2
   

Newspapers Reject White House Request to Kill Records Story

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 08:48 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I don't think the papers themselves should be sanctioned, any of them, really - and I have noted and am a bit peeved by "The Right Wing" tendency to overlook the WSJ in this instance - but I do think the reporters and editors directly involved should be held responsible, and beyond that, I think the Administration officials responsible for the leaks in the first place should be held responisible to the extent example be provided such that idiocy of this sort becomes far, far more rare.

The mainstream media is not necesarilly by intent a tool of the foe, but it does little to prevent the foe from making tools of what the mainstream media sets before the public.


You're right, the WSJ journal should not be overlooked.

As for whether the newspapers as institutions or the editors and reporters should be held accountable, you make a fair point. It does makes more sense to hold the individuals accountable than they news institutions they so poorly serve. I confess to previously posting with a great sense of outrage, and didn't give the matter as clear a regard as you obviously have.

Of course the leakers within the government should also be held accountable, but what is the reasonable chance of that happening? While government secrets are fair game to the media, the secret names of their sources are, apparently, sacrosanct, and reporters and editors would prefer to jo to jail as Freedom of the Press martyrs than reveal the names of the vile beaurocrats who feel themselves somehow exempt from honor and duty.

I'm not sure that a a purge of the current and future four generations of the leadership at the NY Times and LA Times, could be counted upon to correct the problem.

It is amazing to me that folks who crusade against powerful institutions simply on the basis of the, not entirely inaccurate, belief that power corrupts, somehow are able to view extremely powerful institutions such as the NY Times as either being immune to the corruptive influence of power, or (even more puzzling) not actually possessing power.

Of course the NY Times, the LA Times and CBS News is biased, but so is the Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, and FOX News. The bias in and of itself is not so very objectionable, it is the insistence that there is no such bias, and far worse, the apparent desire to transfer that bias into a clear and actionable political agenda. Is their really any doubt that the NY Times has set itself as a force of active opposition to the Bush Administration?

There is a great difference between fighting a given Administration through opinions expressed on newspapers' editorial pages and using the new reporting arms of these media to fire salvos as well.

In this case there was no imaginable reason to report on the finance intelligence program as a service to the American people. There was no indication what-so-ever, that abuses had been made or that any law was even bent, let alone broken. What was the compelling public interest in this story? There was none, and the downside of publishing it, as warned both officials of both sides of the political spectrum was considerable.

When the story hit, only one jackass attempted to make political hay of it. Several days later, save this one jackass (Markay) not even the Administration's most vociferous critics have jumped on the puny bandwagon.

It is an outrage, and perhaps the NY Times is being somewhat unfairly singled out as the bad guy here but is that really surprising or, ultimately, inequitable?

As for the mainstream media being an intentional tool of the foe, I agree that they are not to the extent that I do not at all believe that they are in cahoots with the terrorists, however a complete and wanton disregard for the consequences of ones actions can, legally, be said to imply intent.

If I open fire with an Uzi in Grand Central Station and kill hundreds of people, even if it can be conclusively proven I never actually intended to harm anyone, the law is not about to allow me to escape the consequences of my wanton actions on such a flimsy premise.

At some point intent is implied, and to the extent that the NY Times continues to take affirmative actions which can easily be seen to aid the foe, their intent should, legally at least, be implied.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 08:48 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I don't think the papers themselves should be sanctioned, any of them, really - and I have noted and am a bit peeved by "The Right Wing" tendency to overlook the WSJ in this instance - but I do think the reporters and editors directly involved should be held responsible, and beyond that, I think the Administration officials responsible for the leaks in the first place should be held responisible to the extent example be provided such that idiocy of this sort becomes far, far more rare.

The mainstream media is not necesarilly by intent a tool of the foe, but it does little to prevent the foe from making tools of what the mainstream media sets before the public.


You're right, the WSJ journal should not be overlooked.

As for whether the newspapers as institutions or the editors and reporters should be held accountable, you make a fair point. It does makes more sense to hold the individuals accountable than they news institutions they so poorly serve. I confess to previously posting with a great sense of outrage, and didn't give the matter as clear a regard as you obviously have.

