What is Digg?181 Comments
- TheNaysayer, on 10/12/2007, -18/+68this is just disgusting.
- FCon4, on 10/12/2007, -14/+50Just curious. Revealing Valerie Plame's identity/role was wrong and required many investigations (pronounced Scooter Libby, et al.), yet revealing to the world a LEGAL (and Congress-sanctioned) policy doesn't meet the same scrutiny? Disgusting indeed.
- mrsark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36don't you americans have a first amendment to protect against this exact behaviour?
- hoyaman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40Well, for starters, it's disgusting because the GOP attacks the NY Times, but not the Wall Street Journal and LA Times, both of whom also ran the story on the same day as the NY Times.
The program itself is no secret --- SWIFT has a public web site, and Pres. Bush has mentioned numerous times his intent to stop financial transactions of terrorists. What was disclosed is, get ready for it, THIS PROGRAM TO INVESTIGATE OUR FINANCIAL RECORDS HAS NO OVERSIGHT. So whether you believe it's 'legal' or not, there's no one who can say it isn't far worse than Watergate. We have no way to verify it isn't subverting the Democratic process.
Links to love:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/28/keith-strikes-back-against-nyt-bashers/
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Terrorism+Bank+transactions+prosecution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Oh, and China admires the GOP:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/world/asia/27clampdown.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fNews%2fWorld%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fChina&oref=slogin - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36The whole thing is absurd. Its like charging someone with treason because they stated the obvious.
I for one don't think the terrorists are so dumb that they dont beleive world wide financial transactions are monitored and that because of the NYT all of a sudden they aren't careful anymore...
Bush just doesn't like it when people dont agree with him and can't stand someone keeping an eye on what hes doing. - Tirorenn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33The part of the bottom--attacking freedoms of the press by former presidents--is entirely true. Which brings up a very nasty point: why do we consider some attacks, like the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Bush's attacks, BAD, but consider others, necessary, or at the worst, not even fact? (how many know that Lincoln basically gagged the press?) Why are some wars EVIL, and some GOOD? Aren't they all in between? Who's to decide?
Personally, I'm very angry at Bush for incidents like these, but we have to wonder...its possible that he may be exonerated in the future. After all, it's happened before. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to criticize...and then again, we must be certain to protect our rights. - numb401, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28first amendment? who's that? The constitution doesn't mean much when "national security" is at stake.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19What war is that?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+34And Bush and Cheney have never attempted to underhand the government in the last 6 years? Please. Both should be deported from America.
- byronm, on 10/12/2007, -15/+33How can liberals be jihadist if were marxist, communist and socialists? we wouldn't believe in religion.. come on, the right wing noise machine cant even get their store straight.
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Just hope that the NYT gets taken to court. The government will promptly lose because of freedom of the press and the precedents established since the pentagon papers. The only way this administration will stop bullying reporters is if it is made abundantly clear by the courts that they can't.
- thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18telekinesis is the ability to move objects with your mind, i dont get your comment
- jayc, on 10/12/2007, -18/+35@Egoist
Lincoln waged war against slavery. Bush is waging war against gays and flag burners.
If anything, history will be harsher than we ever could. - adam84a, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21what was your point?
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23@jayc
As disgusting as the concept of slavery is - if you think that Lincoln and the civil war was all about slavery, you are sadly mistaken. Please read your history books. - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Examples:
* Limiting CIA Powers
* Exposing CIA Agent Identities
* Purposely keeping terrorism alive - make links that don't exist and let terrorists live and flourish by preventing the CIA and other nationals from capturing/destorying them.
* centralizing power under presidential authority so it doesn't require congressional oversite.
i can list more.. the obvious ones are he is cheating america into the palm of his hands at the mercy of fear and the guise of terrorism.
keep your blinds on.. makes it all seem nice a pretty eh? - Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23The people have a right to know everything that its government does. This is perhaps not backed up by law, but by the fundamentals that this country was founded upon. Reporting anything that the government does should not ever be illegal. Beyond that, we are not at war officially, because only congress can declare war, and they have not.
- CrazyPsychoPeon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/HughHewitt/2006/06/29/203012.html
I don't believe that Anti-War comments should be illegal, I think that you are welcome to criticize the president (without violence and such), but this truly is a disgrace. - mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28Bush is the traitor...
- BloatedBunny, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21yea, but, like are constitution, it seems to have been put on hold...
- cjweeks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Freedom of the Press--this means the President and congress should have no authority telling ANY newspaper what they can and cannot print. If do go down this path, we'll have a government that is censoring all of the news media outlets. Fairly soon you'll hear..."Sorry baseball scores couldn't be published up to the minute due to the National Security risks."
- BennyBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@Pabster
Just so you know... i have a security clearance and i work with classified information everyday. If you do not have a security clearance and have not been briefed to classified information, you cannot be held legally accountable for the protection of classified information. When you are granted a security clearance and granted acces to classified information, you must sign a legal documents that impell you to protect this information under the threat of legal action. without signing these documents, you cannot be held legally acountable for the protection of information that may be classified. an individual not bound bu the constraints of security clearnce has not legal responsibility to protect classified information, and is protected by the constitution to discuss whatever they see fit. again, the publishing of classified information is not illegal, as long as the publishers have not signed non-disclosure agreements with the US government. whoever leaked classified information to publishers are the ones that broke the law by violating non-disclosure agreements, not the publishers themselves. - deanbag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16pawchikapawpaw, I gave you a thumbs down for bad language and using CAPS unnecessarily.
But to your first point, this article is from the UK Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a notable right-wing conservative. So I don't get your point about the story's source...
As to the second point, despite whatever Rush Limbaugh's been telling you, it's actually an open question whether spying on American's financial records is legal. Since we don't know the extent of the program, nobody knows where the administration is drawing the line... or if they are at all.
But what we do know is that it's a largely pointless spying program because terrorists don't transfer their money through these methods. They use informal methods, not international bank transfers. We also know that it follows a disturbing pattern by this administration of unnecessary power-grabbing.
Oh, and just an aside, I thought you right-wing types were against big govt? So why then do you have the newfound urge to let FBI examine your monthly bank account statement? Seems to me like you haven't thought it through. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Well, we're supposed to. Nixon tried the same stunt when the Pentagon Papers came out, he tried to prosecute the New York Times and the Times won. We can only hope that they will be exonerated again.
- StacyWebb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Remember Bush wanted to do that to the person who leaked the CIA operatives name, until he found out it was "possibly" Karl Rove.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13We have the freedom of the press, and as far as I'm concerned, the New York Times had full rights to publish what they did. It was distasteful and irresponsible, but it was legal.
However, the source of the leak, on the other hand, was in the wrong by leaking classified information. Not only is that illegal and treasonous, but it tarnishes our reputation, and puts serious doubts in the minds of other countries' intelligence programs, like the MI6, if they can trust giving us classified information. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If Karl Rove leaked the names, he shuld have been held responsible. No man is above the law, and that's what the country was founded on (Kings were above the law, afterall.), and that's what impeachment is for, as well (though impeachment, specifically, is only for Presidents, I believe.).
- hoyaman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12ZSlider:"What next? This in from the NY Times...The exact US troop movements in Iraq today are..."
No, you're thinking of Geraldo Rivera on FOX NEWS:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/01/084959.php
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31809
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/23/geraldo-rivera-ive-seen-a-hell-of-a-lot-more-combat-than-john-kerry/
WOO-HOO! Let the facts be drowned again! Folks who support Bush also need to Remember that it was the NY times who employed Judith Miller. Without her, we possibly wouldn't even be in this mess. - hexix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10bonch*3:
"You totally nailed it. Politics breeds double-standards. Democrats were up in arms over Valerie Plame (even when it was public knowledge beforehand that she worked for the CIA). Somehow, an intelligence program that monitors foreign bank transactions deserves to be revealed for no reason. The NY Times article didn't even have any evidence of illegality or suggest such. They just revealed it for the hell of it."
