Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to reveal.

oralloy wrote:

If their case is weak, then we need to pass new laws giving them more power to control treasonous newspapers during wartime.

Then I suggest you stop barking and start biting. Write a petition to congress that you want such a law. Maybe someone will introduce a bill to this effect. I'm not holding my breath. The case against the New York Times is weak on its facts, not the law, and I think they know better than to turn this wave of manufactured outrage into permanent legislation.

parados wrote:

Wartime? Do you mean when Congress officially declares war? Or just anytime the President decides to send troops overseas or to the US border?

As you know, these days, wars aren't declared anymore as they were at the time the constitution was written. Your Supreme Court has decided long a go that a state of war can exist even without a declaration. It is a fact that America is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was not in dispute in any of the recent Supreme Court cases, nor is it controversial between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

... The case against the New York Times is weak on its facts, not the law, ...

Please explain. What facts do you think make the government's case weak?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Thomas wrote:
... The case against the New York Times is weak on its facts, not the law, ...

Please explain. What facts do you think make the government's case weak?

1) The fact that the government trumpeted since fall 2001 that they're following the terrorists' money. If they hadn't trumpeted that, the case for secrecy would have been stronger.

2) The fact that SWIFT is the most frequently used agency for international money transfers between banks. If the government had announced "we're going after the terrorists' license plates", the New York Times wouldn't have revealed a secret by publishing that Homeland Security was retrieving data from the Department of Motor Vehicles. The secrecy of tapping SWIFT is similarly elusive, given Bush's announcement that he was going after the terrorists' money.

3) The fact that SWIFT published on its own website a compliance policy, in which it specifically talks about cooperating with treasury departments for the purpose of combating illegal activities. I have read in a German newspaper that they had an article in their magazine in which they said a little more about terrorism. Though I haven't read this article, it seems to undermine the Bush administration's assertion of secrecy further.

I'm sure there are other facts but those would be the top three. In my opinion, they are already enough to undermine any charge the government might press under the Espionage Act.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If their case is weak, then we need to pass new laws giving them more power to control treasonous newspapers during wartime.

Then I suggest you stop barking and start biting. Write a petition to congress that you want such a law. Maybe someone will introduce a bill to this effect. I'm not holding my breath. The case against the New York Times is weak on its facts, not the law, and I think they know better than to turn this wave of manufactured outrage into permanent legislation.

That's sensible, oralloy. Why, when you wish to try or publicly indict some internal entity for treason, allow yourself to be curtailed by the laws related to the matter? Change 'em. Get those guys who aren't guilty who are guilty. They aren't guilty of treason now but they sure will be after we do a re-write. Won't that validate our opinion.

Thomas has it. There is no intention on the part of this administration to actually begin and carry through on these threats. The intent regarding the press is to bully and to minimize public political dissent/disagreement, to lessen the likelihood of further embarrassing revelations of impropriety or illegality (see the Hoeskstra story running now), and to further the morally and intellectually despicable talking point that the failures of this administration (particularly regarding Iraq/"War" on Terror) ought to be layed at the feet of everyone except the administration, but most particularly the press. Except Fox, of course.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Thomas wrote:
... The case against the New York Times is weak on its facts, not the law, ...

Please explain. What facts do you think make the government's case weak?

1) The fact that the government trumpeted since fall 2001 that they're following the terrorists' money. If they hadn't trumpeted that, the case for secrecy would have been stronger.

Okay. But I can envision a scenario where the police tell a suspected criminal, "We've got our eyes on you," and then they go ahead and tap the phones of his mother-in-law's house, where he goes to use the phones because he thinks they're not being tapped.

Just because the terrorists may be on notice or suspect that their finances may be investigated does not mean they know the methods and processes of doing so. The fact that it was a secret program was stated very clearly in the New York Times' article -- they knew it was a secret program, and it was effective.

But I'm also speaking of the NSA story as well, in terms of the investigation, not just the SWIFT monitoring. That was a leak of classified information pertaining to communications intelligence. The real the issue is not the degree of secrecy, so much as it is whether the leak involved classified information that was "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States," a lesser burden on the government, IMO:

Section 798 of Title 18 wrote:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States .

The 9/11 Commission identified as a primary weakness in our defenses the gap between our domestic and foreign intelligence gathering capabilities The NSA surveillance program was designed to narrow that gap, and was a very closely guarded bit of classified information. Many government officials knowledgeable about the surveillance program have indicated that the leak by the Times caused severe damage to the US' ability to track terrorists.

Thomas wrote:

2) The fact that SWIFT is the most frequently used agency for international money transfers between banks. If the government had announced "we're going after the terrorists' license plates", the New York Times wouldn't have revealed a secret by publishing that Homeland Security was retrieving data from the Department of Motor Vehicles. The secrecy of tapping SWIFT is similarly elusive, given Bush's announcement that he was going after the terrorists' money.

I disagree with your hypothetical. They are revealing specific tactics and methods of investigation, which is classified information. The government can show the evidence obtained through the SWIFT monitoring resulted in the capture of terrorists, it can show the effectiveness of the program, and that the revelation of said information was prejudicial to the interests of the US.

Thomas wrote:

3) The fact that SWIFT published on its own website a compliance policy, in which it specifically talks about cooperating with treasury departments for the purpose of combating illegal activities. I have read in a German newspaper that they had an article in their magazine in which they said a little more about terrorism. Though I haven't read this article, it seems to undermine the Bush administration's assertion of secrecy further.

I imagine you can go to thousands of websites and see a similar compliance policy stated. The fact that the compliance policy exists does not reveal that the fact of the monitoring was not classified information.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Thomas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If their case is weak, then we need to pass new laws giving them more power to control treasonous newspapers during wartime.

Then I suggest you stop barking and start biting. Write a petition to congress that you want such a law. Maybe someone will introduce a bill to this effect. I'm not holding my breath. The case against the New York Times is weak on its facts, not the law, and I think they know better than to turn this wave of manufactured outrage into permanent legislation.

That's sensible, oralloy. Why, when you wish to try or publicly indict some internal entity for treason, allow yourself to be curtailed by the laws related to the matter? Change 'em. Get those guys who aren't guilty who are guilty. They aren't guilty of treason now but they sure will be after we do a re-write. Won't that validate our opinion.

Thomas has it. There is no intention on the part of this administration to actually begin and carry through on these threats. The intent regarding the press is to bully and to minimize public political dissent/disagreement, to lessen the likelihood of further embarrassing revelations of impropriety or illegality (see the Hoeskstra story running now), and to further the morally and intellectually despicable talking point that the failures of this administration (particularly regarding Iraq/"War" on Terror) ought to be layed at the feet of everyone except the administration, but most particularly the press. Except Fox, of course.

That's a ridiculous position, blatham. Oralloy was not advocating an ex post facto law. But if the law is not capable of keeping the irresponsible NYT from publishing classified information to the detriment of the US, perhaps a new law with more teeth is in order. It's done all the time when loopholes in the current law are identified.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I imagine you can go to thousands of websites and see a similar compliance policy stated. The fact that the compliance policy exists does not reveal that the fact of the monitoring was not classified information.

If the treasury department of the world's largest financial superpower announces it goes after the financial transactions of an international terrorist group, and the world's largest agency for international financial transaction announces it's working together with treasury deparments, every terrorist with half a brain will know what's going on.

"Classify" is not the same as "secret". If George Bush classifies the information that Blatham has a mountie on his avatar, that becomes classified information. But calling it classified information doesn't actually make it a secret. And it's the secret part, not the "classified" part, that endangers national security.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

"Classify" is not the same as "secret".

I agree with you.

Thomas wrote:

If George Bush classifies the information that Blatham has a mountie on his avatar, that becomes classified information. But calling it classified information doesn't actually make it a secret. And it's the secret part, not the "classified" part, that endangers national security.

Actually, the section of the USC I quoted above says nothing about "secret," but does refer to "classified information."

But in any case, it seems the NYT admits it was a secret program in its headlines.