Of course the leakers within the government should also be held accountable, but what is the reasonable chance of that happening? While government secrets are fair game to the media, the secret names of their sources are, apparently, sacrosanct, and reporters and editors would prefer to jo to jail as Freedom of the Press martyrs than reveal the names of the vile beaurocrats who feel themselves somehow exempt from honor and duty.

I'm not sure that a a purge of the current and future four generations of the leadership at the NY Times and LA Times, could be counted upon to correct the problem.

It is amazing to me that folks who crusade against powerful institutions simply on the basis of the, not entirely inaccurate, belief that power corrupts, somehow are able to view extremely powerful institutions such as the NY Times as either being immune to the corruptive influence of power, or (even more puzzling) not actually possessing power.

Of course the NY Times, the LA Times and CBS News is biased, but so is the Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, and FOX News. The bias in and of itself is not so very objectionable, it is the insistence that there is no such bias, and far worse, the apparent desire to transfer that bias into a clear and actionable political agenda. Is their really any doubt that the NY Times has set itself as a force of active opposition to the Bush Administration?

There is a great difference between fighting a given Administration through opinions expressed on newspapers' editorial pages and using the new reporting arms of these media to fire salvos as well.

In this case there was no imaginable reason to report on the finance intelligence program as a service to the American people. There was no indication what-so-ever, that abuses had been made or that any law was even bent, let alone broken. What was the compelling public interest in this story? There was none, and the downside of publishing it, as warned both officials of both sides of the political spectrum was considerable.

When the story hit, only one jackass attempted to make political hay of it. Several days later, save this one jackass (Markay) not even the Administration's most vociferous critics have jumped on the puny bandwagon.

It is an outrage, and perhaps the NY Times is being somewhat unfairly singled out as the bad guy here but is that really surprising or, ultimately, inequitable?

As for the mainstream media being an intentional tool of the foe, I agree that they are not to the extent that I do not at all believe that they are in cahoots with the terrorists, however a complete and wanton disregard for the consequences of ones actions can, legally, be said to imply intent.

If I open fire with an Uzi in Grand Central Station and kill hundreds of people, even if it can be conclusively proven I never actually intended to harm anyone, the law is not about to allow me to escape the consequences of my wanton actions on such a flimsy premise.

At some point intent is implied, and to the extent that the NY Times continues to take affirmative actions which can easily be seen to aid the foe, their intent should, legally at least, be implied.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 08:50 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I don't think the papers themselves should be sanctioned, any of them, really - and I have noted and am a bit peeved by "The Right Wing" tendency to overlook the WSJ in this instance - but I do think the reporters and editors directly involved should be held responsible, and beyond that, I think the Administration officials responsible for the leaks in the first place should be held responisible to the extent example be provided such that idiocy of this sort becomes far, far more rare.

The mainstream media is not necesarilly by intent a tool of the foe, but it does little to prevent the foe from making tools of what the mainstream media sets before the public.


You're right, the WSJ journal should not be overlooked.

As for whether the newspapers as institutions or the editors and reporters should be held accountable, you make a fair point. It does makes more sense to hold the individuals accountable than they news institutions they so poorly serve. I confess to previously posting with a great sense of outrage, and didn't give the matter as clear a regard as you obviously have.

Of course the leakers within the government should also be held accountable, but what is the reasonable chance of that happening? While government secrets are fair game to the media, the secret names of their sources are, apparently, sacrosanct, and reporters and editors would prefer to jo to jail as Freedom of the Press martyrs than reveal the names of the vile beaurocrats who feel themselves somehow exempt from honor and duty.

I'm not sure that a a purge of the current and future four generations of the leadership at the NY Times and LA Times, could be counted upon to correct the problem.

It is amazing to me that folks who crusade against powerful institutions simply on the basis of the, not entirely inaccurate, belief that power corrupts, somehow are able to view extremely powerful institutions such as the NY Times as either being immune to the corruptive influence of power, or (even more puzzling) not actually possessing power.

Of course the NY Times, the LA Times and CBS News is biased, but so is the Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, and FOX News. The bias in and of itself is not so very objectionable, it is the insistence that there is no such bias, and far worse, the apparent desire to transfer that bias into a clear and actionable political agenda. Is their really any doubt that the NY Times has set itself as a force of active opposition to the Bush Administration?

There is a great difference between fighting a given Administration through opinions expressed on newspapers' editorial pages and using the new reporting arms of these media to fire salvos as well.

In this case there was no imaginable reason to report on the finance intelligence program as a service to the American people. There was no indication what-so-ever, that abuses had been made or that any law was even bent, let alone broken. What was the compelling public interest in this story? There was none, and the downside of publishing it, as warned both officials of both sides of the political spectrum was considerable.

When the story hit, only one jackass attempted to make political hay of it. Several days later, save this one jackass (Markay) not even the Administration's most vociferous critics have jumped on the puny bandwagon.

It is an outrage, and perhaps the NY Times is being somewhat unfairly singled out as the bad guy here but is that really surprising or, ultimately, inequitable?

As for the mainstream media being an intentional tool of the foe, I agree that they are not to the extent that I do not at all believe that they are in cahoots with the terrorists, however a complete and wanton disregard for the consequences of ones actions can, legally, be said to imply intent.

If I open fire with an Uzi in Grand Central Station and kill hundreds of people, even if it can be conclusively proven I never actually intended to harm anyone, the law is not about to allow me to escape the consequences of my wanton actions on such a flimsy premise.

At some point intent is implied, and to the extent that the NY Times continues to take affirmative actions which can easily be seen to aid the foe, their intent should, legally at least, be implied.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 08:53 pm
It is my understanding this program is fully legal and the congressional members were briefed. And it has been instrumental in helping track down terrorist plots already. It is particularly insulting given the fact that the New York Times editorialized that Bush had not been doing enough shortly after 911 to catch terrorists, and in fact suggested a program like this.

Question, if the New York Times had learned of the particulars of the Normandy invasion ahead of time, and they had published the story, would they be committing treason? And would they have been brought to task for it then? I think the answer is a definite yes.

The question is where are they getting this information about the banking program, the telephone program, etc. Possibly from industry insiders. Also possibly from the CIA or some other government entity. Many think there are enough Clinton holdovers, or leftist anti-Bush types in the CIA, DOD, and other bureaucracies, whereby their hatred for Bush clouds their better judgement. Let us not forget that although some may honor such people as whistleblowers, they may more rightfully be known as traitors.

I think the way to handle this is to send in the investigators, get special prosecutors on the cases, subpoena reporters to reveal their sources, and when they do not, jail them for contempt. Isn't that what happened with the Valerie Plame case? And there is little doubt what is being revealed now in terms of national security is far, far worse, by several orders of magnitude. We have no evidence the Plame case was a crime, but we do know this is a crime. We need to know who is leaking this stuff. Congressmen maybe? CIA maybe? They need to be held accountable as the traitors they are.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 08:56 pm
I apologize for the multiple posts. A2K seems to be acting up of late.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 09:01 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
There was an article in either the New York Times or the New Yorker, I forget which, some years ago about how Bin Laden protected himself while moved money. It was mostly through commodities transfers. Honey was the favorite commodity for a while. This suggests that Al Quada has already assumed that wire transfers would be monitored These extra legal searches are unnecessary. Had they gone about it properly the Bush administration would have gotten most, probably all, that they requested. But they are more interested in using the terrorist threat to expand executive power than they are in catching terrorists.


Interestingly enough, it was not that long ago that liberal opponents of the president were clamoring for him to break up the money streams, as opposed to killing he bastards. Now the NY Time, arguably the standard bearer for Liberal America, has done it's best to put the kibosh on the very sort of efforts for which Liberals called.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 09:06 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Specter is a boob. What it it going to take to get the Government to begin excercising tighter control over sensitive data, and what is it going to take to make such leaks unappealing to those who would publicize them - a successful massive attack accompanied by explicit thanks to the NYT for having issued the heads up that allowed the attack planners to avoid discovery?


Interestingly enough, it was not that long ago that liberal opponents of the president were clamoring for him to break up the money streams, as opposed to killing he bastards. Now the NY Time, arguably the standard bearer for Liberal America, has done it's best to put the kibosh on the very sort of efforts for which Liberals called.

Specter is more than a boob, he is an egoist of the first order. He sees himself as the personification of the legislative branch of the government and, not inconsequentially, he remembers how the Right made a move to knock him off his self-perceived throne.

