What is Digg?193 Comments
- byronm, on 10/12/2007, -40/+79Nothing is secret when the government is "by and for the people".. sorry Bush, you can't ruin america without someone finding out.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -11/+48Nobody is saying you can't spy on terrorists, in fact please do. The problem is they aren't getting warrants from the FISA courts even though you can get them up to 3 days after the fact. This means that there is nothing stopping them from doing things such as spying on their political enemies' phone, bank and other records.
- seenthefuture, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32I don't really think it's that big of deal to them, I mean we all know and nobody's doing ***** about it. Congress is sipping their imported beverages, the courts are dismissing any chance to stop them, and the American people are amusing themselves to death.
- Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35Fourteen defining characteristics of fascism:
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
Two birds with one stone, I guess. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33Feel free to e-mail drop Mr. King and e-mail and let him know what you think.
Pete.King@mail.house.gov
Or you can write to him at:
436 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Or call him at:
202 - 225 - 7896 OR
516 - 541 - 4225 OR
631 - 541 - 4225
Be sure to mention that you're a resident in his district (New York 3rd). - Coolhaus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31BushCo certainly didn't feel this way when they announced the program at a press conference in 2001.
This smells of deperation. - 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27forbidding news papers from printing things about the government and/or anything else... sounds like our government is taking queues from 17th century england...
here is a new definition of irony: irony == america - lexbaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21I would.
A member of the New York Times is the press. It's their job to report the information they learn. The Constitution of the United States guarantees that right. The person that should be charged with treason is the person that leaked it to the press.
In your scenario if it was a soldier, a government official, or the like sharing information with the enemy, then yes. THAT is treason. - cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25...because freedom of information is a plot by communists, liberals and gays!
please, maybe more people would keep their mouths shut about stuff like this if it had a higher approval rating. we aren't less patriotic now than we were during world war 2, we just had more of a reason to support these types of decisions back then. give me a war worth fighting for and i'll show the government more power. - databyss, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21If they're too lazy to read the article, what are the odds that they'll read your comment history.
One of these days I'll introduce you to logic, he's a great guy. - KyleRayner, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Wouldnt it be better for the people to know about the measures being taken to prevent terrorism? Its like the cameras at Wal-Mart, they put em in big, obvious locations, and inform you that you are being watched.
If they let the world know loudly how hard we are trying to Prevent terrorism, then maybe theyll think twice. Instead, we are using these secretive means to try and Catch terrorists. - stealthc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17There are many untruthful premises used by Peter King. When he says "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," he's first trying to get you to presume that the United States *is* at war. I'm sorry; our last declared war was World War II and all conflicts following it have been illegal military adventures by dictatorial Presidents who do not understand the limits upon their power. The President becomes "commander in chief" ONLY AFTER CONGRESS DECLARES WAR. The other presumption he is trying to get the reader to make is that disclosing secrets of this nature are treasonous during war. First of all, one would have to prove that specific individuals at the Times sought to overthrow our government by publishing that information by the testimony of no fewer than two witnesses. Newspapers can't be convicted of treason, only people can.
Moreover, the subtler presumption he is making and hopes we all make is that in a time of war (and probably all other times) the privacy of government supersedes everything. This is totalitarian thinking and Peter King is no republican. He is a collectivist. He appears convinced that the privileges of the rulers trump the Natural Rights of the ruled.
The people created the States, and the Federal government is a creation of the States to help them organize certain things in common. The Federal level was designed to be BELOW all the others. The idea that the Federal government has any right to boss us around or point accusatory fingers is absolute nonsense. It is unamerican. It is totalitarian. Every congressperson and president who thinks this way needs to be removed immediately from office. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17> Yeah, that's why were still the only superpower.
Oh, yeah... that's what the "American Experiment" is about, being a "Super Power".
Idiot. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14No, I believe what they're doing is exposing fundamentally illegal actions by the US Government. Its approach is to look through the entire haystack for the needle. This is a fundamental violation of existing laws and the constitution. The administration insists on doing anything it wants under the guise of "National Security". Someone has to expose how much is being covered up.