0 Replies

Well, as I said -- let's see what the courts say, and whether the Bush administration has the guts to press charges in the first place.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

parados wrote:
Wartime? Do you mean when Congress officially declares war? Or just anytime the President decides to send troops overseas or to the US border?

As you know, these days, wars aren't declared anymore as they were at the time the constitution was written. Your Supreme Court has decided long a go that a state of war can exist even without a declaration. It is a fact that America is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was not in dispute in any of the recent Supreme Court cases, nor is it controversial between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

There is the rub Thomas. Just having troops in Afghanistan doesn't mean we are at war there anymore than having troops in Germany means we are at war there. We certainly aren't at war with the country of Afghanistan. The court hasn't decided that war time is open ended. Hostilities has a meaning under the Geneva convention. I would guess the court will use "hostilities" as its standard. It is easy to define the end of hostilities when you have a country to sign a statement declaring the end of such hostilities; the cease fire in Korea, the UN statement in Iraq.

Whether the court will recognize the declaration of war on an idea, terrorism, as warfare is something else entirely. Terrorism will always exist. Is it possible to hold people because an idea hasn't been eliminated? The Bush administration has stated that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida is no longer the concern they once were.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Whether the court will recognize the declaration of war on an idea, terrorism, as warfare is something else entirely. Terrorism will always exist. Is it possible to hold people because an idea hasn't been eliminated? The Bush administration has stated that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida is no longer the concern they once were.

I'd have to go look up the cases again, but I think the Bush administration argued in court that the judicially relevant war is the one in Afghanistan. This war was `declared' -- or what passes for it in constitutional law nowadays -- by Congress's "authorization of military force" in 2001. The more abstract `war on terrorism', at least in my understanding, is not `declared' in any comparably formal way.

0 Replies

So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.

We have troops there but they are not fighting the Afghani government. Since the war with Afghanistan is over shouldn't those captured on the battlefield be returned to the present Afghani government according to the Geneva convention?

Could we have continued to hold Japanese prisoners of war because there were a few hold out Japanese soldiers, some not surrendering until the 1970s
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

The question is, at what point are hostilities over? Are they over when we say they are or is there some other designation that is recognized by courts? The idea that we can have an open ended war and hold people indefinitely should be anathema to any free people.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.

We have troops there but they are not fighting the Afghani government. Since the war with Afghanistan is over shouldn't those captured on the battlefield be returned to the present Afghani government according to the Geneva convention?

Could we have continued to hold Japanese prisoners of war because there were a few hold out Japanese soldiers, some not surrendering until the 1970s
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

The question is, at what point are hostilities over? Are they over when we say they are or is there some other designation that is recognized by courts? The idea that we can have an open ended war and hold people indefinitely should be anathema to any free people.

Why are you in such a hurry to release terrorists back into the wild where they can continue murdering civilians?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how that question would be resolved. But if the war in Afghanistan was over and there was no longer a war for the President to use war powers in, that would be a rather obvious argument for Hamdan's lawyers to make. From reading of their briefs, it seems to me they haven't made this argument. They have argued (and the Appeals Court rejected, and the Stevens opinion hasn't overruled the Appeals Court on this point) that there was no war in the first place because its formal declaration was lacking. But Hamdan didn't argue that if there had been a war, that war would be over by now. This is indirect, but pretty stong evidence that such an argument would have been weak. Íf the authorization of military force establishes a state of war, that war is currently ongoing.

0 Replies

They were captured in the course of a war. US troops are still in Afghanistan at the point in time. They are still engaged in minor skirmishes with remnants of who they were originally fighting. The argument can be easily made that the war is still ongoing. But what happens when US troops leave Afghanistan or when there is no more fighting? The Geneva convention states that all POWs should be returned at the end of hostilities.

The real problem is the Bush administration has been playing both sides of the convention. Claiming they are covered when convenient and claiming they aren't when it isn't. There will come a time when that will come back to haunt them in the courts.