As a noisome boob hurling chafe into the political slipstream, he serves a purpose but it is hardly the grand purpose he perceives for himself.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 01:03 am
timberlandko wrote:
Specter is a boob. What it it going to take to get the Government to begin excercising tighter control over sensitive data, and what is it going to take to make such leaks unappealing to those who would publicize them - a successful massive attack accompanied by explicit thanks to the NYT for having issued the heads up that allowed the attack planners to avoid discovery?

What sensitive data? The US government and several European governments made no secret of the fact that they are monitoring international money transfers. SWIFT is the most common method of transferring money internationally, and every terrorist worth catching knows that. In terms of national defense, there was no sensitive secret for the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal to reveal.

Everything the newspapers wrote is old news to Al Quaeda, which has a professional interest in knowing the technicalities of international money transfers. The only people for whom this is new news is average US citizens, who don't care about those technicalities, but do mind if the federal executive snoops on them without oversight. But it would be bad PR if the Bush administration said publically that they're worried about that latter class of people. So they make up this national security strawman instead.

Where oh where are anti-Leviathan, small-government conservatives when you need them?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 03:08 am
PS: I'd be happy to see the Bush Administration sue the New York Times over this. That way, courts would finally apply some meaningful scrutiny to the administration's expansive claims about their own executive powers. But considering Bush's avoidance of independent judicial review so far, I'm not holding my breath.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 04:35 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
however a complete and wanton disregard for the consequences of ones actions can, legally, be said to imply intent.

If I open fire with an Uzi in Grand Central Station and kill hundreds of people, even if it can be conclusively proven I never actually intended to harm anyone, the law is not about to allow me to escape the consequences of my wanton actions on such a flimsy premise.

What lethal information do you think the NYT et al revealed with this story that Al Qaeda wouldnt already have known?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 05:33 am
From today's Chciago Tribune (page 11, online version ), a comment, I can agree with:

Quote:
http://i5.tinypic.com/1608qhs.jpg
http://i3.tinypic.com/1608oqv.jpg
WASHINGTON -- I think President Bush does protest a bit too much about The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal's exposure of his administration's secret money-tracking program.

The president called it "disgraceful" that the newspapers reported that Treasury Department officials acquired access to the world's largest international financial database, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, commonly known as SWIFT, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called for criminal prosecution of The New York Times, whose actions he called "treasonous."

But, if anyone thinks Al Qaeda did not know before this story broke that the United States was combing through international banking transactions to follow terrorists' money supplies, they haven't been paying much attention to the news.

Less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill pledged to Congress that his department would do nothing less. "The Treasury Department will use every tool we have at our disposal to shut down terrorist fundraising and dismantle their organizations one dollar at a time," he said. "Their moral bankruptcy will be matched by an empty wallet."

What's really new and troubling about these stories is not the secret money probes but how much of it the Bush administration has zealously kept secret from the courts and Congress, the branches of government that have constitutional oversight over the executive branch.

Instead of seeking individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, which is the normal way the government acquires Americans' financial records, Treasury officials have bypassed the courts to rely instead on broad administrative subpoenas, which essentially are issued by one part of the executive branch to another. Some banking and government officials expressed reservations, according to the reports, that what began as an urgent, temporary measure without specific congressional approval or formal authorization showed no signs of changing almost five years later.

Bush said Monday that members of Congress had been briefed in advance on the program, which is true. But some, including Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she and many of her colleagues on the panel were briefed by Treasury Department officials only after the administration learned it would be exposed in the press.

That's the same press that the president called "disgraceful" and that King wants to frog-march off to jail. Yet, with the courts bypassed and Congress kept in the dark, what's left to hold government accountable in circumstances like this but the press?

Since President Richard Nixon, apparently fearing the public backlash, declined to press charges against The New York Times for publishing the Pentagon Papers that revealed the bounty of lies that got us into the Vietnam quagmire, I doubt that the Bush administration will take that step. But, then, Nixon didn't have today's echo chamber of conservative commentators to help him distract the public from his cover-ups.

Bush would rather distract us from the larger story lurking here, which is the return of Total Information Awareness, a massive databank operated by a Pentagon agency under Iran-contra figure John Poindexter to monitor any check-card purchase, bank transaction, medical bill and other electronic transaction in America. Congress took away that program's funds in September 2003 amid public alarm about the dangers it posed to privacy rights.

