Why no threads about treasonous New York Times revealing national secrets again?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The Times can't have it both ways: either the program was open and above-board or it was clandestine and sneaky. The Times clearly thought it was the latter, and if they didn't know about it (and if the program caught several terrorists, including the Bali bomber) then it was secret enough to work. But the real evidence is found in a place so secret even Eric Lichtblau couldn't find it. The Times' own archives. In November of last year, (dear sweet Mother of God) Lichtblau bashes the administration for not doing a better job of cutting off terrorist financing!

The administration has made cutting off money to terrorists one of the main prongs in its attack against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It has seized tens of millions of dollars in American accounts and assets linked to terrorist groups, prodded other countries to do the same, and is now developing a program to gain access to and track potentially hundreds of millions of international bank transfers into the United States.

But experts in the field say the results have been spotty, with few clear dents in Al Qaeda's ability to move money and finance terrorist attacks. The Congressional report-- a follow-up to a 2003 report that offered a similarly bleak assessment -- buttresses those concerns.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Senate Finance Committee and was one of the lawmakers who requested the study, said he was disappointed to learn that in an area as critical as countering terrorist financing, ''they haven't gotten very far yet.''

In an interview, Mr. Grassley said: ''It's as simple as learning to stop the infighting and turf protection and get on with the job. What's happening is just inexplicable in light of the war on terrorism.''

The title of the article?

U.S. Lacks Strategy to Curb Terror Funds.

So much for the "terrorist tracking program wasn't a secret" argument. Apparently it was a secret... at least from the New York Times' crack staff of investigative reporters, who couldn't find that hidden-in-plain-sight report on the U.N. web site. Or those hundreds... if not THOUSANDS of staffers in SWIFT who knew about the Treasury Department program... or even, apparently the Op-Ed hidden behind their own TimesSelect wall urging President Bush to take exactly the steps he did, in fact, end up taking before Bill Keller exposed a perfectly legal and successful anti-terror program.

Hypocrisy, thy name is New York Times.

So secret Lichtabugh was blasting the admin for not doing it as late as Nov. 2005.

Yep known by everyone this story was.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Our resident anarchists and commies fight their way to be first to line up on the side of evil corps.

Evil corporation.

The NYT is among the few American newspapers that puts public service first over profit. While other newspaper chains have chopped editorial staff, the NYT ensures that its editorial staff is kept at a healthy level.

It is why the New York Times is widely seen as one of the great newspapers in the world

As a result, the American public is kept better informed of the what their elected leaders are doing.

The Republicans, meanwhile, say trust us, we know best, don't ask questions and give us some privacy while we spy on you.

How ironic, given that the Republicans, always talk about the need for small government because government is so inefficient and how the government should mind its own business.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by ajbera
This made me chuckle...

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is labelled a traitor.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Who was talking about Republicans (other than you and your ilk)?

I take it your general alignment with the NYT corporation is simply a marriage of convenience, allied against teh evil Bush. Too bad it wasn't necessarily only teh evil Bush that made this request of the NYT.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is labelled a traitor.

If by anyone you mean people on this thread I have yet to see anyone called out for being a traitor. OTOH, if by anyone you mean the NYT who knowingly and deliberately broke the law in publishing classified information, then thats a bit closer to the mark.

[Tingkai]

If you are talking about the Democrats who were widely criticized for approving the illegal wiretapping. Yeah, they would never go out of their way to cover their butts by trying to keep it secret.

The Times is a great newspaper and the United States is better off for it, not only because Americans are better informed of what their government does, but also because the debate between the Times and the government sends a message to the world about what democracy really means.

In most of Asia, such as mainland China and Singapore, the NYT would be stomped into the ground. In the U.S., it is allowed to flourish.

Instead of demonizing the Times with stupid cartoons and other lies, Americans should be proud that it exists. It is one of the great things about the U.S.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If you are talking about the Democrats who were widely criticized for approving the illegal wiretapping. Yeah, they would never go out of their way to cover their butts by trying to keep it secret.

Democrats like current congressman Jack Murtha, who have staked themselves as opponents of the administration.

or perhaps

Lee Hamilton (Vice Chair of the 9/11 commission) who is not a current congressman and is not actively seeking an election bid.

Yep both of these guys have plenty to win by supporting the administrations position.

As for covering butts what was there to cover? It was all legal.

[DinoDoc]

He's confusing two programs. Lack of O2 on his soapbox I guess.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tingkai

The Times is a great newspaper and the United States is better off for it, not only because Americans are better informed of what their government does, but also because the debate between the Times and the government sends a message to the world about what democracy really means.

In most of Asia, such as mainland China and Singapore, the NYT would be stomped into the ground. In the U.S., it is allowed to flourish.

Instead of demonizing the Times with stupid cartoons and other lies, Americans should be proud that it exists. It is one of the great things about the U.S.

A) Interesting your condemnation of China. I'll leave it at that.

B) No one has argued that debate is not essential. There is however limits to information that can be presented legally. When those bounds are crossed the NYT as is the case with any other individual (and corps are individuals in much of the laws eyes, more to the point the veil of the corporation could be pierced easily if individuals knowing broke the law) should be held to the laws of the land. The NYT's is not given any additional priveledge to first amendment rights than any other citizen.

Specifically those under 18 USC 798

Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States any classified
information -
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,
cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any
foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or
repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or
planned for use by the United States or any foreign government
for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the process of communication intelligence from
the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to
have been obtained by such processes -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section -
The term ''classified information'' means information which, at
the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of
national security, specifically designated by a United States
Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or
distribution;

Pertinent sections bolded.