NY Times and intelligence leaks

scaeagles · 06-26-2006, 02:23 PM

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 · 06-26-2006, 02:39 PM

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 · 06-26-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

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.

06-26-2006, 02:23 PM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

06-26-2006, 02:39 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes