Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 08:11 am
I don't see anything wrong, or sinister in members of the administration asking the Press to withhold stories, or to criticize the Press later for printing such stories. The decision of what to print and when to release a story remains with the Publisher. Whether the publication of a story will negatively impact National Security or not is another question.
The Administration believes this story has made it harder to track and defeat efforts by international terrorists working to harm the United States. Our enemy operates in the shadows and funds terrorism by secretly moving money about through hidden channels and accounts. If the U.S. has been able to find and track some of those transactions, that is a small victory against those who are working to kill Americans. To alert them that some of their channels have been compromised, will result in tightened security and loss of an important source of intelligence. I tend to agree with the President that this story should not have been printed, but then I don't publish a major newspaper.
That the Press has chosen to publish a story after being asked not to for National Security reasons, is an indication that the Press is not just a mouthpiece for the President, the Administration, or the GOP. On the other hand, it does not tend to "prove" that the Press is anti-administration either. All that is shown here is that the publishers of a number of important newspapers decided to ignore a request to hold the story, and printed it anyway.
I cannot verify the accuracy of this but yesterday I had the news channel on and heard Bush stating that Congress had been fully informed of these activities and then the comment was made by someone that Congress was NOT informed until after NYT told the Whitehouse they were going to run the story. Interesting?
It seems to me that the press assisted
the Moslems to avoid detection
in their conspiracies.
First W was condemned for not doing enuf
to stop 9/11,
and now he is condemned for trying to stop more of them.
David
No Bush is condemned because he just decides to do a thing regardless of civil liberties or previous precedents as though he was a dictator instead part of a three branch government all under the cloak of "terrorism."
If the administration wants to do something different than what the law is they should first pass it though congress to get it approved. Instead they just say they ain't breaking any laws according to their interpretation. (or words that effect)
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
Asking the press to withhold news stories has long precedent. Asking the press to hold stories related to military operations has been extremely common since the early 19th century.
Nor is it uncommon for the Party out of power to raise a ruckus when an administration asks for stories to be held, or edited to remove certain information. The President is not required to bring every action or policy before Congress, especially when engaged in military operations. FDR, JFK, and LBJ all acted pretty much without consulting Congress, and all of them took steps to prevent certain news stories from ever seeing the light of day. There is no inherent right of the People to know detail of how the government conducts foreign affairs, expecially when that knowledge could argueably cost the lives of U.S. citizens and soldiers. This administration isn't breaking new ground here.
Quote:There is no inherent right of the People to know detail of how the government conducts foreign affairs
How can you possibly say this? The 'government' is supposed to be representative of our collective will. Why is it not our right to know details of how our will is carried out by our elected representatives?
Are you against the concept of transparency in government?
Quote:expecially when that knowledge could argueably cost the lives of U.S. citizens and soldiers.
There is no good argument that any knowledge revealed by any paper has cost anyone their lives, or put them in danger in the slightest. I'd actually like to see someone forward such an argument, if they think they can.
On the other hand, exposing the lengths to which the administration is willing to go - the laws they are willing to casually disregard - could cost many politicians their jobs. That's why you are seeing the outrage over this issue, not because any citizens or soldiers are having their lives threatened.
Cycloptichorn
Asherman wrote:Asking the press to withhold news stories has long precedent. Asking the press to hold stories related to military operations has been extremely common since the early 19th century.
Nor is it uncommon for the Party out of power to raise a ruckus when an administration asks for stories to be held, or edited to remove certain information. The President is not required to bring every action or policy before Congress, especially when engaged in military operations. FDR, JFK, and LBJ all acted pretty much without consulting Congress, and all of them took steps to prevent certain news stories from ever seeing the light of day. There is no inherent right of the People to know detail of how the government conducts foreign affairs, expecially when that knowledge could argueably cost the lives of U.S. citizens and soldiers. This administration isn't breaking new ground here.
In the first place, This swift data spying is not a military operation but an encroachment of previous laws by the Bush administration. Once again the Bush administration just chose to go around laws by inventing clever little word games to justify it.
Fininacial records are supposed to be kept private since congress passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act in 78'.
Quote:In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans had no constitutional right to privacy for their records held by banks or other financial institutions. In response, Congress passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act two years later, restricting government access to Americans' banking records.
source
The People elect representatives to the Executive and Legislative branches. The duties and responsibilities of those representatives are spelled out in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the general public has any right to be given details about how those representatives carry out their duties and responsibilities, so long as they do not commit crimes in doing so. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "transparency of government". If you mean that acts of Congress should be reported, then I believe in it. If the President nominates a person to sit on the Federal Bench, I think the public is entitled to hear in open session about that persons background and experience ... I see no reason why the public needs to know a nominee's sexual habits, or their family history. I oppose governmental censorship on principle, but understand that sometimes the government should do everything it can to prevent publication of information that could harm the nation, or its citizens.
This is especially true of the Executive Branch where diplomatic details and a broad spectrum of military information must be kept secret to be effective. The give and take of hammering out treaties and agreements between governments would become almost impossible if every step and initiative were to become public knowledge. Revealing troop strength, movement and disposition should never be given to the enemy. Timetables and other conditional variables are best kept highly classified. The day to day give and take as policies alternatives are discussed would come to a standstill if made public. The methods and means used to gather intelligence are properly secret and should not be public. Active covert intelligence agents identities should not be revealed. This has always been so, and it remains true today.
Monitoring the fiscal dealings of individuals connected with international Islamic terrorism IS an important means of waging war against them. By tracing money from donor to the hands of terrorists is essential to identifying them and preventing further attacks on the United States. Cut off the money, and terrorists will have a harder time obtaining munitions from the DPRK, Iran and other Merchants of Death. Without financial support, terrorist cells will be hampered and that is a good thing ... unless you are rooting for their side.
The question here, anyway, wasn't the legality and propriety of monitoring the financial activities of terrorists and their organizations, but whether the U.S. was harmed by publication of information that would make that monitoring less effective, and thereby give aid to the enemy. The publishers obviously felt that selling papers was more important than holding the story for later publication. Did they make the right decision? Many probably think so, I do not.
The point is not whether we want to go after terrorist, the point is that there are laws in place and the administration went around those laws once again. (The Financial Privacy Act) They say they are going after suspected terrorist, that being the case, it should be a simple matter to get a warrant.
I applaud the NYT in reporting this story knowing the reception and the spin it was going to get in return, in my opinion they are the real patriots.
revel wrote:The point is not whether we want to go after terrorist, the point is that there are laws in place and the administration went around those laws once again. (The Financial Privacy Act) They say they are going after suspected terrorist, that being the case, it should be a simple matter to get a warrant.
I applaud the NYT in reporting this story knowing the reception and the spin it was going to get in return, in my opinion they are the real patriots.
Amen!
And amen to the thought contained in your signature line.
revel wrote:The point is not whether we want to go after terrorist, the point is that there are laws in place and the administration went around those laws once again. (The Financial Privacy Act) They say they are going after suspected terrorist, that being the case, it should be a simple matter to get a warrant.
I applaud the NYT in reporting this story knowing the reception and the spin it was going to get in return, in my opinion they are the real patriots.
Amen!
And amen to the thought contained in your signature line. (I think it is slightly misquoted!)
http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/RFPA.htm
What GW is doing is NOT (IMO) violating the Financial Privacy Act.
Bushwackers doth protest too much.
How exactly is GW supposed to track terrorists if everytime he tries to track them, you all start bitching about something?
I know, I know...just give the terrorists a Coke and a smile and eveything will be better.
woiyo wrote:http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/RFPA.htm
What GW is doing is NOT (IMO) violating the Financial Privacy Act.
Bushwackers doth protest too much.
How exactly is GW supposed to track terrorists if everytime he tries to track them, you all start bitching about something?
I know, I know...just give the terrorists a Coke and a smile and eveything will be better.
