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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.