I think you're right, and yet you don't see yourself as doing the same thing. If you're going to say the democrats are being hypocritical, then don't you also have to say that republicans are being hypocritical? If they didn't think leaking information was wrong before, then how could they be so furious now?
Your answer for this (as you mentioned in your post) is probably that you think Plame was already known to be an agent. OK, well do you honestly think that terrorists didn't know financial records could be traced to them if they aren't careful? I remember after September 11th, when we were actually interested in finding the people responsible for the attacks -- instead of being sidetracked by Iraq -- that Bush gave speeches saying we were following money trails and hunting people down. So, then, is Bush giving up our super secret tactics? WTF? - digitalcassette, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14yeah we have a first amendment and it includes freedom of press. the problem is our personal liberties are being trampled upon daily and when the New York Times pointed out yet another occurance of our liberties being trampled upon they get labeled with treason. the other problem is that there are no checks and balances anymore. the government can label anyone as a potential terrorist with zero evidence and then invade your life as if the constitution didn't even exist. the NYT has the right and the need to inform us of every time the constitution is being trampled upon.
- chase001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Bye Bye media. Hello fascism.
- thereisnospoon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice it says 'Congress shall make no law' and not 'President shall not talk out of his ass' . I'm sure that would read rather differently if Bush had his way...
Anyway it is fairly obvious they do this tracking of bank accounts - especially for any US citizen living abroad who has to fill out the silly Form TDF 90-22.1 for 'Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts'. - mayana, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This is despicable!!! But wait! Don't people remember how GW and friends decided to make Valerie Plame's identity public?! It was confidential, but GW decided to unclassify it, so technically, he claims its legal. And that's Scooter Libby's defense. Isn't this a "what is is" moment?
And did you hear how Tony Snow, the new spokesman, replied to a question by Helen Thomas about permanent bases in Iraq - "Helen, it depends on how you define permanent...." Whaaa!?!?
Hhhmmmm... together with the signing statements and the ability to interpret laws per his own interpretation, this administration is starting to feel like a monarchy.
Booo!!!! War on Terror! 9/11!!! Cut-and-Run!!!! Mushroom clouds!!! 7 guys in a warehouse TALKING about attacking the Sears Towers even though they never had contact with Al Qaeda and cite the Bible and are not devout Muslims!!! Booo!!! Boooo!!! Booooo!!!
Everything down the drain coz of bumper sticker politics and scare tactics. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10America was a different place, then. We had never experienced a hostile action on our country's soil before, and plus, we were completely confounded by the fact that someone would kill themselves, along with over 200 civilians, and crash a 747 into a building, using it as a bomb. The idea was completely alien.
- drunkenirish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@drinkgreen
"Long story short, in some cases, the less people know the better. Love it or hate it."
So you agree that we should only get filtered news from Iraq (and lets not forget Afghanistan) so it seems more like a "Good vs. Evil" war? You only want the rosy picture that America is the ultimate good guy/do no wrong country and that everyone we fight is evil and the deaths are justified, no matter what reasons our politicians feel like making up today?
Do you not even care where your tax dollars, or those of several generations of our children, are going? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Exactly.. you can't get fired. That is of course, if you're a Bush loving conservative or friend of the president.
"No man is above the law"
Funny.. Bush just signed off on a bill where he could ignore the law if he wanted. - zSlider, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Yeah, you should be referring to that ESPN thing...
- demonsnake69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I agree with you here. The NY Times didn't hire Sam Fisher or somebody to steal the documents for them. Someone who is involved in this program most-likely blabbed to them. And since they are a newspaper (a business and thus they want readers), they printed it. If we're going to accuse the Times of being treasonous, we should also find out who leaked this story to the Time in the first place.
- kkapoor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12I think the administration has officially lost it!!
- drunkenirish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ZMoney
The problem is, most right-wing pundits, columnists and people feel that statements like that go both ways. So they don't actually say "people who read the NYT are jihadists" but when being read "Jihadists should read the NYT", it's not a far jump to reverse the statement in the minds of the people.
Don't forget, even though this administration has admitted, on film, that Iraq was not involved in the September 11Th attacks, a good majority of the people still believe that Sadam was piloting the planes himself because of the way it was indirectly worded, both in papers and in State of the Union addresses. - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9The only treasonous party is the Administration trying to disregard the Freedom of Press.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the press must put the country in a "clear and present" danger in order for them to be prosecuted. Revealing another illegal government suveliance program does not constitute this and it is merely Bush trying to shift attention/blame to the messenger. - plaunie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I don't think this was treason. It is the press' job to make information it finds available to all. The actual "act" of treason (if it really was, but that's a different argument) would have been when the information was transferred from the government to the NY Times by who ever leaked it.
- mtgarden, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Do you suppose that the Bush administration is upset because there really was evidence to find? or are they simply upset because they don't like the NYT? Further, it seems to me, that the NYT has presented this story as if the Bush adminsitration is doing terrible things and that they administration is being a big brother. While I am opposed to some of the "big brotherish" programs taht Bush has instituted, nothing has been proven against Bush in this instance. NYT and other papers seem to have tried and judged the administration without giving us full information. I haven't had time to research all of this article so I am speaking from secondhand info, but it seems that the reporting is fairly biased in this case. At best, I would think the NYT should have thier wrists slapped for accusing the adminsitration without presenting proof.
- Judgement, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7In the end, it is the job of the New York Times to keep an eye on our government, so I don't blame them for that.
I would have been okay with this if it just wasn't so darned illegal. - wpholmes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@quine
The civil war was certainly not just (or even mainly) about slavery, however, that is what everyone remembers Lincoln for. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8" but if he were the president now, he wouldn't have a friend in the worl"
What many do not know is that he at that time, he had no friends in the world. Abe was savaged from all sides. He was not even a sure bet for reelection in 1864. I think Abe had it much worse than Bush and yet he kept on because he knew his cause was right and we today are better off because of that. - emitemirp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6flga564: "The Times revealed so much information on this program, that it is all but useless in catching terrorist" This program was USELESS in catching terrorists BEFORE NYTimes revealed this program. (Note: this is applicable only to Muslim terrorists which most Americans incorrectly equate anyway. Remember terrorists come in all nationalities.)
Most of the Islam world uses an Islamic style of banking that doesn't follow the channels of Western style banking. I forgot the name of it, but this type of banking doesn't have official records of transactions and the transactions are most certainly not sent over the international banking systems. It's very ad-hoc and uses "old-school" methods of tracking (inventions such as "paper"). Basically, Islam banking is not under the purview of international banking channels. The intelligence community is having a hard time trying to track transactions within these banks. - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Bush has admitted several times over the past few years that they have been tracking terrorist money, it was no secret. The secret was that they are now tracking it's own citizens money, something which goes against the foundation of this country. If the press reveals that the administration is doing something illegal, no matter how top secret it is, they cannot be prosecuted for this. Once again, the "clear and present danger" test must be put to use. No one is going to get killed over this, as the terrorist may be evil -- they are not dumb and I am sure they already know that they were being tracked as Bush has admitted it himself.
- jwilkinson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8What about the Wall Street Journal? This right-wing newspaper also reported on the story, but I don't see the Bushies accusing them of treason
- dustko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Dude, if people have strong opinions against George Bush's abuse of powers then it means they love America, and the Constitution on which it stands. It's invalid and a dangerous precedent to pigeon hole someone as treasonist because they're message speaks out against the government or the governments actions and policies -- isn't that what makes democracy so unique?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is