My position has always been and continues to be. Either we have the best system in the world or we don't. If we do then use the system and prove it is the best. If not, then change it. But stop avoiding the issue by twisting the law to prevent the system from working. This avoidance only increases the chances of losing in courts.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The real problem is the Bush administration has been playing both sides of the convention. Claiming they are covered when convenient and claiming they aren't when it isn't. There will come a time when that will come back to haunt them in the courts.

I sure hope so.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

parados wrote:
So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.

We have troops there but they are not fighting the Afghani government. Since the war with Afghanistan is over shouldn't those captured on the battlefield be returned to the present Afghani government according to the Geneva convention?

Could we have continued to hold Japanese prisoners of war because there were a few hold out Japanese soldiers, some not surrendering until the 1970s
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

The question is, at what point are hostilities over? Are they over when we say they are or is there some other designation that is recognized by courts? The idea that we can have an open ended war and hold people indefinitely should be anathema to any free people.

Why are you in such a hurry to release terrorists back into the wild where they can continue murdering civilians?

Who said anything about releasing them. If they are guilty, charge them and convict them. If you suspect them, charge them. If you don't have any evidence then on what basis are you holding them?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.

We have troops there but they are not fighting the Afghani government. Since the war with Afghanistan is over shouldn't those captured on the battlefield be returned to the present Afghani government according to the Geneva convention?

Could we have continued to hold Japanese prisoners of war because there were a few hold out Japanese soldiers, some not surrendering until the 1970s
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

The question is, at what point are hostilities over? Are they over when we say they are or is there some other designation that is recognized by courts? The idea that we can have an open ended war and hold people indefinitely should be anathema to any free people.

Why are you in such a hurry to release terrorists back into the wild where they can continue murdering civilians?

Who said anything about releasing them. If they are guilty, charge them and convict them. If you suspect them, charge them. If you don't have any evidence then on what basis are you holding them?

They are being held on the basis that they were captured on the field of battle in, at least, proximity to non-uniformed combatants trying to kill American soldiers.

It is certainly possible that a few innocent goatherds got rounded up, and to the extent that it can be shown they were innocent goatherds, they should be released.

Let's not forget that a large number of Gitmo detainees have already been released, but let's put aside, for now, the fact that a number of such former detainees subsequently showed up on other battlefields trying to, and perhaps succeeding in, killing Americans.

The infamous Hamdan, we know with certainty, was not an innocent goatherd. How many goatherds (of the innocent variety) remain at Gitmo?

While I don't believe these folks deserve the protections of the Geneva Convention, I'm inclined grant them such rights. They have it pretty good there right now, how much better can they have it with the Geneva Convention as a safety net?

I could easily be wrong but doesn't the Geneva Conventions allow for prisoners of war to be held indefinitely or until there is a cessation of the war in which they were soldiers?

It seems to me that we should be able to send some portion of them back to their native lands: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, China, Russia etc and keep the rest on ice until the War on Terror is over.

Why should we be concerned about happens to the ones we return to their native lands?

Those we keep, we should treat humanely, but if they wish to kill themselves through self-induced starvation or hanging, why should we interfere?

I favor the establishment of some sort of judicial system that allows would be innocent goatherds to plead their case before a judicial body, with representation of counsel. I don't at all favor allowing them the sort of legal rights that can allow a guilty American to remain free based on technicalities. Such rights (in theory at least) protect the rights of the broader American public. We have no need to proceed with such extraordinary caution when it comes to people picked up on battlefields.

0 Replies

By coincidence, I had a dream about you last night finn. Your appearance suggested contentment or even "I've finally found my simple place" happiness. You were herding five goats.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
John Amato astutely asks an excellent question: why are all of the Bush supporters celebrating the unauthorized leak to the Daily News of the FBI's arrests of alleged terrorists who were talking in Internet chat rooms about blowing up the Holland Tunnel (later news reports indicated that the plot was really aimed at the PATH commuter train)?

Don't know if I'm a Bush supporter or not, but I think the printing of that story justifies the government forcibly closing down that newspaper for the duration of the war.

0 Replies

Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to reveal.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know