NY Times and intelligence leaks

[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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.