The interesting thing is that terrorists have long had a system called hawala which exists outside the standard banking system to transfer funds. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Actually, the thing is...he is ruining America even with us finding out....because Americans aren't doing crap about what he's doing.
- stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Ralph Nader is a famously honest man. Unfortunately, a lot of people find that kooky.
- agoodman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I think Benjamin Franklin said it best:
"those who would give up liberty to purchase safety deserve neither" - canonman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
Apparently Mr. King, representative of my fair state of New York, doesn't know his judicial precedence history. This happened with the Vietnam war too and the Supreme Court Ok'd it. We (well I) learned this in high school folks. Give me a break...
At least apparently nothing has actually happened outside of Mr. Kings whining... - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yet we're held hostage by a band of Arab thugs.
Some superpower. - scottc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Agreed. The irony here is that Bush campaigned on anti-federal platform that called for increased states rights and a smaller federal government. Then when *he* became a federal official he reversed course and has since been overruling the states in every way he can. His administration has created what is certainly the largest, and probably the most powerful, federal government in our country's history.
- mrman5917, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I must say that I am a bit disappointed in the user base of Digg. Too many of the people on this site are quick to jump to conclusions, use "evidence" given by others who are equally misinformed, and would rather go with the flow then actually questioning everything. You say that the pupose of freedom is to give us the ability to question, however, you only question when the media says to question. You should question the media just as much as you question the government. Too many people are too quick to accept media reports at face value.
Having friends in other countries, they say all to often that our media has little to no credibility. I tend to credit this with the fact that we accept everything that our media says to us. Did you ever th are equally likely to do tings that aren't so great?
People are so quick to think that the government is watching YOU and they are wathing YOUR account etc etc. Do you actually think the governemtn cares that much about you? Get your head out of the ground and take a look around. The government has limited resources, and there are only so many people they can watch. Do you think they would waste time looking at you when there are people that are more likely to be bigger targets? No body cares that you like nude midgets or canadian bacon on your pizza. They do care, however, if you are calling Khalid of the Taliban and transfering $10,000 to some annoymous person in Iraq. - maps2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9C'mon - does anyone really think that the terrorists haven't assumed that we're watching these transactions already? I'd hate to think we're underestimating the again...
- ricecold, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11you're right...I think we should probably publish the weapons and radar manuals to all of our military's platforms...That way everyone can know whats going on. As a matter of fact, lets publish our battle plans for the war a week in advance. The people deserve to know. Just so no one is kept in the dark. Use your head...no secrets...not practical for nation security. This isn't anything new either...secrecy in government that is essential to security has been going on forever.
- KyleRayner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12""oh maybe they'll stop being *****-bird crazy terrorists because they know how see how hard were working to stop them"
So if preventative measures wont stop them, then what will? From your hyperbole-filled remark, sounds like you think nothing stops them. So now what? Just wait and die? Try to kill them all first, and piss of the rest of the world so they become terrorists? - TheTrueSora, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Nah, Regan's is better:
There is no left or right. There’s only an up or down: up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society — or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path. - lexbaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Crazy, isn't it?
Yes, killing them all first is EXACTLY what the US wants to do.
"Wipe them out. ALL of them." -- George W. Bush
"Do what must be done. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy." -- Dick Chaney - lord2800, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Treason is defined very specifically in the Constitution(in fact, it's the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution, and for a reason). It's defined as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." What the NY Times did is nothing more than in-depth(possibly _too_ in-depth, but that's another issue entirely) reporting. The public has a right to knowledge of the government's doings, and this accusation of "treasonous doings" is complete *****.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10If he had done his job in the beginning we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Hell, they even gave him a fuccking memo a month before the attack. - dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11New York Times Secretly Sifting CIA Data
by Scott Ott
(2006-06-23) — Under a secret program launched in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, which killed 3,000 people on American soil, The New York Times gained access to private information from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and disseminated it periodically on paper and electronically to al Qaeda and other terror organizations.
News of the covert ‘intel-sifting and sharing’ program follows revelations by the Times and other major media operations that the Bush administration ordered monitoring of major international bank transactions after the 9/11 attacks, which toppled two of the tallest buildings in the United States.
