerie Plame case and to see the reporter punished (so long as it was Bob Novak and even though it was generally known that she worked for the CIA and was the wife of the guy whose name I forget) now think that leaking classified information is really not that big of a deal, especially since it was information you could have assumed.

Both sides should feel the heat unless there is a very compelling case for revealing the information (a true whistle blower situation of which this is not a good example). The leaker should lose their job and possibly face criminal charges. The publisher should be criticized though I think the situations where any kind of criminal charge is warranted are very, very narrow.

[Name]

...

Similarly, I wonder why people who thought it was so important to find the leaker in the Valerie Plame case and to see the reporter punished (so long as it was Bob Novak and even though it was generally known that she worked for the CIA and was the wife of the guy whose name I forget) now think that leaking classified information is really not that big of a deal, especially since it was information you could have assumed..and vice versa.... why were those that are up in arms about this so non-chalant about the Plame leak.... or at least that is how it is perceived.

[€uroMeinke]

I guess I'm not clear on why only one side of the equation should get attention. It strikes me as like saying that you should thank me for exposing how unsmart it is to hide your spare key under the doormat by stealing your television.

Yeah but the reporter isn't stealin a TV, he's just saying it's stupid to hide your key where everyone knows to look, which I think is far better than lettin people presume their TV is totally secure cause no one knows where the keys are.

[wendybeth]

The Plame case, on top of Guantanamo and soooo many others, are what is causing this 'meh' response. They have dulled our sense of right and wrong- stilled our sense of outrage. The bastards have (for now) simply worn us down. I'm just not interested in arguing semantics or trading hate-radio barbs anymore. This administration is going to do wtf they want to, and worry about the consequences later. :rolleyes:

[Alex]

Except I haven't seen a reporter say "my role is exposing the weaknesses in the government's efforts to keep secrets."

Ok, rather than stealing the TV, the lack of security is shown by taking the sex video you recorded from the box in your closet, posting it on the internet, and saying "hey, you should thank me."

Name. That is exactly my point when above I mentioned the "synchronized dance of hypocrisy." Both sides just switch sides depending on whichever bit of feigned outrage suits their preconceived notions. Take the exact same situation, change the name Bush to Clinton and 98% (approximately) of the people who have stated an opinion would instead state the opposite.


This isn't too say that every similar situation requires the same response. But for the most part people are expressing knee-jerk reactions based on minimal information and never try to get any more information except from the sources they know will reinforce what they already think. I was upset by the Plame leak until I learned more of the details. I'm somewhat upset by this New York Times publication and so far the details have, in my opinion, supported that. The wiretapping one initially didn't bother me that much but as more details became known I have come to think the New York Times had a more than appropriate justification for publishing the story.

[€uroMeinke]

Except I haven't seen a reporter say "my role is exposing the weaknesses in the government's efforts to keep secrets."

Ok, rather than stealing the TV, the lack of security is shown by taking the sex video you recorded from the box in your closet, posting it on the internet, and saying "hey, you should thank me."

Perhaps, but I think it's closer to saying - hey, if you're going to be making sex videos, do something to secure them, becasue copies are already circulating in downtown Kaubul - maybe you need a more discreet set of porn stars?