Repub states "A free press undermines our country"

[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?

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

[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.

[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.

[bj229r]

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.

[Shuckins]

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.

[Dago]

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.

[Thrawn]

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.

[FiLtH]

Ah for the good ol days when newspapers started wars

[Sandman]

Originally posted by FiLtH
Ah for the good ol days when newspapers started wars

Where's William Randolf Hearst when you need him?

[bj229r]

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

[Skuzzy]

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.

[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.

[IgnorantJoe]

I wonder how soon an attack will occurs and someone sues the NYT for compromising the survelience that could have prevented the attack?

[Maverick]

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.

[Stringer]

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.