But its research funding continued. The National Journal reported earlier this year that Team Bush broke up the program and moved part of it to the National Security Agency. As Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, recently opined, the "spawn" of the old program has continued under new names and new secrecy.

Governments traditionally use fear of terrorists or some other subversions of national security to excuse power grabs. It is for that reason that the Bush administration, like any other, needs to be held accountable for what it does in the name of keeping us safe. Instead of making its case to Congress, the courts and the public, Team Bush is treating accountability like one more threat to national security.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 06:34 am
Yeah...election time.


Terror furphies seem to work.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 06:40 am
Good article and to the point Walter.

haven't read all the way through this thread but has anyone mentioned the little matter of the Financial Privacy Act which the administration has shamefully disregarded? Once again the administration broke the law and the whistleblowers are getting the blame. Sickening. As I said on another thread about this, if they are only going after terrorist as they say, it should be a simple matter to get a warrant.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 06:59 am
Swift is based in Belgium but with offices in the US it is governed by laws on both sides of the Atlantic. The Belgian government is therefore looking at the legal background "and whether it is right that a US civil servant could look at a private transaction without the approval of a Belgian judge".


Quote:
Belgium Orders Investigation of Swift Anti-Terrorism Case
June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Belgian government has ordered a probe into the decision by Belgium-based cooperative Swift to provide bank transfer data to the U.S. government, as part of the effort by President George W. Bush to halt terrorism.

The office of Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said it has asked intelligence and security officials to determine ``if the interests of certain Belgian nationals were possibly affected and if Belgian law was respected.'' The prime minister's office, in a statement sent by e-mail today, also said it was seeking to determine whether Belgian oversight needs ``adaptations.''

Bush's administration last week said it sought to track terrorists by using data from Swift, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions.

U.S. government subpoenas for documents relating to millions of international banking transactions were outside the scope of central banks that oversee Swift, the Belgian central bank said on June 26.

While the company is overseen by representatives from the Group of 10 central banks, the Belgian bank said in a statement their responsibility was ensuring financial stability.
Source
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 08:54 am
You New York Times apologists, AND TERRORIST APOLOGISTS, keep digging yourself a bigger hole all the time. You must live in denial, that terrorism is not a serious threat (some of you have written as much), or your disdain for George Bush (and what his politics signify) dominates you to the point you have totally lost any sense of reason.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:31 am
Okie
okie wrote:
You New York Times apologists, AND TERRORIST APOLOGISTS, keep digging yourself a bigger hole all the time. You must live in denial, that terrorism is not a serious threat (some of you have written as much), or your disdain for George Bush (and what his politics signify) dominates you to the point you have totally lost any sense of reason.


Okie, may the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose!

BBB Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:39 am
Thanks for your kindness.

In all seriousness, if a serious terrorist event happened tomorrow, the New York Times and their apologists would soon be criticizing Bush for not tracking financial transactions of the perpetrators. In fact thats what they did right after 911.

People see the hypocrisy, Bumble Bee. For people that follow this stuff, its plain as day, unless you are a hardcore Bush hater.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:47 am
Okie
okie wrote:
Thanks for your kindness.

In all seriousness, if a serious terrorist event happened tomorrow, the New York Times and their apologists would soon be criticizing Bush for not tracking financial transactions of the perpetrators. In fact thats what they did right after 911. People see the hypocrisy, Bumble Bee. For people that follow this stuff, its plain as day, unless you are a hardcore Bush hater.


Okie, May an elephant caress you with his toes.

BBB Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:00 pm
okie wrote:
In all seriousness, if a serious terrorist event happened tomorrow, the New York Times and their apologists would soon be criticizing Bush for not tracking financial transactions of the perpetrators. In fact thats what they did right after 911.

Strawman. Nobody here is saying that the US government shouldn't track the terrorists' financial transaction.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 02:40 pm
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
In all seriousness, if a serious terrorist event happened tomorrow, the New York Times and their apologists would soon be criticizing Bush for not tracking financial transactions of the perpetrators. In fact thats what they did right after 911.

Strawman. Nobody here is saying that the US government shouldn't track the terrorists' financial transaction.


coulda fooled me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 12:08:16