George Dumbya Bush, by far the most ignorant person ever to hold the office he holds...
...and the sick, perverted pretend patriots who pull his strings...
...are doing more harm to this country and the principles upon which it was based than the many terrorists they are supposedly fighting but are actually aiding.
This administration...and American conservatism in general...has to disgust anyone with an open mind and the intelligence to actually look at what these pathetic people are doing in the name of protecting our freedom.
This entire episode in our history is too pathetic for words.
Frank Apisa wrote:woiyo wrote:http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/RFPA.htm
What GW is doing is NOT (IMO) violating the Financial Privacy Act.
Bushwackers doth protest too much.
How exactly is GW supposed to track terrorists if everytime he tries to track them, you all start bitching about something?
I know, I know...just give the terrorists a Coke and a smile and eveything will be better.
George Dumbya Bush, by far the most ignorant person ever to hold the office he holds...
...and the sick, perverted pretend patriots who pull his strings...
...are doing more harm to this country and the principles upon which it was based than the many terrorists they are supposedly fighting but are actually aiding.
This administration...and American conservatism in general...has to disgust anyone with an open mind and the intelligence to actually look at what these pathetic people are doing in the name of protecting our freedom.
This entire episode in our history is too pathetic for words.
Frank - You're "blathering" again.
On this point, explain what harm is being done to any American citizen?
Be reminded, the SWIFT information is tracking the transfer of large sums of cash and providing information about that transaction.
woiyo wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:woiyo wrote:http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/RFPA.htm
What GW is doing is NOT (IMO) violating the Financial Privacy Act.
Bushwackers doth protest too much.
How exactly is GW supposed to track terrorists if everytime he tries to track them, you all start bitching about something?
I know, I know...just give the terrorists a Coke and a smile and eveything will be better.
George Dumbya Bush, by far the most ignorant person ever to hold the office he holds...
...and the sick, perverted pretend patriots who pull his strings...
...are doing more harm to this country and the principles upon which it was based than the many terrorists they are supposedly fighting but are actually aiding.
This administration...and American conservatism in general...has to disgust anyone with an open mind and the intelligence to actually look at what these pathetic people are doing in the name of protecting our freedom.
This entire episode in our history is too pathetic for words.
Frank - You're "blathering" again.
On this point, explain what harm is being done to any American citizen?
Be reminded, the SWIFT information is tracking the transfer of large sums of cash and providing information about that transaction.
It would not be possible to get a knee-jerk conservative to see and understand the incredible damage being done to our country by this blithering moron pretending to be president...and the disgustingly evil people who are pulling his strings...
...so if you do not mind, I won't even try.
But it seems to me the folks who talk most these days about love of country and love of freedom (you pretend patriotic conservatives)...
...have almost no idea of what either really means.
One would think the pathetic conservative majority of our country would ultimately get the fact that you cannot protect our freedoms by giving them up in the fight to protect them.
But that is a concept beyond the knee-jerk conservatives right now.
What we have to hope for...is that we are finally rid of this trash before they give away the entire store.
BBB
The SWIFT financial organization has had a web site for a long time. They also have a magazine. In both, the search for terrorist money wiring program has been discussed since 9/11.
http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=57169
http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=43230
The phony uproar about Press revealing Bush's secret programs is nothing more than mining for conservative base votes in the November election.
The current congress is not fulfilling it's oversight responsibilities leaving the Press as the last protection the citizens have when one party controls all of the government. The Republican party has sold it's soul to the devil as the price of retaining it's monopoly power. Shame on them. Shame on the timid democrats and the Press for not raising more hell about it to protect the citizens.
BBB
Frank Apisa wrote:One would think the pathetic conservative majority of our country would ultimately get the fact that you cannot protect our freedoms by giving them up in the fight to protect them.
But that is a concept beyond the knee-jerk conservatives right now.
What we have to hope for...is that we are finally rid of this trash before they give away the entire store.
Which freedoms have Americans had to give up?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace