Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 28, 2006, 03:14:01 PM
-
GOP states today that a free press, one that is free of state censorship - is harming us as Americans and that only they know best on how to keep us safe from harm:
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=governmentFilingsNews&storyID=2006-06-28T175249Z_01_N28365526_RTRIDST_0_SECURITY-SWIFT-MEDIA.XML
-
Hastert is an idiot.
-
They are asking that the NYT be stripped of press credentials to the white house.
They are also trying to introduce a censure in the house. A censure. Of a newspaper.
In 1999, Congress voted to censure a research scientist.
Source: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00-016_congressional_censure.htm
His findings, which were that not every child who was sexually abused as a child grew up to have psychological issues - was considered a 'repulsive finding' and it was felt it would encourage pedophiles. They voted 355 to 0 on that.
But never has Congress censured an American newspaper for a story. Ever. Not even during the civil war. At least I cannot find in the Congressional Record any such instance.
The censure is a tool for Congress to use against the executive branch for misdeeds. It was not intended to rebuke a free press.
Somebody leaked that information to the NYT. They printed it. Sorta like.... oh say, Watergate. So who is Bush's Howard Hunt? Well, should we let the Justice Department march into the NYT and confiscate records to find out? Or allow Congress to censure the Times for this?
Maybe the American people should know that their bank records are being data mined for transactional patterns. Without consent. I don't think knowing it is happening is a bad thing. Since when did the terrorists not know this? Were they off using their Discover cards to buy reams and reams of pool cleaner and not suspecting anyone would get wise?
A formal congressional censure of the NYT would be unprecedented. Leaks are part of Washington, and killing the messenger just puts us in the same league as Iran.
-
Why do they need a 'resolution' for every damn thing..?
If they don't like the NY Times just revoke their press passes and refuse any interaction with them and their parent company.
That said I don't think the press has the 'right' or 'obligation' to report everything it happens upon especially if the information is 'classified'. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from responsibility.
-
Does anyone honestly think it was news to the terrorists that we were watching their money?
LOL
-
I recollect the '64 election as a child. Goldwater wasn't as scary as what I''m hearing and seeing now.
The fear with Barry was that he'd nuke the Russians. The fear now is that the executive branch is seeking a coup de grace over constitutional rule.
hap
-
if the executive branch does in fact "take over the government" it will be because the soccer moms have allowed it to happen while their emasculated husbands play "fantasy football". I don't think it will ever happen so drastically as that. we will lose our freedoms the same way you boil a live frog. hopefully I'll never live to see it.
-
For those young enough not to recollect, read the 1964 Republican Platform and notice the GREAT difference in ideas between then and what passes for republicianism these days.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1964
It is worth talking about. The differences are notable and worth noting and discussing. Also, don't take what I've said here and recommended as my approval of the Democratic Party. It isn't.
Again, take some time, esp staunch Republicans under 35 or there abouts, to see what a traditional republican looked like in 1964. Also, a 60 year old in 64 was 36 in 1940. He was 20 in 1924. These guys were thoughtful Americans who took seriously the fundamental differences in the American system of government compared to the belligerents in WW1 and 2 and also our allies.
hap
-
According to this article, there is no such statement as the one you interpreted...
GOP states today that a free press, one that is free of state censorship - is harming us as Americans and that only they know best on how to keep us safe from harm
That's simply not what was said...it's a politically charged, convenient twisting of words.
Also, as to the data mining arguement...when did you agree to let credit bureaus mine and archive your personal financial data? When did you sign on to let them make thier own value judgement of you as a credit risk, then share that opinion with others, possibly to your detriment? Where are the laws governing such behavior? Where is the regulatory oversight? What is a person's recourse when there are conflicts or error, other than going to the source of the mistake and hoping they'll agree with you? None whatsoever...but that's OK.
The fact is that financial transactions are monitored by all kinds of entities at all times. The bank that issued your credit card, the store where you used it, the third-party marketing firm that's hired to evaluate and profile the buying demographic...not to mention almost every web page you'll ever visit.
The point Hastert and other are actually trying to make is that the idea of freedom of the press is not childishly simple, and there are expectations of responsibility associated with it. A newspaper CAN actually print a harmful, irresponsible article. What's the difficulty in accepting that?
The same idea has been hashed over concerning freedom of speech...not everything qualifies. And not all speech is responsible speech, else we would not have things like slander and hate-speech laws. We have a right to freedom of assembly too, but try doing it without a permit in NYC and see what happens. Where's the moral outrage there?
The right to free press, or free speech, or assembly do not trump the rights of another to be safe, secure and free from persecution.
Free speech does not mean a right to incite riot.
Would a person feel just as wronged if the story detailed where American troops were stationed, what patrols and routes were planned for the day, what level of armament they had and who their informers were? That way, we could all be properly informed...we're entitled to know, after all, right?
What if it was your brother/son/dad/mom they outed that day, so the terrorist could have an easier time of killing them?
It feels better to be bubbling over with righteous indignation at the politcal outrage some choose to perceive, but I don't think it's a well thought out position to take.
Journalistic recklessness and fallibility are very real things...not everything known should be shouted from the rooftops, and never forget that our free press is a business...a business that needs to make money - first and foremost.
This was just wrong, and good people will pay the price for a stupid demonstration of "see what I can do and you can't stop me". This kind of behavior is more dangerous to a free press, because it casts the spotlight on the press' inability to make intelligent decisions about it's bylines, thereby inviting controls we don't want.
Maybe the jihadists are all over this, maybe not. Those who hunt these animals seem to feel quite strongly that we've lost an important tool.
No, I most certainly do not support curtailing freedom of the press, but I absolutely demand a very high level of intelligence and responsibility, and an understanding of consequences and who they will befall.
NYT screwed the pooch, IMO.
BTW...as usual, my use of 'you' and 'your' is intended to be generic.
-
The problem here is that everyone is confusing Republicans and Democrats with Congressmen.
It'll be a cold day in hell when any Congressmen acts like a true Republican or Democrat.
-
LOL Word.
Im beyond ticked that the NY Times, again and again, feels they have the ultimite authority...not the government....to expose and defeat anti-terrorism methods we are using.
These were the same papers that insisted we do as the 9/11 Commission suggested we do. We do them, and the press crucifies our efforts.
-
Originally posted by storch
if the executive branch does in fact "take over the government" it will be because the soccer moms have allowed it to happen while their emasculated husbands play "fantasy football". I don't think it will ever happen so drastically as that. we will lose our freedoms the same way you boil a live frog. hopefully I'll never live to see it.
Hopefully, my kids and grandkids will never live to see it.
It's truly up to US.. this generation. Either we head this crap off at the pass or we will go down in history as the 'generation that failed to remain vigilant and brought about the demise of constitutional law and representitive democracy in America'
It's my watch. I helped vote the bush leauge into power.. it's my monkey. The kids could care less.. they pay zero attention to politics.. pretty much like i did at their age. the older I get, the more this stuff gets to me.
We did this. US. we gotta fix it. Tax Strike, petitions. Letter writing. gawdammit, guns if thats what it takes... but we can't let it happen. This administration, this congress has to learn they cannot mess up our legacy and the legacy of our ancestors. We owe it to ourselves, our kids and to a messed up world on the brink.. we gotta get congress and the administration to see that the Constitution is NOT 'just a gawdamned piece of paper".
-
WE ARE AT WAR!
Secrecy is one of our best tools in the fight against terror. I don't know what all the whining and handwringing is about. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. The President was tasked by God to take on this fight and if you can't support him, you need to go find another country to live in because you're not welcome here.
-
Originally posted by Goomba
According to this article, there is no such statement as the one you interpreted...
That's simply not what was said...it's a politically charged, convenient twisting of words.
Also, as to the data mining arguement...when did you agree to let credit bureaus mine and archive your personal financial data? When did you sign on to let them make thier own value judgement of you as a credit risk, then share that opinion with others, possibly to your detriment? Where are the laws governing such behavior? Where is the regulatory oversight? What is a person's recourse when there are conflicts or error, other than going to the source of the mistake and hoping they'll agree with you? None whatsoever...but that's OK.
The fact is that financial transactions are monitored by all kinds of entities at all times. The bank that issued your credit card, the store where you used it, the third-party marketing firm that's hired to evaluate and profile the buying demographic...not to mention almost every web page you'll ever visit.
The point Hastert and other are actually trying to make is that the idea of freedom of the press is not childishly simple, and there are expectations of responsibility associated with it. A newspaper CAN actually print a harmful, irresponsible article. What's the difficulty in accepting that?
The same idea has been hashed over concerning freedom of speech...not everything qualifies. And not all speech is responsible speech, else we would not have things like slander and hate-speech laws. We have a right to freedom of assembly too, but try doing it without a permit in NYC and see what happens. Where's the moral outrage there?
The right to free press, or free speech, or assembly do not trump the rights of another to be safe, secure and free from persecution.
Free speech does not mean a right to incite riot.
Would a person feel just as wronged if the story detailed where American troops were stationed, what patrols and routes were planned for the day, what level of armament they had and who their informers were? That way, we could all be properly informed...we're entitled to know, after all, right?
What if it was your brother/son/dad/mom they outed that day, so the terrorist could have an easier time of killing them?
It feels better to be bubbling over with righteous indignation at the politcal outrage some choose to perceive, but I don't think it's a well thought out position to take.
Journalistic recklessness and fallibility are very real things...not everything known should be shouted from the rooftops, and never forget that our free press is a business...a business that needs to make money - first and foremost.
This was just wrong, and good people will pay the price for a stupid demonstration of "see what I can do and you can't stop me". This kind of behavior is more dangerous to a free press, because it casts the spotlight on the press' inability to make intelligent decisions about it's bylines, thereby inviting controls we don't want.
Maybe the jihadists are all over this, maybe not. Those who hunt these animals seem to feel quite strongly that we've lost an important tool.
No, I most certainly do not support curtailing freedom of the press, but I absolutely demand a very high level of intelligence and responsibility, and an understanding of consequences and who they will befall.
NYT screwed the pooch, IMO.
BTW...as usual, my use of 'you' and 'your' is intended to be generic.
Oh quit making so much sense! Can't you see there is a good "Chicken Little The Sky is falling!" rant going on? ;)
-
Originally posted by storch
if the executive branch does in fact "take over the government" it will be because the soccer moms have allowed it to happen while their emasculated husbands play "fantasy football".
How do you make this leap?
How does George "The Decider" Bush, claiming the powers of a unitary executive (king - in layman's terms), with the Republican controlled Congress' complete abdication of any of its responsiblities in this regard suddenly become the fault of soccer moms?
There's only one way for this to be so, and it would be because those soccer moms voted for these sons of *****es. Other than that? I fail to see your case.
Holy smokes.... AG Gonzales gets up in front of everyone and basically says, with a straight face, that Bush can do just whatever the hell he wants.... and it's the soccer moms fault for.... what? For not storming the capital?
-
it's not like the president gives a happy **** about what the soccer moms or daytrader dads think.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh quit making so much sense! Can't you see there is a good "Chicken Little The Sky is falling!" rant going on? ;)
He's not making sense, Ripsnort.
He bases his a huge chunk of his argument on the fact that there's no law against the mining and selling of personal data by the phone record brokers et al.... and so everything must be peachy.
That's not exactly the case.
When it was discovered how easy it was to buy someone's personal information, the public was outraged, and it led to intense scrutiny by Congress. Legislation was drafted to make it illegal, which had overwhelming and unanimous bipartisan support.
But then a funny thing happened. The day they were supposed to debate on it, USA Today reported that Bush was using AT&T and other phone companies to spy on Americans.
And guess what happened to that piece of legislation that would have made mining and selling personal data illegal? The administration put its foot down and it disappeared.
Not long afterwards, it was discovered that the Administration itself was purchasing this personal information. It just wouldn't do to have that kind of thing outlawed.
And here we are with yet another example of Congress sitting on its hands in order that Bush get away with any damned thing he pleases. Bush is King, and the Republican controlled Congress are his jesters.
Lashing out at the free press for having the audacity to report on the King's misdeeds is just par for the course with these guys.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Does anyone honestly think it was news to the terrorists that we were watching their money?
LOL
The 'press' censors itself over many issues. For example, choosing not to disclose a rape victims name or not detailing things like 'how to make bombs or weapons'. The thing about the NY Times report is that it doesn't just say 'US government is watching terrorist finances', everyone knows that. The NY Times gives details describing how the government does it. There's difference between saying 'a truck bomb detonated outside the federal building' and then saying 'a bomb constructed from 94/6 ANFO, detail, detail, and detail...'
Now I don't think that NY Times report will end up in 'lives lost' or any such nonsense but there are some things that the press is not obligated to report. A newspaper editor should not be the sole decider of what constitutes 'news' any more then the government.
It's this type of thing that leads to more 'censorship' in the long run. Editors have a responsibility in making sure that what ever information they release as 'news' doesn't conflict with the peoples right to security and the Federal governments responsibility to provide that security.
I don't know was so 'news worthy' about the NY Times report...
-
Originally posted by Nash
He's not making sense, Ripsnort.
He bases his a huge chunk of his argument on the fact that there's no law against the mining and selling of personal data by the phone record brokers et al.... and so everything must be peachy.
That's not exactly the case.
When it was discovered how easy it was to buy someone's personal information, the public was outraged, and it led to intense scrutiny by Congress. Legislation was drafted to make it illegal, which had overwhelming and unanimous bipartisan support.
But then a funny thing happened. The day they were supposed to debate on it, USA Today reported that Bush was using AT&T and other phone companies to spy on Americans.
And guess what happened to that piece of legislation that would have made mining and selling personal data illegal? The administration put its foot down and it disappeared.
Not long afterwards, it was discovered that the Administration itself was purchasing this personal information. It just wouldn't do to have that kind of thing outlawed.
And here we are with yet another example of Congress sitting on its hands in order that Bush get away with any damned thing he pleases. Bush is King, and the Republican controlled Congress are his jesters.
Lashing out at the free press for having the audacity to report on the King's misdeeds is just par for the course with these guys.
Yer barking up the wrong tree, Nash. It was I that said in October 2001:
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yep. And it includes ALL terrorist orgs, from IRA down to the Asian gangs running around in LA, this is MY opinion. If it requires a police state, I have no problems in having my liberties limited to rid the world of these type of humans.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, this is exactly what I was speaking of in a thread two weeks ago where I said I would be willing to make sacrifices in a "police state" world, such as extra security at airports(longer waits), National Guard at major land marks, permission to wire tap in suspected terrorist cases, and now, this.
I still feel that way today. National security first. If the CIA feels its necessary to route these scum out via phone records and bank statements, so be it.
-
Well, I applaud your honesty, Ripsnort, if nothing else.
Btw., I truly applaud Hangtime's honesty in his post above. That's what the word "accountibility" looks like in action, when its not too busy being trotted out as a prop that never resembles the actions it's supposedly intended to cover.
-
because after the attacks on september 11, 2001 many people have been willing to hand over their rights for that "feeling" of security. it's mainly the ladies that feel this way. most males in our society have finally learned their place so consequently we are an estrogen fueled nation current. men such as myself are a relic. ask rip if mrs rip takes the kids to soccer practice. this is precisely what the majority response is, that and when you ask rip if his sons should join up to do a tour of service the answer is usually an emphatic NO. it's ok if someone else's sons and daughters go in harm's way but not MINE!!!! what pathetic pampered suburbanites we have collectively become.
-
Looks to me like the government needs to guard their "secrets" a little better. Just another half arsed job by this admin.
-
Aparently Reuters website has rotated the story. I don't see the article that has been quoted partially. Can someone do a cut and paste of the entire article?
-
Originally posted by storch
because after the attacks on september 11, 2001 many people have been willing to hand over their rights for that "feeling" of security. it's mainly the ladies that feel this way. most males in our society have finally learned their place so consequently we are an estrogen fueled nation current. men such as myself are a relic. ask rip if mrs rip takes the kids to soccer practice. this is precisely what the majority response is, that and when you ask rip if his sons should join up to do a tour of service the answer is usually an emphatic NO. it's ok if someone else's sons and daughters go in harm's way but not MINE!!!! what pathetic pampered suburbanites we have collectively become.
You're running into an interesting dilemma here, storch.
Putting the blame on women for Bush and his disgraceful use of fear as a campaign tactic, resulting in a gradual police state and the daily assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't do you any favors, storch.
48 percent of women versus 55 percent of men voted to re-elect President Bush. So it was in fact the men who outnumbered the "ladies" in their support of Bush. Were you not one of them?
Why yes! Yes you were:
Originally posted by storch
20 years from now you'll be saying the same things about President Bush that you guys have said about President Reagan. It's about time you guys grew up and voted accordingly. (circa 2004)
So, may I be so bold as to call you a "soccer dad" - and in fact blame you for this?
-
My brain hurts. Im going to go get a beer.......
-
where did I say it was bush's fault? it's the citizenry's fault. it's perfectly natural for the government to grab for more power. actually if I were to blame a president for our current state it would have to be Roosevelt followed by Johnson.
-
Originally posted by Goomba
According to this article, there is no such statement as the one you interpreted...
Also, as to the data mining arguement...when did you agree to let credit bureaus mine and archive your personal financial data? When did you sign on to let them make thier own value judgement of you as a credit risk, then share that opinion with others, possibly to your detriment? Where are the laws governing such behavior? Where is the regulatory oversight?
Wow, it's like teaching infants to walk around here.
You are kidding, right? No? Ok... let's begin...
Start here for banking...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Banking
Read about the Uniform Commercial Code. Have somebody explain the big words to you.
For creditors, see 15 USC 1601., the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
Even for somebody versed in banging straw men, you must realize the difference between that information which is public such as the deed to your property and the information about what kind of toothbruth you buy, right?
That there is no oversight of the guys in the basement of the NSA, who get to decide that the fact you bought a shotgun from Wal-Mart makes you a 'person of interest' or is worth a 3 outta 10 on the 'weirdo' scale. Surely, you must be able to see the issues behind something like that, right?
Maybe not. Several people have chimed in with the sadly compliant "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" mantra. The call of the sheep. Who don't realize that being a reporter doing his job in this land has suddenly become 'doing something wrong'.
-
Originally posted by storch
because after the attacks on september 11, 2001 many people have been willing to hand over their rights for that "feeling" of security. it's mainly the ladies that feel this way. most males in our society have finally learned their place so consequently we are an estrogen fueled nation current. men such as myself are a relic. ask rip if mrs rip takes the kids to soccer practice. this is precisely what the majority response is, that and when you ask rip if his sons should join up to do a tour of service the answer is usually an emphatic NO. it's ok if someone else's sons and daughters go in harm's way but not MINE!!!! what pathetic pampered suburbanites we have collectively become.
Nice broad paint brush you have there. However, the flaw I see is that it only paints in black and white.
Not that it will change your opinion, but my oldest son loves military history. His great grandfather served as a pilot in WW1. His grandfather was a staff sargent in the Korean conflict. His step grandfather, whom we recently laid to rest in the Madison River in Ennis, MT had 2 bronze starts and 2 purple hearts in WW2. He was fortunate to meet all but one of these men. He feels very proud when he sees their pictures in uniform. I only wish I had signed the paperwork at 18 when I intended to join the Airforce but was lured West by Boeing.
His plans are to serve for the United States, by no encouragement from me. I will tell him the same thing my father told me, follow your heart. If you want to go to college, I've set money aside for that...if you want to be a truck driver, I'll back you 100%. If you want to serve your country, I'll hold my head high and proudly....
Edit: FWIW, Mrs. Rip doesn't take either boys to sports, but she comes to watch. (She's too busy saving the lives of drug addcits who get free health care)
I've coached Soccer, assisted coached baseball, and I've been a team photographer for every sport that both sons have been on since 2000 taking thousands of pictures for team member families. Have you ever had a son in football? Try spending 5 nights a week, 2 hours a practice, for 3.5 months every fall and see how you like the wind and the rain.
I spend 90% of my free time with my sons. I do not watch TV and if I do, its either sports, outdoors channels, or history channel. Most nights after sports for 9 months out of the year is spent reading with my children and assisting them doing their homework. I loath men who sit on their arse and expect kids to get good grades. School starts at HOME and finishes at school. So you can take your soccer mom brush and stick it where you've obviously put your head many times before.
-
Originally posted by storch
where did I say it was bush's fault? it's the citizenry's fault. it's perfectly natural for the government to grab for more power. actually if I were to blame a president for our current state it would have to be Roosevelt followed by Johnson.
Oh boy.
Bush goes Boy King bat**** and all of a sudden......
It's the soccer mom's fault. No wait, it's the citizenry's fault. Actually - hold that thought - it's Roosevelt and Johnson's fault!
In fact, it's everyone else's fault but your own, right? Everyone else's fault but the folks like you who got sucked in hook line and sinker and actually voted for this train wreck. That's remarkable! Do you know what kind of odds you're defying?
Remind me to buy you a beer next time I'm in town. You're one in a billion.
-
I dont see a problem with hasterts comments. Ignorant for sure, but like Schumer and Rangel, he has a right to be a totally assanine partisan congressman.
Its the larger picture that needs refreshing and I just dont see the same level or intensity of dimished rights as many liberal minded people express here. I suspect its more a matter of partisan posturing than anything to do with genuine concern.
I do keep my eyes and ears highly tuned to the proverbial railroad tracks. You can bet that once the liberals regain power and start once again to try and rob me of my firearms rights, I will respond forcefully.
There are few other rights I care about, as long as I can blow a large hole through a bad guys center of mass, I dont care what happens. I got it covered.
and yes, I vote...but I am a tiny single red dot in a massive discombobulated clusterphuck of blue dots so it isn't a big surprise my congressman and both my senators are bleeding heart liberals. Such is life.
-
If this were about military operations being held where men might die in combat I would agree.
but this is about the unconsitutional invasion of privacy of the American people. Therefore I very strongly dissagree.
and I dont buy into this "if your not doing anythign wrong you have nothing to worry about" line of pure BS.
You want info on me. Show just cause and Get a warrant. otherwise my information is none of your )(#)(@*@ Damn buisness. Legal or otherwise.
-
Not only is the direct quote in the thread title (AFAICT) false,
From December 19, 1941, until August 15, 1945, the Office of Censorship had the power to censor international communications at its "absolute discretion." With a staff of more than 10,000 censors, the office routinely examined mail, cables, newspapers, magazines, films, and radio broadcasts. Its operations constituted the most extensive government censorship of the media in U. S. history and one of the most vivid examples of the use of executive emergency powers. (Demos FDR and HST)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Its the larger picture that needs refreshing and I just dont see the same level or intensity of dimished rights as many liberal minded people express here. I suspect its more a matter of partisan posturing than anything to do with genuine concern.
I'll put you down for guns.
I got lazs down for guns, seatbelts and helmets.
And as long as these things aren't messed with, the government can eavesdrop on you, mine your telephone records, mine your banking records, break into your house, detain you, cut off any aces to a lawyer or your family - all without a warrant.... and indefinitely.
They can fabricate evidence and lie to you in order to send you off into a fiasco of a war. They can leak classified information to the press, and then assault the press for reporting leaked information unfavorable to them.
They can out CIA agents and destroy careers in order to secure public approval for said fiasco of a war.
They can violate the law by actually purchasing favorable news coverage of their policies...
They can give a wink to the legislative branch, whilst killing the record for signing statements; in effect putting itself well above the law.
They can block every attempt to investigate their relationship to big business and the no-bid contracts, which have wound up in hundreds of millions of dollars in missing tax payer money.
If they don't like what Congress has come up with, they just sign executive orders to step around it.
If they don't like the scrutiny of their nominees by the legislative branch, they simply wait until congress is on recess and go ahead and appoint them.
They've reclassified thousands of previously declassified materials, and then turn around at whim to suddenly declassify selective portions of the CIA National Intelligence Estimate so that they can leak it to the press.
They blow off existing law and the courts meant to oversee those laws by simply ignoring them.
But...... hey...... so long as seatbelts and helmets and anti-gun rhetoric are what really matters.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If this were about military operations being held where men might die in combat I would agree.
but this is about the unconsitutional invasion of privacy of the American people. Therefore I very strongly dissagree.
and I dont buy into this "if your not doing anythign wrong you have nothing to worry about" line of pure BS.
You want info on me. Show just cause and Get a warrant. otherwise my information is none of your )(#)(@*@ Damn buisness. Legal or otherwise.
It is about miltary operations being held where men might die in combat.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If this were about military operations being held where men might die in combat I would agree.
but this is about the unconsitutional invasion of privacy of the American people. Therefore I very strongly dissagree.
and I dont buy into this "if your not doing anythign wrong you have nothing to worry about" line of pure BS.
You want info on me. Show just cause and Get a warrant. otherwise my information is none of your )(#)(@*@ Damn buisness. Legal or otherwise.
It's most decidedly NOT unconstitutional, despite what Keith Olberman and his 37 listensers say-- the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 (yes..the LIBERAL Warren court that gave us Roe Vs. Wade)..that there IS no right to privacy in financial matters:
But the program's constitutionality is incontrovertible. In U.S. v. Miller (1976), the Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures did not protect bank customers' financial records. Customers have "no legitimate 'expectation of privacy' in their [records]," because all such financial information is "voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business." In short, "[t]he depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government." No reasonable expectation of privacy means no Fourth Amendment violation.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/388ygtdv.asp
The fact that there are a bunch a avowed leftists in the CIA and NSA who hate Bush more than Al-Queda shouldn't be a surprise by now. Let's see.... the thing about the Koran in the toilet (false)..the 'secret prisons'...the overseas wire-tapping.... the phone number data mining...now this...:furious
-
nash, your a smart cookie. What are you doing posting on this board. You should be making up laws or something.
-
Hehe..this stuff isn't new...heard about this item today...interesting stuff:
The classic blunder of inadvertence making the case for censorship occurred in 1942 when the Chicago Tribune reported the Battle of Midway in a way that could have prolonged the war with Japan. The story has been much garbled over 50 years, so it is worth setting the record right, with acknowledgements to the interviews by Richard Norton Smith for his 1997 biography of Tribune publisher Robert McCormick ("The Colonel"). One of the closest kept secrets of World War II was that the U.S. Navy had broken much of the Japanese naval code. It was foreknowledge of the Japanese fleet movements that enabled Adm. Chester Nimitz to ignore a feint and concentrate his carriers near Midway to win a decisive victory.
No American correspondents were at Midway, but a colorful Tribune reporter, Stanley Johnston, was with the carrier Lexington when it was sunk in the preceding Battle of the Coral Sea. Johnston was a giant Australian, a champion sculler and a World War I hero. He had been recommended for a Victoria Cross for his valor at Gallipoli and in France. When the Lexington was hit, he made heroic efforts to rescue badly burned sailors from the ship's hold. He was very popular when transferred to another ship for transport back to the United States, and spent much of the time in the quarters occupied by the Lexington's executive officer, Cmdr. Mort Seligman.
Johnston, writing his account of Coral Sea while in Seligman's cabin, noticed a blue-lined paper that had the names of Japanese warships in an order of battle. He copied the list and later took this "dope" with him into the Tribune offices. His editor, Pat Maloney, was interested mainly in the Coral Sea account, but he accepted a sidebar on the Japanese order of battle at Midway, which Johnston hurriedly wrote. Johnston wouldn't reveal his source, but assured Maloney he had checked the list against the authoritative reference, "Jane's Fighting Ships." Maloney rewrote the first two "muddy" paragraphs, then wrote a headline that was not justified by Johnston's text:
NAVY HAD WORD OF JAP PLAN TO STRIKE AT SEA
Maloney did not clear the story with censors, convincing himself that there was nothing in the guidelines to suppress news about the movement of hostile ships. And then, to protect Johnston's real source, Maloney attributed the story to "reliable sources in naval intelligence" and put on it a fake Washington, D.C., dateline.
The Navy was appalled. The Japanese had only to read the Tribune to realize that such knowledge could only mean that their codes had been compromised. President Franklin D. Roosevelt — a bitter enemy of McCormick — initially was disposed toward sending Marines in to shut down Tribune Tower. He was talked out of that, then considered trying McCormick for treason, which carried a death penalty in wartime. It ended up with the attorney general taking the Tribune men to a grand jury. But there was no cooperation from the Navy, which rightly was concerned that a trial would mean disclosing the code-breaking. The grand jury refused to indict. The Japanese missed the Tribune blunder — as they also missed the false charge by columnist and broadcaster Walter Winchell that the Tribune knowingly had based its story on a decoded Japanese message.
-
Whelp, soon as industry gets it's prices capped, the forigen intrests and ownership of our transportation, defense and port industries are re-nationalized, the draft re-established, the borders closed and guarded and the moth ball air and sea fleets are mobilized, the standing army boosted to 2 million and the shipyards and armories get thier full swing marching orders..
THEN YOU CAN TELL ME WE ARE AT WAR.
Right now, we're just pissing in the wind, and the Times or any other paper can print 'all the news thats fit to print'.. and that includes informing us of how, what when and why the government is diggin and fishing around in my personal papers, effects documents and just how the hell that makes me safer from some rag headed dipwick living in a cave 1,000 miles up country from peshwar.
Next.. the data protection act got axed. Why? i want these miserable database systems and corporations that 'legally' fish out my particulars and sell 'em to the government or chevron curbed, AND RIGHT NOW.
The real THREAT to Americans is a government selling our security up the damn river to corporate intrersts. The govenment is OUR monkey.. not big businesses.
Stop the BS "republican" v "democrat" crap. Start saving your damn country!
-
Originally posted by Yeager
nash, your a smart cookie. What are you doing posting on this board. You should be making up laws or something.
But I make up laws all the time!
Like this one:
From now on, you shall address me as "your Royal Highness."
...or if you prefer, "your Royal Heinous."
I'm not picky.
-
According to Marine General John F. Kinney the navy knew Pearl Harbor was OTW also...at least the tribune was albe to keep the lid on sammy sosas steroid use, lol
-
Originally posted by storch
...if his sons should join up to do a tour of service the answer is usually an emphatic NO. it's ok if someone else's sons and daughters go in harm's way but not MINE!!!! what pathetic pampered suburbanites we have collectively become.
That is a timeless response, you cannot seriously claim that reluctance to send off loved ones into battle is a sign of these times. Fourty years ago, 55, and 65 years ago people were at least as reluctant.
-
Quite right, Thud.
And when he says: "what pathetic pampered suburbanites we have collectively become," he is talking about himself.
"Collective" my arse.
What you are starting to witness is the internal rumble that's beginning to materialize in the minds of the people who got so thoroughly duped.
They thought they were smarter than that.
They cannot believe that it happend to them!
So they sit here and try to say that: "OMG - It's the fault of soccer moms!"
or.... "All government is bad! Screw them all!".... when it was the Republicans alone who screwed them.
It's a temper tantrum, and ya gotta kind of let it play out. Once they've brushed the sleep out of their eyes, kicked the walls in a few times, then maybe they'll start talking sense.
-
Originally posted by Nash
.... when it was the Republicans alone who screwed them.
[scratches head]Could'a sworn dems voted in favor of allowing the President the power to attack too...
let's Google......
hmm Senate Dems 29 for 21 against....
House, 296-133 betcha some of those 296 were demos. Maybe all those demo reps and sens were just victims.[/scratches head]
[scratches head some more]I think that the British, with independant intel, decided to do it too... I wonder, since they are not Republican, they must have been just duped by Repubs... no they had MI6...they would have been self duped.[/scratches head some more]
-
Holden? Do you mean to imply that the fumble of this government rests solely on its inexplicable decision to attack Iraq?
If so, it was a tragic mistake of a decision. It was based purely on the "facts" as they selectively sought them out. It was undermanned. It was mismanaged. It was one of those instances where you could war-game it and throw everything wrong into the pile, and then come out and execute precisely every single thing that went wrong.
And you can scratch your head over the Dems' voting for this war all you want, but the Dems only received as much information as the Republicans decided to tell them, and nothing more. And sure as heck, they would have had no idea that someobody could screw it up this badly.
And the fiasco that is the Iraq war isn't the entire equation.
Tell me how the supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans walked themselves into such crippling debt?
Tell me why health care is in such shambles.
Tell me why Homeland Security is such a joke - cutting New York's security funding in half, while giving places like Louisville whopping increases?
You bring up British intel while conveniently ignoring what the British intel was actually telling the Brits.
While you're at it, explain to my why - while boys and girls are getting IED'd to smithereens over there - anyone should give a rat's bellybutton about god and gays.
The fact is... I could turn this three paragraph rant into a book.
... and I don't know where to stop.
The more this happens, the more I feel like it's more of the same crushing of paper clips with paper weights.
Go ahead - exhaust yourself with this nonsense - the truth backs me up and baby, that well never runs dry.
-
That's what I thought you were off about... I didn't realize you were blaming absolutely everthing from deficits to the war to the Columbia shuttle failure on "solely Republicans".
I guess that makes it more logical somehow.
-
Well no...
Not the Columbia shuttle.... as much as that was intended to paint me as some kind of a quack.
Who needs it?
The deficits and the war? Absolutely. That's enough, ain't it?
If not, add:
- the aimless energy policy
- immigration
- outsourcing
- health care
- education
- whatever else that actually matters
...............ignored.
Instead?
Fear, flags, gays, god, guns, abortion, Shiavo, cloning...
No, Holden.... You don't need to make up some kind of Columbia shuttle equivelancy as a response. That's sort of like blaming homeless thugs on Al Queda.
-
What I was taking exception to was your use of the term "solely".
I hold Kerry and Hillary just as responsible for thier votes as I do McCain and Gordon Smith.
I think to blame one party and 'kick the bums out' only to have the other party come in and do the very same things solves nothing.
-
How luscious for you then.
You can blame Iraq on Democrats all you want. You can hold Kerry and Hillary just as responsible as Bush and the Republican cult because of their votes all you want.
That doesn't amount to anything.
Those votes were cast based on the intel that the Republicans told them, and those votes were cast based on an assumption that Bush could successfully manage a war (unlike his former baseball team) competently.
And if you dig deep and break it right down, those votes were cast as a threat.... not an innevitability.
Bush mislead Congress, garnered Congress' approval for threatening a big stick, then suddenly turned around and kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, invaded, screwed up the war, got lotsa good young kids killed, and everyone is left with a huge mess on their hands. So bad that Bush's solution is to leave it up to a future president to solve.
Anyways - I gotta go to bed. I wake up in three hours for a 4 day fishing trip.
I know you'll miss me. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Those votes were cast based on the intel that the Republicans told them, and those votes were cast based on an assumption that Bush could successfully manage a war (unlike his former baseball team) competently
And if you dig deep and break it right down, those votes were cast as a threat.... not an innevitability.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Yes I can see how one could be confused that a vote in favor of a resolution with the above section could be misconstrued as something that authorizes the president to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...and not only the threat that it is.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh boy.
Bush goes Boy King bat**** and all of a sudden......
It's the soccer mom's fault. No wait, it's the citizenry's fault. Actually - hold that thought - it's Roosevelt and Johnson's fault!
In fact, it's everyone else's fault but your own, right? Everyone else's fault but the folks like you who got sucked in hook line and sinker and actually voted for this train wreck. That's remarkable! Do you know what kind of odds you're defying?
Remind me to buy you a beer next time I'm in town. You're one in a billion.
well now before you completely melt down......again. what would collectively being at fault mean to you? That would be all of us at fault (not you of course, you don't count for much as you are not an American). we have as nation consistently ceded our rights either through apathy or ignorance with our votes, or a lack thereof.
In modern times the president who has held the most profound and sweeping powers of intruding into the private lives of the average American was FDR. the abuses of power by this administration were legion and had a detrimental global effect. you can place the blame for the cold war, runaway inflation, massive national debt, the massive coachroach infestation of New York/New Jersey and communist infiltration of the highest levels of our government squarely on this three times re-elected demagog.
now who elected and then three times re-elected this bright star to office and for what reason? who do we blame? with regard to President Bush, I have revised my opinion of the president as is my prerogative to do because of his performance during this second term. having typed that, given the choices in the last two elections, if I could return to 2000 and 2004 knowing what I know now I would still cast my vote for him, seeing him as the lesser of two idiots in both of those elections. had either of those two seething weezing masses of wasted breath opposition candidates been elected I firmly believe we would be far worse off than we are now. I'm sure I don't have to ask you what you think, I can guess.
-
Originally posted by storch
if the executive branch does in fact "take over the government" it will be because the soccer moms have allowed it to happen while their emasculated husbands play "fantasy football". I don't think it will ever happen so drastically as that. we will lose our freedoms the same way you boil a live frog. hopefully I'll never live to see it.
A revolution would happen prior to "losing our freedoms". However, I'm tired of this administration (executive branch) and it's minions (Legislative branch) coming up with every f**king excuse to ATTEMPT to "infringe on our constitutional rights". The witch hunts need to stop and he now needs to realize he is a moron. Again, the GOP is worrying about problem 1,000 on the list of 1,000 problems.
-
Dont sweat it kar, in a short while there will be a totally new moron to take the place of the old one, and a whole new set of minions as well. Life is good :eek:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Dont sweat it kar, in a short while there will be a totally new moron to take the place of the old one, and a whole new set of minions as well. Life is good :eek:
Agreed and that is what cracks me up when people dissect things into "the Dems are better than the Reps" and "the Reps are better than the Dems". They both could give a rat's a** about my existance.
<> Yeager
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Agreed and that is what cracks me up when people dissect things into "the Dems are better than the Reps" and "the Reps are better than the Dems". They both could give a rat's a** about my existance.
<> Yeager
you must be very young. who's existence is it to begin with? who is responsible to learn, adapt, overcome and make their way through your life? here's a secret for you. we must each make our own way. the only assitance you may have is to partner up with a good woman and care for each other, beyond that there is no real help.
-
Wow, it's like teaching infants to walk around here. You are kidding, right? No? Ok... let's begin...
Well Done, Dos! Add another name to the list of those unable to hold an adult discussion from differing points of view, and so resort to sarcasm and pedantic, ad hominem insult. I do so enjoy the schoolyard approach to discourse.
Nash...I realize you are quite passionate about your position, but I'm afraid you don't really get my point. Perhaps it's my miscommunication.
My arguement is based, in fact, on the inescapable principle that a government NEEDS to have secrets...take a look at the world, for Pete's sake. It's no more than a silly Utopian dream that any country, any government, can survive without protecting it's interests. National secrets, classified information, etc... are a critical part of maintaining advantage and security.
Furthermore...I perceive far more support for my position than the contrary...even coming from members of the press themselves.
Again I ask...what are the limits to freedom of the press? Are there no limits? Is there to be no accountability? No consequences too dire to stop some rag from compromising anything it sees fit?
At the very least, the people in government have something that the press does not; our legislators - good, bad or ugly - were ELECTED...chosen to make decisions and take action on our behalf. Like it or not, these people have the aegis of the American people to act. And we retain the right to disapprove of those decisions and toss them out on their ear.
No journalist I know of was ever elected to their position, so why should I trust their judgement? What reporter or editor has been chosen on the basis of their ability to make decisions about national security? Where did they get the right to risk compromising same? I don't know of a single journalist I'd trust to make those decisions...they simply do NOT have the background.
The American people have a right to know...to know when danger looms, when there have been illegal acts, abuses of power, corruption, etc... and none of that exists in this case. Not a shred. Just personal indignation at perceived wrongs, and a powerful desire for it to be wrong, so as to further justify one's anger.
There is, in fact, a lot wrong with this administration, and a lot I do not agree with. However, that's not a blanket justification to villify everything in sight, nor to blame everything you don't like on it. Furthermore, there has been a lot wrong with every administration I can think of, so I don't expect the song to ever change...only the lyrics.
The fact remains that the idea that our foundational rights are without any limit whatsoever is both mistaken in principle, and disproven in fact.
Robert E. Lee once said something to the effect that all the best generals in the country had apparently been drafted to be newspaper editors, and left only the poorest excuse for military leadership in the field...and that he should really go edit newspapers and let the self-professed experts who judge him from afar go ahead and lead the campaign in the field. Frankly, when it comes to matters of national security, pursuit of terrorists and criminals, etc...I don't think there is a reporter extant with the qualifications, nor the background, to make these kinds of decisions of their own accord, nor in my name. Nor did I empower them to do so.
Please let's not reduce this to some simple counterpoint suggesting that I think the government can do as it pleases, and that I'll gladly give up my individual rights and freedoms to "get the bad guys". In fact, we need to take a considered look at each case, and try to understand that these matters are complex and difficult. Protecting our rights is critical...as is maintaining and securing the system that recognizes those rights. Sometimes, these principles can be necessarily at odds, hence, the complexities.
We are faced with threats unlike any before faced by this society, and in a mode with which we are woefully unprepared to deal. We are in severe danger, we barly understand the psychology and motivations of the enemy, and we've not much historical experience in terrorism and jihad.
Blanket absolutes do not apply, nor are they realistic, in this case.
(PS...Sorry Rip, I'll try not to let it happen again.;) )
-
Originally posted by storch
you must be very young. who's existence is it to begin with? who is responsible to learn, adapt, overcome and make their way through your life? here's a secret for you. we must each make our own way. the only assitance you may have is to partner up with a good woman and care for each other, beyond that there is no real help.
The two-party system doesn't work. I don't need a lecture on how to "live my life". I don't cry to the govt. and ask for handouts, etc. I'm thinking you missed the point up there. Storch, I'm old enough to know that the Dems are screwed enough to not have an answer to Dubya! Before the "witch hunt" begins, I vote either Independant or Rep. Age has nothing to do with it, it's the asanine gullibility of the American Public who vote "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils". I do find the "age thing" funny though.
-
Originally posted by Goomba
No journalist I know of was ever elected to their position, so why should I trust their judgement?
Winning an election does not create knowledge, rectitude, wisdom, etc.
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
Winning an election does not create knowledge, rectitude, wisdom, etc.
hap
A F'in men
-
Boston Globe says this Swift information was the public domain...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/
or this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/28/BL2006062801268.html
or this....
from swift themselves..
http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=6149
Note #2
Admin is being cornered on many levels... they are popping smoke and mirrors.. Rule #1 in politics "whats the best defense..."
apply that statement to what your seeing on tv and you might get some understanding of whats going on..
DoctorYo
-
Executive branch breaches of consitutional prerogative will be visited. I and millions of others over 45, give or take, have seen it.
de casibus virorum illustrorum
hap
p.s. pretty run of the mill actually given the cruddy state of the human being. that corrupted human nature has not yet (?) fully ruined the constitutional safeguards is pretty amazing. Founders knew what they were doing. Now we get to see if the citizens will help make it possible for the constitution hold up to another challenge.
-
Hap!!! you well read fellow you, a fellow Boccaccio admirer
-
Moreover, we find out that the LA Times and Wall Street Journal ran the exact same story.
Anderson Cooper had some GOP member on, and when he asked him why there was no motion on the floor to censure the Wall Street Journal, the guy totally ignored the question and went ad hominem against the Times again.
To Goomba -
Journalists are citizens. They have been empowered by their news organizations to dig up stories and report facts. Most major papers have a ethics posting on their website, and prior to the web - those creeds could be found in the lobby of the paper. Here is Gannett's: http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/gannettcompany.htm
Let's say a young Woodward wannabe has a contact inside the beltway. A real deep throat kinda guy, like Felt was. Let's say this guy is getting a little unbalanced lately, and tells the reporter that there is going to be a major bust of a terror ring at some warehouse in some city. Should the reporter get the chopper ready and be right on scene so he can scoop it when the bust goes down? Of course not, information could change - he might accidently tip the terrorists off - it would be irresponsible for him to go do that. He could sit in his office and listen to the police scanner and roll once the messages started flying, however.
Your argument that nobody elected journalists, therefore they... what? Have no rights? What a journalistis defined as is blurry in this age of blogs, how far does that extend? Should the government be allowed to claim "state security" on everything, and have gag laws over anybody with access to the internet?
Journalists have lots of power. They could print that H1N5 has started jumping from human to human in New York and cause a mass panic. They have to weigh responsibl reporting every day. That's why the proliferation of the press, even though it's caused narrowcasting where journalists now have polictical affiliations and conservatives only listen to Fox News, is a good thing. More voices with access.
Your ideas that state security is the trump card in all situations is pretty scary. I'm sure some of the Russians in here might also thing that was scary.
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Boston Globe says this Swift information was the public domain...
Admin is being cornered on many levels... they are popping smoke and mirrors.. Rule #1 in politics "whats the best defense..."
apply that statement to what your seeing on tv and you might get some understanding of whats going on..
DoctorYo
I love Tony Snow's answer about how al-queda didn't know about Swift. And then they showed Swift's own website and their mass circulated magazine that explains WITH EVEN MORE DETAIL THAN THE NYT PROVIDED, exactly how they get banks to turn over their information for searches.
Apparently, the insinuation from Tony Snow is - al-queda only reads the New York Times.
Also, the editor of the Times was on. They had LONG conversations about the piece with several administration officials. Nobody had a security concern with it, and WENT ON THE RECORD SAYING SO. The only comment that came back was that it might frighten some banks into wanting to work with Swift if there was public backlash.
And, then, of course the fact that the WSJ ran the same story.
This is just a GOP witch hunt against the Times. For all of you crying foul over Rush Limbaugh being "picked on", I'm wondering why I don't see you racing to the defense of the Times. Oh wait.... I know why.
-
Originally posted by storch
a fellow Boccaccio admirer
suuusssh . . . . :noid
hap
was actually thinking of Tamburlaine.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I only wish I had signed the paperwork at 18 when I intended to join the Airforce but was lured West by Boeing.
Ah....other priorities...:)
-
Originally posted by storch
because after the attacks on september 11, 2001 many people have been willing to hand over their rights for that "feeling" of security. it's mainly the ladies that feel this way. most males in our society have finally learned their place so consequently we are an estrogen fueled nation current. men such as myself are a relic. ask rip if mrs rip takes the kids to soccer practice. this is precisely what the majority response is, that and when you ask rip if his sons should join up to do a tour of service the answer is usually an emphatic NO. it's ok if someone else's sons and daughters go in harm's way but not MINE!!!! what pathetic pampered suburbanites we have collectively become.
I count 4 generalizations in this. Good job.
-
In this matter, consequences abound.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0629/p01s02-uspo.html
A worthwhile summary.
And, I'd rather see us err on the side on consitutional caution.
hap
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I count 4 generalizations in this. Good job.
I don't mind being generally right a great percentage of the time, generally speaking.
-
Originally posted by storch
I don't mind being generally right a great percentage of the time, generally speaking.
But yer wrong. On 9/10 or 9/11 to now, we are still NOT "safe". But the money train still is chugging along.
-
Creeds, ethics postings and mission statements are worth exactly nothing.
I never even suggested that journalists had no rights. How could you derive that from my statements?
Journalists have lots of power. They could print that H1N5 has started jumping from human to human in New York and cause a mass panic. They have to weigh responsibl reporting every day.
Absolutely right. You completely validate my point that there exists both responsible and irresponsible reporting. Which is exactly what I said, isn't it?
Your ideas that state security is the trump card in all situations is pretty scary.
Excuse me? I most specifically did NOT make any such suggestion, and I'll thank you not to twist my actual words, which were;
Please let's not reduce this to some simple counterpoint suggesting that I think the government can do as it pleases, and that I'll gladly give up my individual rights and freedoms to "get the bad guys". In fact, we need to take a considered look at each case, and try to understand that these matters are complex and difficult. Protecting our rights is critical...as is maintaining and securing the system that recognizes those rights. Sometimes, these principles can be necessarily at odds, hence, the complexities.
Once again...oversimplification of the issue is one of the root problems with discussing it. This stuff is just NOT as black and white as some would like to make it.
Hap:
Winning an election does not create knowledge, rectitude, wisdom, etc.
I agree with you completely. In fact, it seems quite self-evident. However, my actual point is that at least We the People had an opportunity, some input, into the choosing of legislators to represent our interests, and act on our behalf. If they fail to do so to our satisfaction, who do we really have to blame? Ourselves, and we vote another choice in to do the job.
No reporter/editor, making independent, financially-driven decisions about what amounts to national security and what doesn't, was ever part of a process involving the implicit auspices and approval of the American public.
If the government we have elected must declare certain information as classified, we have to accept that that's a absolute necessity in the real world.
If we discover that this power is being abused, we have recourse. In the absence of illegality, abuse or corruption, printing classified information in the newspaper is a crime.
-
If we discover that this power is being abused, we have recourse. In the absence of illegality, abuse or corruption, printing classified information in the newspaper is a crime. [/B]
Except the information in this case was far from classified. It was on many websites, including the company Swift that was doing the collecting. And other papers printed it and didn't get rebuked. Maybe because a paper like the WSJ is the darling of big business interests and the NYT isn't.
Maybe... just maybe... that has something to do with what is going on.
Now - knowing all these facts - do you support a Congressional censure of the NYT? Do you?
-
don't confuse them with the facts.
hap
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
But yer wrong. On 9/10 or 9/11 to now, we are still NOT "safe". But the money train still is chugging along.
what led you think I thought otherwise. my position is and always has been that only I am responsible for my own safety. I'm not one of those that would consider calling "911".
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Ah....other priorities...:)
You can enlist up to 42 years old now, Army that is.
-
Originally posted by storch
what led you think I thought otherwise. my position is and always has been that only I am responsible for my own safety. I'm not one of those that would consider calling "911".
That is a foolish stance to take. Not all threats are those that can be resolved with the implementation of simple force to a single target.
-
I foresee a future not so distant where the Hangtimes of America openly or covertly rebels against the government. Only to be betrayed to the black suited goons of Homeland Security by the Ripsnorts of America, who get nice "diamond clusters" or "oak leaves and swords" to their party membership buttons.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
That is a foolish stance to take. Not all threats are those that can be resolved with the implementation of simple force to a single target.
mav with all due respect to law enforcement personnel. after many years of having the local constabulary come on by the shop and ask for stuff to be fabricated, drink my beer (always after hours) and have a shady place to park their scooters as they catch the daily quota I have come away with this impression, perhaps I'm mistaken as I occassionally am.
1. law enforcement personnel will take care of themselves first
2. each other next
3. the general public bye and bye
mind you that I count it as a plus to have them on my side because in my town I can do no wrong. they all know me and I have taken the time to carefully and respectfully cultivate the relationships but they do not inspire much confidence.
just saying
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Only to be betrayed to the black suited goons of Homeland Security by the Ripsnorts of America, who get nice "diamond clusters" or "oak leaves and swords" to their party membership buttons.
and a nice tax break on their oil stock portfolios.
-
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ei=5087%0A&en=589b546092900563&ex=1151380800&pagewanted=print)
Maybe some folks should read the article before jumping to conclusions.
It is actually pretty straight forward and even a little complimentary.
Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia
-
Originally posted by storch
mav with all due respect to law enforcement personnel. after many years of having the local constabulary come on by the shop and ask for stuff to be fabricated, drink my beer (always after hours) and have a shady place to park their scooters as they catch the daily quota I have come away with this impression, perhaps I'm mistaken as I occassionally am.
1. law enforcement personnel will take care of themselves first
2. each other next
3. the general public bye and bye
mind you that I count it as a plus to have them on my side because in my town I can do no wrong. they all know me and I have taken the time to carefully and respectfully cultivate the relationships but they do not inspire much confidence.
just saying
Storch,
No disrespect intended or taken. Read what I said again. I wasn't talking about a single one on one situation. There are far more ways you could be a victim that cannot be handled by going out and fighting or worse with a suspect. For that you need additional resources in the legal world that would instead be set against you if you act unilateraly. The high noon solution is rather rare.
-
You know this thread convinced me. This November I'm voting Democratic.
(http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/democrats_vow_c.jpg)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reaffirms the Democratic Party’s promise to remain marginalized.
"We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. "It will take some doing, but we're in this for the long and pointless haul."
"We can lose this," Reid added. "All it takes is a little lack of backbone."
Despite plummeting poll numbers for the G.O.P nationwide and an upcoming election in which all House seats and 33 Senate seats are up for contention, Democrats pledged to maintain their party's sheepish resignation.
"In times like these, when the American public is palpably dismayed with the political status quo, it is crucial that Democrats remain unfocused and defer to the larger, smarter, and better-equipped Republican machine," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said. "If we play our cards right, we will be intimidated to the point of total paralysis."
-
Obama , maybe Evan Bahye(?) puts a lot more uplifting face on the party...the current heads of Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Dick Durban don't do much to inspire people to follow them
-
Originally posted by Nash
Quite right, Thud.
And when he says: "what pathetic pampered suburbanites we have collectively become," he is talking about himself.
"Collective" my arse.
What you are starting to witness is the internal rumble that's beginning to materialize in the minds of the people who got so thoroughly duped.
They thought they were smarter than that.
They cannot believe that it happend to them!
So they sit here and try to say that: "OMG - It's the fault of soccer moms!"
or.... "All government is bad! Screw them all!".... when it was the Republicans alone who screwed them.
It's a temper tantrum, and ya gotta kind of let it play out. Once they've brushed the sleep out of their eyes, kicked the walls in a few times, then maybe they'll start talking sense.
Nash
You seem to think that everyone who voted for Bush wishes they hadn't and are looking for someone to "blame". I can tell you that I for one am very happy and proud to have voted for him. I completely support the war in Iraq and consider it a huge success. As for the reasons to invade, I believe that Bush, just like Clinton, Kerry, Blair and everyone else in the world knew and still know that Saddam was in violation af the many UN resolutions drafted after the Gulf War (I have read them all have you?) Any infraction including shooting at aircraft patroling the no-fly zones was enough to allow any member nation to launch miltary operations against Iraq without prior approval of the security council. But no nation including the US exercised that right during the 90's. Instead the UN just kept making new "this is your last chance" resolutions (14 in all) which made the UN look, as they are, weak and meaningless in world affairs. I could go on about the WMD's, the support for terrorist, etc. etc. all of which are true but my real point is I don't care if they were true or not I would be just as happy if they were in fact lies because we now have a military pressence in the Middle East and I hope we keep troops in that part of the world for many years to come. We are no longer seen by the terrorist and other Rouge Nations as the weak knee run at the first shot cowards, they thought we were when Clinton pulled us out of Somilia after Bin Laden and his thugs killed and dragged our brave soldiers naked in the streets (yes Bin Laden was there and involved). I don't believe there would have been a 9-11 or the current war if we had shown any resolve at that time. So go on believing all you Liberal talking points but I hope that when history shows that Bush was right, and the Middle East is peaceful, prosperous and free and Bush is hailed as one of the great leaders of history that you are alive to see it and you tell your Grand kids or great Grand kids the truth about yourself instead of something like "yea I was behind him all the way" so you won't look to them like the fool that you are.
-
pwnd by a three year old shade account rofl
-
Originally posted by Hap
Winning an election does not create knowledge, rectitude, wisdom, etc.
hap [/QUOTE
man, thas deep hap
-
Originally posted by storch
well now before you completely melt down......again. what would collectively being at fault mean to you? That would be all of us at fault (not you of course, you don't count for much as you are not an American). we have as nation consistently ceded our rights either through apathy or ignorance with our votes, or a lack thereof.
In modern times the president who has held the most profound and sweeping powers of intruding into the private lives of the average American was FDR. the abuses of power by this administration were legion and had a detrimental global effect. you can place the blame for the cold war, runaway inflation, massive national debt, the massive coachroach infestation of New York/New Jersey and communist infiltration of the highest levels of our government squarely on this three times re-elected demagog.
now who elected and then three times re-elected this bright star to office and for what reason? who do we blame? with regard to President Bush, I have revised my opinion of the president as is my prerogative to do because of his performance during this second term. having typed that, given the choices in the last two elections, if I could return to 2000 and 2004 knowing what I know now I would still cast my vote for him, seeing him as the lesser of two idiots in both of those elections. had either of those two seething weezing masses of wasted breath opposition candidates been elected I firmly believe we would be far worse off than we are now. I'm sure I don't have to ask you what you think, I can guess.
WTFG Storch!
-
Wow dos equis, you really twist the mans words to make it look a lot worse. Basically, you posted a lie as the subject line. You must be a liberal democrat, as pretty much everything they say or believe is based on lies. Fitting the mold, you walk the walk.
The man objects to a media outlet divulging a classified program being used to fight terrorism and protect the American public, and you turn it all around. Sad.
How many people see this typical demodork crap and come to the realization that demodorks are sad and desperate fools? More than a few I would guess.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Wow dos equis, you really twist the mans words to make it look a lot worse. Basically, you posted a lie as the subject line. You must be a liberal democrat, as pretty much everything they say or believe is based on lies. Fitting the mold, you walk the walk.
The man objects to a media outlet divulging a classified program being used to fight terrorism and protect the American public, and you turn it all around. Sad.
How many people see this typical demodork crap and come to the realization that demodorks are sad and desperate fools? More than a few I would guess.
typical
-
Midnight,
Look again at the title of the New York Times article: Bank Date is Sifted In Secret To Block Terror.
If it truly was a secret program, and successful in its tracking of terrorists, then what in Heaven's name was the Times or any other paper, foreign or domestic, doing reporting it?
The mantra trotted out to defend the Times in this instance is the tired one of "the people's right to know."
Please explain exactly WHY I needed to know THIS? There was no reason to believe that government officials were doing anything other than following the money trail of terrorists.
This is just another example of media irresponsibility and ****lessness. What purpose could the Times have had other than to embarass the current administration? Much of the major media considers the Bush administration's anti-terrorism activities to be a greater threat than foreign sponsored terrorism. So, they print information that knocks the props from under a useful program in tracking the activities of terrorists.
Seeing themselves as defenders of the law, the media believes itself to be above it. The greatest defenders of the press admit that there should be limits beyond which the media should not go, and yet they never seem to find a case where the media have exceeded them.
The benefit of the doubt during wartime should work against such disclosures; in the eyes of most reporters and editors, apparently, it now lies heavily in the other direction.
Granted, it is important to have an independent press that is more adversarial than compliant...for democratic governments require watchdogs.
But there is a profound difference between performing the necessary function of informing the public and going out of one's way to undermine programs that any reasonable person would consider useful for safeguarding the nation's security.
If the media help to check the power of government, but the media cannot be prosecuted by the government for clear-cut cases of wrongdoing, then what checks the media?
(A summary and paraphrased version of an article in The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, by Bradley R. Gitz.)
-
You want to know what is really ironic about this whole mess?
Right after 9/11, the NYT suggested things that needed to be done to track and stop terrorists, and tracking their money was one of the things they suggested that needed to be done.
I personally would take great joy in seeing the editor and publisher of the NYT prosecuted and imprisoned for treason.
-
Those votes were cast based on the intel that the Republicans told them
:rofl :noid :rofl :noid :rofl :noid
If they can't get their own information to make credible decisions for the protection of the country, what good are they?
-
Thanks, dago and shuck..my point exactly.
As for 'facts'...I'm pretty sure that all the websites, and I am certain all the other newspapers, posted/published after the NYT did. How am I sure? I spent a few minutes with Art Sulzberger of the NYT last week at a business event, and that's the story as he tells it.
You know...I often think this stuff isn't about a true political or ethical position, so much as it's just any ole' opportunity to claim the inherent evil of an opposing point of view.
If anyone, anwhere, wishes to bash or embarass the administration, then there are no limits, no wrongs, no such thing as sedition or treason. There is a LOT to complain about, and a LOT that's pretty fishy, but that IS NOT a license to throw caution and good sense to the four winds in the interests of making political hay.
Frankly, in my personal worldview, the idea that the media should have no accountability for it's actions, and be immune to any form of reprimand is damned foolishness that'll get us all in a pack of trouble. Strikes me as...naive.
Forget just the media for a second...who should have the 'right' to act or say as they please with no consequence for causing harm?
I realize how fine a tightrope it is to walk...we MUST have a free press to keep the people informed, primarily, of how their government behaves. It's a critical part of checks and balances. The ability to criticize the government openly is key to maintaining our freedom, frankly.
OTOH, we cannot deny the very real need for discretion, and secrecy, in the operation of our elected government as one of the pre-eminent players on the world stage. This ain't Candyland. The bad guys rely on exploiting ideas and policies that are contrary to our security, and I'm sure just love when Americans torpedo their own country's ability to find them in the first place!
Even secret programs are subject to rules. Ultimately, the truth will out, and if data has been mined - and used - contrary to the privacy and freedom of legitimate American citizens, there will be hell to pay. In the meantime, if analysts look at depersonalized data and only start digging deep into transactions which bear the stamp of suspicion, I'm not really concerned. It's not the looking, it's what they do with it and why.
In this case, it was legal, ethical and apparently untainted...used to hunt the guys who would really, really like to kill us all !
When most of the mainstream media appears to also criticize this particular bit of monumental stoopidity, I think the case is pretty well made.
-
So the press should be free to print what it wants except when the President thinks it is inappropriate? Or should we have a congressional committee overseeing the press? Maybe a government OK'er of stories?
Freedom can be a *****, but it beats the heck outta all the alternatives.
-
Frankly the anger over this story should be directed at the idiot who leaked it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So the press should be free to print what it wants except when the President thinks it is inappropriate? Or should we have a congressional committee overseeing the press? Maybe a government OK'er of stories?
Freedom can be a *****, but it beats the heck outta all the alternatives.
Why does a liberal have such a hard time understanding the simple fact that a secret government program designed to fight terrorism shouldn't be printed in a newspaper, that the greater good of the people is served by protecting the program and in doing so, the security and safety of the American people?
Nobody has ever said all stories need review, but it doesnt take much to realize this story was immensly differant and needed protecting.
The concept is simple really if you stop for a moment to think about it objectively.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So the press should be free to print what it wants except when the President thinks it is inappropriate? Or should we have a congressional committee overseeing the press? Maybe a government OK'er of stories?
Freedom can be a *****, but it beats the heck outta all the alternatives.
Feedom is a responsibility. The abuse of any freedom is what leads to the loss of that freedom.
When the press acts irresponsibly it should lose its freedom. Not meaning that across the board, per se. Just the offender.
The press should be held accountable and face stiff penalties for lieing, deception, or the release of information which compromises the security and well being of any American.
The press should not be free of the responsibility we all have to accept living in a free country.
-
Originally posted by tapakeg
:rofl :noid :rofl :noid :rofl :noid
If they can't get their own information to make credible decisions for the protection of the country, what good are they?
YGBFSM
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The press should be held accountable and face stiff penalties for ... the release of information which compromises the security and well being of any American.
Imagining what a presidential administration could do within the bounds of the above quote scares the crap out me.
I think the press should always remain blameless with regard to this type of information.
The person(s) at fault are the ones that leaked the information. There's a long process in obtaining a security clearance. All along the way as the clearance is raised to higher and higher levels we are constantly reminded of the penalties for divulging classified information. Again and again, we agree in writing that we will protect the information.
Most civilians and the press haven't agreed to this. They are not bound by law to protect this information, nor should they.
-
Actually, I think the government has shown remarkable restraint in this instance...more so than they should in my opinion.
So, Sandy, since you are against holding the press accountable in any and all such circumstance, how then would YOU rein in a dangerously irresponsible press?
Civilians may not have signed a security agreement with regards to the handling of sensitive information, but does that absolve them of all responsibility in such matters?
You would hold the people who have signed security agreements accountable for leaking information jeopardizing the security of the nation, in essence breaking the laws the government has imposed on those responsible for the nation's security.
Yet you would let their accomplices go scott free. The accomplices who had no valid reason for releasing this information and thus gutting an intelligence program, other than to embarass an administration it despises, are given to be given carte blance to do it again.
I doubt the Founding Fathers intended for Freedom of the Press to be used to shield journalists from the consequences of such blatantly partisan and idiotic actions.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
So, Sandy, since you are against holding the press accountable in any and all such circumstance, how then would YOU rein in a dangerously irresponsible press?
Well... first we would have to agree that we have a dangerously irresponsible press.
We're not there yet.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Civilians may not have signed a security agreement with regards to the handling of sensitive information, but does that absolve them of all responsibility in such matters?
Is there some law that states otherwise? Those of us that safeguard information have accepted the responsibility. It is ours. It cannot be delegated away.
-
oh piddle on all this. i'm happy to have the press report on anti-constitutional, illegal, shenanigans the executive branch is up to.
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
oh piddle on all this. i'm happy to have the press report on anti-constitutional, illegal, shenanigans the executive branch is up to.
hap
Lets get real, only a Brit or a gay would actually ever say "oh piddle on this".
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Feedom is a responsibility. The abuse of any freedom is what leads to the loss of that freedom.
Here's where the rubber meets the road. It is most definitely NOT a "responsibility" especially in the context you are using. It is a RIGHT gauranteed by the constitution and inviolate.
I wonder if many here would be so quick to condemn a person who LEGALLY uses a handgun?
-
Hap...explain please exactly how the monitoring of over-seas banking transactions or terrorist organizations by the federal government is an unconstitutional, illegal, shenanigan.
Midnight...you are certainly intelligent enough to appreciate the system of "checks and balances" inherent in the constitution which keeps any branch of the government from accruing too much power to itself. Oversight any single branch is the responsibility of the other two branches.
If you give the press unbridled power to print anything they wish, regardless of its effect on the security of the people of the nation, you are, in truth, setting them up as the fourth branch of the government.
Again, the question arises, WHO checks THEM?
I also remind you of the fact that journalists and newspapers can and have been successfully sued by private citizens in the past for printing material deemed harmful to the reputations of individuals, corporations, or the public weal.