Times executive editor Bill Keller, in a hastily-called news conference, assured Americans that the scope of the intel-sifting and sharing program is “strictly limited” and that the results are “crucial to the success of the war on the war on terror.”
But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) raised questions today saying “the civil rights of Americans must come before the strategic interests of ‘Big Media’.” (excerpt from scrappleface.com) - DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Al Gore is an honest, competent and hard working man. However this turned off American voters who saw this as too inhuman and robotic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore
In fact many people voted for Bush because they said they could relate to him. They saw Bush as a guy they could share a beer or bbq with; moving to texas from connecticut and buying a ranch to fool the masses was political genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush - Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Instead of 'NY Times accused of treason,' the headlines everywhere should be reading 'Karl Rove up to his old election-year tricks again'.
- edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Does this surprise anyone. Bush and his cronies have been stomping on the constitution for political and economic gain since day one. They are war profiteers at best - war criminals at worst and need to be removed from office.
- emb3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's interesting to me that most of your assumptions are that the program is illegal. It quite clearly isn't, even the article in the NYT states that.
- zboog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's not the intelligence apparatus that we want dismantled - it's the illegal activities of our intelligence opperation. We live in a country of laws, and it's becoming apparent that the current administration believes that the laws do not apply in cases of "national security".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7> It's sentiment like this that will make the war on terror ten times longer than it could have been
Dude.... they're already calling it the "long war". It's going to be 10x longer than your worst, most pessimistic estimation. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This is all part of Cheney's plan to re-establish the powerful exeuctive which was dismantled after the Nixon administration. The more the administration can get away with, the more power they consolidate.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The Republic and its citizens in Star Wars Episode 3 really paralleled the current state in America. This becomes more obvious when you hear Lucas admit he was inpspired by the Nixon administration in making the first trilogy.
- pr0t0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6
While I agree with just about all of your comment, I think I should bring up a small counter-point. I don't pretend to know the exact nature of U.S. intelligence agencies spy programs, but I don't think I'd be wrong to say that they are listening to just about every call made from the U.S. to Iraq. Not all calls made from the U.S. to Iraq involve any sort of terrorism at all. I'd be willing to bet most involve legitimate business interests or connecting to loved ones.
Frankly, I don't care who the government spies upon (citizen or otherwise) as long as a warrant is obtained. By it's very definition, spying on someone with a warrant is...well, warranted. It's the sidestepping of the laws that protect the U.S. citizens from the U.S. government that puts me on a soapbox.
The power of the people over the government is the tricky and tenuous foundation of our nation, but it must be maintained. - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The press regularly gets access the government doesn't have. The press has met with terrorists, the press has met Osama, been in training camps, traded in the underground propoganda war and those who run it. The press *ISN'T* the military and they have the right to plead the 5th, first or whatever it is because that is what is guaranteed to them.
Without the freedom of the press we would know nothing in how these people operate, behave, communicate and act and leaving it up to our government to filter and spin would not only be disasterous but a failure of democracy to take action. - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You give an inch, they take a mile.
Our government is no longer restricted by people resources, but knowledge resources. You are no longer flagged by long, grivous and thorough investigations but flagged by computer matching, habits, your friends and family.
That is the problem i have with all encompassing government. Democracy nor capitalism can live or flourish under a watchfull eye of a government without restraint or control for the purpose of the government is to serve and protect.
If this information proved so usefull why was it not acted upon by the Bush administration? What is the purpose of collecting it if you don't plan to use it in a lawfull manor?
Its not about George W Bush, he's just the frontman. Its about the failed neocsonervative fascist movement that is trying to ramp up the government to an all encompassing big brother in the name of protecting us from terrorism.
What we choose not to do out of fear is acceptance of failure. We choose to accept fear, we have failed and sorry folks, the current administration is built entirely on fear. Fear that our press is ruining america, fear that democrats are cut and run, fear that liberals are communists, fear that if you do this something "bad" will happen, fear that if you don't question the government your a "Terrorist sympothizer".
You have accepted fear, you have accepted that someone knows better than yourself on what America stands for and that is YOUR loss. - rohcky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Love live King George.