An article that incites the civil populace to violence is cause for arrest and incarceration. So, the assumption by defenders of the press that the government has no authority over freedom of the press has no substance.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If you give the press unbridled power to print anything they wish, regardless of its effect on the security of the people of the nation, you are, in truth, setting them up as the fourth branch of the government.
Which I believe was exactly the intent of the founders when they wrote the 1st Amendment.
Again, the question arises, WHO checks THEM?
We the People.
An article that incites the civil populace to violence is cause for arrest and incarceration. So, the assumption by defenders of the press that the government has no authority over freedom of the press has no substance.
Straw man.
-
Alright Sandman...any suggestions on HOW you and I and the other citizens can check the New York Times and prevent it from irresponsibly printing sensitive security information?
Is the fourth branch of the government capable of Abuse of Power? Certainly. If unchecked when they do something that borders on criminality will they be emboldened to go further next time?
You bet your arse they will.
At what point would you be inclined to say..."Hey that's dangerous! That's criminal! They should be held accountable!"
Unless opposed, it is the nature of any institution to grow in power and arrogance. Again, what checks are available to us? Are YOU going to stop buying papers to protest?
What, if anything, will you do?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Well... first we'd have to agree that the New York Times did something irresponsible.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe that there is any justification worthy of a large scale surveillance program aimed at Americans, especially one that completely skips past the necessity of establishing probable cause.
-
It doesn't border on criminal, it isn't even in the same ballpark as criminal. As long as it is the truth it is fair game. And as to controlling the NYT, maybe that should be done by it's subscribers. If they don't like that kind of journalism, they won't buy it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... first we'd have to agree that the New York Times did something irresponsible.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe that there is any justification worthy of a large scale surveillance program aimed at Americans, especially one that completely skips past the necessity of establishing probable cause.
By a vote of 302 to 219, the European Parliament approved a resolution demanding that European banks and governments disclose what they knew about the U.S. program to monitor terrorists' financial transactions.
The New York Times reports one French politician accused the U.S. of "rifling through our private bank accounts," and an Italian lawmaker compared the case to alleged CIA kidnappings of terror suspects, saying it has the same objective, "to extort information."
The administration had tried to convince the Times not to unveil the secret program, arguing among other things, that it would hurt cooperation with the Europeans.
But Times executive editor Bill Keller dismissed those concerns, calling that argument "puzzling," and noting just after publication, that the story did not appear to be generating a "backlash against the program" — at least, until now.
That is in addition to Belgium's government doing pretty much the same thing--the program, which is perfectly legal and not in dispute by even Howard Dean, is renedered useless, and more importantly, WHO is going to trust the US intelligence community now? Multiple leaks regarding European governments helping the US have shown up in the Times, and they aren't going to help us any more...after all, the terrorists aren't after THEM.
-
My Lord...we're becoming a nation of ostriches.
Guess I'll just sit back and wait for the wailing and *****in' to start when the next attack takes place.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I wonder if many here would be so quick to condemn a person who LEGALLY uses a handgun?
Interesting thought. We have a right to own weapons, but we have a responsibility to exercise that right without doing harm to others.
The press is guaranteed freedom, don't they also have the responsibility to exercise that right without harming the people of our nation? Divulging government programs designed to protect the safety and security of the people of the United States, they have acted irresposible and should be held legally liable.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Alright Sandman...any suggestions on HOW you and I and the other citizens can check the New York Times and prevent it from irresponsibly printing sensitive security information?
I know how you can stop them from doing it again, don't buy thier product. Hell buy shares in thier company. Sweet, sweet capitalism/freedom.
-
Ah for the good ol days when newspapers started wars
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Ah for the good ol days when newspapers started wars
Where's William Randolf Hearst when you need him? ;)
-
hmm..all that nasty spying DOES seem to help:
Law-enforcement officials said FBI agents, who monitored Internet chat rooms and e-mail messages used by suspected terrorists, discovered the scheme. At least two other arrests reportedly were made, but details were unavailable. The U.S. Embassy in Beirut declined comment.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060707-114007-3225r.htm
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here's where the rubber meets the road. It is most definitely NOT a "responsibility" especially in the context you are using. It is a RIGHT gauranteed by the constitution and inviolate.
I wonder if many here would be so quick to condemn a person who LEGALLY uses a handgun?
I interpret what you just said as freedoms have no accompanying responsibility, therefore they cannot be abused.
Actions always have consequences. If you only take the letter of the law, and not the intent, then I suppose there is no such thing as being responsible with freedom. I prefer to look at the intent, rather than the letter of the law.
Taking the letter of what you said, it would be ok for a person to stand in front of your house and espouse the joys of raping and killing children.
But then again, if this person was being too loud, then some law or ordnance could come into play to squelch the offender. And why would that be? Is it possibly being done to prevent a freedom from being abused to the point where it is now interfering with your freedom?
I do not believe the founding fathers wanted any freedom to just run amok and curtail the freedom of others in the process. My opinion for sure. When a freedom is abused it is no longer a freedom. It is a nuisance, or worse. While you speak in absolutes, I want it clearly understood, this is my opinion.
Originally posted by midnight Target
It doesn't border on criminal, it isn't even in the same ballpark as criminal. As long as it is the truth it is fair game. And as to controlling the NYT, maybe that should be done by it's subscribers. If they don't like that kind of journalism, they won't buy it.
So, violating the right to privacy, as long as it is the truth, is a-ok. Sure, let's stomp on other rights in the order to preserve one. Heck of a trade there.
-
Does the government have privacy rights? I don’t think so. As citizens they do, but not as an institution. Last time I checked it is legal to publish any text as long as it is not a fabrication. Allowing the government to gag the press or force people to secrecy is downright dangerous.
Many of our freedoms can encroach upon each other in extreme cases, but if there ever was one freedom that needs to be above all others it’s the freedom of the press. The press is the only way our society can keep tabs on what the government is doing in our name … unless you believe there is such a thing as an honest politician.
-
I wonder how soon an attack will occurs and someone sues the NYT for compromising the survelience that could have prevented the attack?
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Does the government have privacy rights? I don’t think so. As citizens they do, but not as an institution. Last time I checked it is legal to publish any text as long as it is not a fabrication. Allowing the government to gag the press or force people to secrecy is downright dangerous.
Many of our freedoms can encroach upon each other in extreme cases, but if there ever was one freedom that needs to be above all others it’s the freedom of the press. The press is the only way our society can keep tabs on what the government is doing in our name … unless you believe there is such a thing as an honest politician.
Actually the governement has tremendous rights to "privacy" and the massive amount of classified documents confirms that. If the information is classified you can get in tremendous trouble providing it to the press as well as other folks. Have you never heard of a term called spying or espionage? Think of the name Rosenthal. I believe they were found guilty of spreading government information.
-
Mav,
Government secrets and a right to privacy are not the same thing.
The Rosenthal's were found guilty of spreading classified information not violating a right to privacy.
I'd have to look at the Bill of Rights again, but no where does it state that the government has a privacy right.
The government and the representatives of this government do have an OBLIGATION to protect information which would, by it's release, harm it's citizens or to some extent it's national interests.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Does the government have privacy rights? I don’t think so. As citizens they do, but not as an institution.
So you support Klaus Fuchs? The Walkers? The Rosenbergs?
Seems to me the governments "right" to privacy is well entrenched.
-
You don’t seem to understand the difference between violating privacy, and betraying secrecy. The government has no privacy rights, but they do have the right to keep certain things secret if they so wish. If a government employee divulges secrets he is most likely committing a crime, or at least violating a contract. If a reporter publishes secrets he is not committing a crime as long as the reporter did no crime in obtaining the secrets. I don’t know why some people find this so difficult to understand.
-
Depends on what he does with the information.
It's not that complicated.
What's wrong with some of you people?
-
uvwpvW :
So if one were to keep confidential the number and type of weapons he keeps, is he keeping it private, or is he keeping a secret?
If I were to find out through casual conversation with your wife certain damaging information about you and published it, I would have no responsibility whatsoever for your embarrasment?
-
Stringer and letters. Go back to the first page and the first and third post of the thread. Please note the thread was started on the basis of the paper publishing classified information.
As to the privacy thing, the govt. has many things it will keep secret, hence in effect keeping it private for use among those who have need to know to include purely classified info as well as plain old information they don't want spread too far, think ongoing investigations and so on. If you can't make the connection, it's your problem not mine.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
uvwpvW :
So if one were to keep confidential the number and type of weapons he keeps, is he keeping it private, or is he keeping a secret?
Depends on whether you are a private person or a government, and whether the weapons are personal property or public property.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If I were to find out through casual conversation with your wife certain damaging information about you and published it, I would have no responsibility whatsoever for your embarrasment?
That’s a red herring argument. I am not a government institution, and my wife and I do not have a secrecy contract. Now to answer your question: I am responsible for having done something that can be considered damaging or embarrassing, but if my wife divulged damaging information, accidentally or otherwise, to a reporter – my wife is also in part responsible for my embarrassment. You as a reporter are in no way responsible.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
That’s a red herring argument. I am not a government institution, and my wife and I do not have a secrecy contract. Now to answer your question: I am responsible for having done something that can be considered damaging or embarrassing, but if my wife divulged damaging information, accidentally or otherwise, to a reporter – my wife is also in part responsible for my embarrassment. You as a reporter are in no way responsible.
I do not consider it a red herring at all. It appears you believe that by publishing personal information, say it isn't socially embarrassing, say it's your banking information, I as a reporter am completely off the hook and your wife would be entirely at fault.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Stringer and letters. Go back to the first page and the first and third post of the thread. Please note the thread was started on the basis of the paper publishing classified information.
In America there is no such thing as “classified information” in the meaning that it is illegal for some people to read. Any and ALL information is legal to publish as long as it wasn’t obtained through illegal means (i.e. breaking into the White House and stealing documents). “Classified” simply means that they want to keep the information to themselves and are taking precautions to keep it from the public. If a “classified” or “secret” or “private” or “insert you favorite adjective here” government document should come into your possession you would in no way be making a crime reading it or publishing it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I do not consider it a red herring at all. It appears you believe that by publishing personal information, say it isn't socially embarrassing, say it's your banking information, I as a reporter am completely off the hook and your wife would be entirely at fault.
Yes it is a red herring because you constantly keep changing the topic to discussing the privacy rights of a private person. The government by definition isn’t “private”, has no “personal information” and their “banking information” is public property.
Classic red herring argument.
-
You say secret and private are different things. If your definition is that the difference is that the confidential information owned buy public vs private entities, and that makes all the difference, then I disagree with you.
The making public of confidential information is wrong regardless of it's ownership, unless that confidence was done in violation of law.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
The government by definition isn’t “private”, has no “personal information” and their “banking information” is public property.
Classic red herring argument.
And by the way, to get the banking information required to access government funds is not accessable by the public, it is held confidential*. (at least I hope so)
*in this context, a synonym for private
-
should there be any classified information and if so... what should it's limits be?
Should they be different in wartime?
Should a newspaper be held as a traitor if they release classified info?
Should we be fighting terrorists and if so... to what extent are we willing to give up freedom for security?
All difficult questions.
For my money I say let em do their worst... catch em only by accident and let em blow up or destroy a few blue areas a year if it means I don't lose any freedom.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Stringer and letters. Go back to the first page and the first and third post of the thread. Please note the thread was started on the basis of the paper publishing classified information.
As to the privacy thing, the govt. has many things it will keep secret, hence in effect keeping it private for use among those who have need to know to include purely classified info as well as plain old information they don't want spread too far, think ongoing investigations and so on. If you can't make the connection, it's your problem not mine.
Mav,
I don't have a problem, but you seem to so you can dial that crap down some.
And while you're doing that, show me the law or article within the Bill of Rights or Constitution that states the gov't has a right to privacy.
You obviously can't make the connection between a right to privacy and an obligation to keep information private. The distinction, for me, is clear....one is a right guaranteed by our Constitution to protect the individual that cannot be taken away, the other is a duty by those employed by our government to hold sensitive information secret.
Is the Gov't prosecuting the NYT for this?
Now they could prosecute the leaker of the information for releasing classified information, and I would be fine with that.
-
stringer... if the prosecute the leaker then they would have to prosecute the paper too... that would be the only thing that made sense. If it were classified info then that is the only way the leaker could be prosecuted and.... it follows..... that if a paper published classified info then it should be prosecuted also.
If the info was not classified or.. if no info can be termed classified then.... no harm no foul.
Like I said... I don't care if they can't go after terrorists in secret. they never catch any in any case and the ones they do are by accident anyway...
and besides... what is the worst a terrorist can do? kill a bunch of blue voters? Stopping that is not worth me losing any freedoms over or growing the government (same thing really tho)
lazs
-
Lazs,
I'm not so sure about that. The leaker took an oath not to release classified info, the paper did not.
Under which law would the paper be prosecuted? Now they could hold the paper or the reporters in contempt if they did not reveal their source, but I don't think they can prosecute them for printing the info.
And to be clear, I don't agree with a paper releasing sensitive documents which could harm our troops or hamper efforts to protect our citizens, but the paper is under no obligation to respect the governments right to privacy, because that right does not exist.
Essentially I agree with your stance on keeping a limit on expanding gov't.
-
stringer... if the government has no right to privacy then anyone releasing classified info can not be prosecuted... an oath would be meaningless.
How do you interpret "harm"? if money is used to buy a suitcase bomb for instance and it is used to blow up some blue city....
We find out latter that the money was being transferred around in bank accounts right under our noses...
How do you think the NYT would report that one?
"Why oh why oh why did our government not protect us? could they not see this coming? " "they are bumblers and buffoons who don't care about the people!"
Nope... it has been my experiance that the right wingers excuse any abuse of power so long as it is their guy/government doing the abuse and the left wingers (including the NYT) excuse any abuse of power so long as it is their guy/government in power.... in the end.. the individual gets screwed because all abuses are excused and embraced every other term or so.
Sorta like... when the right is in power they go after the SLA and kill some lefties and some children in lefty groups and the right wingers cheer...
when the left is in power they go after religous and right wing militias and kill the children and the left wingers cheer.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You say secret and private are different things. If your definition is that the difference is that the confidential information owned buy public vs private entities, and that makes all the difference, then I disagree with you.
pri•vate (prî'vĭt)
adj.
1
a) Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others: a private hideaway.
b) Designed or intended for one's exclusive use: a private room.
2
a) Of or confined to the individual; personal: a private joke; private opinions.
b) Undertaken on an individual basis: private studies; private research.
c) Of, relating to, or receiving special hospital services and privileges: a private patient.
d) Not available for public use, control, or participation: a private club; a private party.
3
a) Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government: private property.
b) Of, relating to, or derived from nongovernment sources: private funding.
c) Conducted and supported primarily by individuals or groups not affiliated with governmental agencies or corporations: a private college; a private sanatorium.
d) Enrolled in or attending a private school: a private student.
e) Not holding an official or public position: a private citizen.
4
a) Not for public knowledge or disclosure: private papers; a private communication.
b) Not appropriate for use or display in public; intimate: private behavior; a private tragedy.
c) Placing a high value on personal privacy: a private person.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The making public of confidential information is wrong regardless of it's ownership, unless that confidence was done in violation of law.
Whether it is right or wrong is a subjective judgment call. If it would interest the public to know it is usually right to publish. I take it you consider it wrong for the NY Times to publish this particular story. I think they were right to publish it and inform the public of what this government is doing to spy on them.
-
upwzxvb.... I would agree that it is good to report any spying or abuse of power that the government is doing on citizens.
I would agree that if a blue city were vaporized with funds that bought a suitcase nuke....that were exempt from being spyed on...
that we should accept that as the price of freedom. I know I would. How bout you?
lazs
-
Yes, except I don't discriminate on the political affiliation of those sacrificed on the altar of freedom. You’re an intriguing person Lazs. You expose the views of a Libertarian, yet you work for the government, seem to want to limit the freedom of the press and have no quarrels about the government spying on the American public. Intriguing indeed!
-
You are wrong on every single assumption you made about me except that I work for local government. I am the head of a wastewater facility that is funded by local fees for my service. it is an enterprise fund seperate from the general fund.
I also have to bid on my job with private firms of which many exist and many water and wastewater facilities are run by them.... also supported by the fees charged and also an enterprise fund.
libertarian is fine but just a bunch of wimpy, inefective eggheads.
I said nothing about limiting the freedom of the press any more or less than limiting anyones freedom. the "press" to me is just individuals with a forum. No more or less sacred than me or even you.
Where you got the idea that I espouse the view that the government should spy on the people I have no idea.
I want a very limited government and I would be happy to have more freedom even if it meant a vaporized blue city... I have said as much.
I believe that I have allways laid out my views as honestly and simply as I can. A trait that I find lacking in the socialists on this board even more than the right wingers.
I vote republican simply because they are walking toward socialism and discrimination while the democrats are running toward it. No other party has a chance so they are not worth my time.
I would fight beside any side that wants to limit government.... I would have fought for the south in the civil war even tho I would then have to fight against slavery. I believe in human rights.
I am not a libertarian... I am an individualist. I believe in individual human rights that were given us by our creator and not up for a vote.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I vote republican simply because they are walking toward socialism and discrimination while the democrats are running toward it. No other party has a chance so they are not worth my time.
lazs
lazs2
That is a great line, I agree with it 100% and I hope you don't mind but I will be using it.
-
Stringer,
If you think there is no privacy in the govt. I invite you to test this theory. In theory all govt. offices and buildings belong to the public, correct? The holders of those offices are subject to public review then, is this also not correct?
Now go to your nearest representative in govt., either city, county ,state or federal and tell them you want access to all of their files to determine if they are doing their job correctly. Let me know how it goes please.
-
Mav,
I'm sorry, I thought your next post would be showing me where it says in our Bill of Rights or our Constitution that the gov't has a right to privacy.
Your little scenerio does not show me, in the Constitutional sense of Individual Rights that the Gov't enjoys that right to privacy. What it says is that the employees of the Gov't, especially at the level of local offices, are not empowered to divulge information, which is as it should be, just as I am not empowered to divulge information my company deems inappropiate.
I'm not debating with you whether or not the Gov't should protect it's secrets, I think the Gov't has that OBLIGATION. I'm saying Rights ARE NOTand CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be given to Gov't, only to individuals.
And if the Gov't has a right to privacy, then why do they ASK the press not to divulge information, why don't they just say it is our Right to have you not publish this, and we will prosecute you for violating our Right?
-
Ya know Stringer, you are talking about something totally different from anything I have posted on. I have no clue as to what you are relating to in the thread any more. I don't know where you got that I had something to say about giving rights to the govt. here.
I just find it ludicrous that anyone thinks the govt., at any level, does not have things they do not want spread out that aren't even categorized as classified.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Actually the governement has tremendous rights to "privacy"
Mav,
That's what I'm responding to, and where I got the idea that you thought the government had privacy rights.
I hope that clue helps.
And I also said this:
I'm not debating with you whether or not the Gov't should protect it's secrets, I think the Gov't has that OBLIGATION.
So I guess I'm not ludicrous.
But maybe Rumsfield is ludicrous:
, Rumsfeld signed up as a leading co-sponsor (see Document 9, page 14) of the Moss bill for freedom of information, and denounced what he called the Johnson administration’s “continuing tendency toward managed news and suppression of public information that the people are entitled to have.”
His words when he co-sponsored the FOIA
-
uvwpvW,
Your definition, I assume, is from American Heritage.
While the definition of private as opposed to public in a situation such as ownership of land does differentiate between government and an individual, the use of the word in regards to what should remain confidential is open to a more broad definition.
A corporation can be private, yet can have many people. A private corporation can own private information. Therefore private information can be owned by a consortium and not require individual ownership. So your requirement of individual is a guideline of grammer and not a in any sence a legal definition.
I note that you did not bold this:
---
4
a) Not for public knowledge or disclosure:
---
Confidential information certainly falls within this definition, so in the sense that private and confidential can be synonymous, information about military movements or weaponry secrets, or whether a certain detective will be staking out a house somewhere, (while all this is of govermental and therefore public) the information would be considered confidential: not for public knowledge or disclosure, and could therefore be considered private.
Knowing what the government is doing to spy on me is not necesarily a good thing, the local police do clandestine survellance, and stake out suspected criminals. If each morning the newspaper printed where all the cops were going to be and who they were going to be watching, it would be a lot easier for criminals.
-
If the local paper knew all of this "clandestine stuff" then the cops should be fired.
Completely blows me away that people can actually agrue to have their rights reduced... sad really.
-
I am not argueing to have my rights reduced MT, I am just saying that reporters need to excercise some judgement. With the 24 hr news cycle now, the scoop is more impoprtant than the effects of making the story public. The responsibility of the press to take a step back and excercise some judgement every once in a while is not recognised.
If they came accross some information that it would be reasonable to assume there may be damage to an ongoing investigation, then there should be at least some thought as to whether they should print it or not.
I am asking the impossible, that reporters use some descretion when the situation warrants.
-
Ya know...a couple of months ago some of the very people waxing indignant about the White House releasing the name of a supposedly "secret CIA" agent to the press are now flip-flopping on the issue of secrecy.
If releasing the name of this supposed undercover agent, whose status was apparently known to every journalist in Washington, was a crime then in what way is this different? In one case, if we follow your convoluted and partisan logic, the Bush administration is vilified for releasing information to harm an agent, and in the second case it is condemned for wittholding information to protect a security program tracking terrorists.
And in both cases, the press was a ready accomplice to the release of this "sensitive" information...and should remain untouched. Even if the press gets its hand on such information it is under no obligation to print it, especially if the editors have half a brain and an ounce of common sense and integrity.
How can the government maintain the security and safety of its citizens if an irresponsible press continues to blow the whistle on its clandestine activities to garner sales, Pulitzers, and score political points against politicos it despises?
-
Stringer,
My bad, I should have used a term like expectation of privacy rather than rights. I was referring to rights as a general term rather than a specific constitutionally related idea.
-
Mav,
I understand where you're coming from on that.