- fastfood15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@the idiot who brought up normandy
Normandy was a military operation, the press nor the american people knew that the operation was going to happen. A "secret" spy organization that resides in the US that has been passed through congress, cannot be held up to the same level of secrecy as a military operation during war time. Not to mention the fact that Alqeada (sry for spelling) has their own intelligence agencies. I'm sure that it was not the first time they heard about the spy program when they cracked open their NYTimes. - DirkBelig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Ideological Honesty Check: If there was a President Gore or Kerry in the Oval Office (shudder), would the NY Times be so eager to endanger national security if they were taking the same steps to fight terrorism? If President Gore/Kerry asked them to not run these stories, would the Times agree or thumb their nose and blather about the "public interest"?
Duh.
The liberal Bush-haters need to ask themselves, "What happens after we've reclaimed power by destroying our intelligence apparatus? Who will help us in the future when they've seen that their intel will appear in the press? Will they believe that the sieve will stop leaking now that we're back in charge?"
Sure, they'll blame W for screwing things up - no responsibility or accountablility for the Left, dontcha know? - and the media will cover up for their actions which will lead to more 9/11s, but who cares? Power is an end to itself and if the result of civilians and soldiers dying or being maimed is the restoration of Democrats to the throne, isn't that a small price to pay? - nexgenmatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5quine
http://rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3136
Do I get my cookie now? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7> It wasn't just printing "things about the government" it was a secret...
Oh, a "secret"... like, say, outing a CIA operative?
Oh, you mean "selective secret".
No, wait... want the fsck do you mean?
Do you even know what you fscking mean?
I thought not. - StrikerObi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Shouldn't this really be subversion? Treason implies reneging on an oath of loyalty, which citizens do not take (no, the Pledge of Allegiance does not count). Either way it's retarded.
- djAnakin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous,"
Absolutely, 100% agree. Who's side are you people on!? Apparently you don't want terrorism to end. Meh. I could do without it!
NYTimes is extremely biased. It's sad. - slochewie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Our founding fathers were traitors. If they hadn't stood up for their rights we would still be a British colony. Furthermore they would consider Bush a despot and would surely have his tyrant ass ousted. Bush should just dissolve the Senate and DOJ and become Emperor. Why keep the other branches of government if Bush can get constantly get away with ignoring the system of Checks and Balances and breaking the law.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The day that the New York Times is charged with treason for informing the public about another secret Bush Administration counter - privacy program.
Will be the day that Karl Rove is charged with high treason for the undercover CIA leak. Nuff said.
----
http://www.democratgiftshop.com - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The only treason here is this government constantly ***** all over the constitution and the rights of the American people. Now that the fourth amendment is basically defeated they have turned their efforts against the first. The only one they want to fight for is half of a sentence in the second amendment that says "right to bear arms", but the first half of that sentence, about a well organized militia is still ok to ignore. You might think that you have no part in this, that it is the government and there is nothing you can do to stop them, but anyone who lets them get away with this elimination of our unalienable rights is the one who should be guilty of treason. This is the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, and we are letting them strip away the very things that make this country great, all in the name of "security". Stop being a coward. Don't be so willing to hand over the rights that millions of Americans fought and died for just because some rich white guy says terrorists might kill you if you don't. It is terrifying how ignorant most people are about what is being done to the basic freedoms that this country is based on. They throw around catch phrases like "war on terror", but they don't want to eliminate terror and fear among the general population. They say this to KEEP you scared, a constant warning that there is "TERROR" out there trying to get you. Do you think they would get away with any of the stuff they have gotten away with if nobody in this country was even slightly afraid of the "evil doers"? Of course not. Their political strategy depends on the American public being afraid. Afraid that terrorists will kill us all, afraid that SARS and anthrax and bird flu and pig flu will kill us all, afraid that some Mexican guy will take your dream job of scrubbing toilets for $2 an hour, but an overpriced Haliburton fence will stop him, afraid that gay people will form happy relationships without being persecuted by ignorant rednecks, which will obviously destroy everyone's family somehow. Stop being afraid and start actually thinking.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 189 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is