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

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

President Merkin Muffley: But this is absolute madness, Ambassador! Why should you *build* such a thing?

Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.

President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.

Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.

And the NY Times was generally correct back then too, just ask Dr. Strangelove.

[Kuciwalker]

Who's disputing the truth of their claims?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I actually agree with Tingkai - the average American assumes that we are capable of doing this, but isn't sure if we actually are doing it. Since I doubt the terrorists have much in the way of spies in the federal government (except, by proxy, the NYT's), they probably had roughly the same idea. Now they know that we're doing it, and how.

The idea that the terrorists were in the dark before the NYT story was published is wrong. The terrorists knew before about what the U.S. was doing because they had been affected by it.

What the terrorists did not know, and still do not know is exactly how the system work. So they don't know how to compromise it. So they can't use the information contained in the NYT story to damage the U.S., unlike say the Germans getting information about the Normandy invasions or plans for the atomic bomb.

As for what the public needs to know, consider that the public knows there are corrupt politicians. By your argument, these politicians should not be exposed because people know corruption exists so they don't need the details.

[Drake Tungsten]

Reading through the thread, it appears the argument of the the New York Times' defenders is something like "it was ok to reveal this classified program, even though it was perfectly legal and effective, in the face of bipartisan governmental opposition because we think the terrorists probably knew the secrets we revealed anyway." Sorry to sound judgemental, but doesn't that strike anyone else as completely ****ing retarded?

[Kuciwalker]

[Kuciwalker]

Why'd you change your sig? It was perfect for this thread.

[Drake Tungsten]

* Drake Tungsten crosses Kuci off the ****** list

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
What the terrorists did not know, and still do not know is exactly how the system work. So they don't know how to compromise it. So they can't use the information contained in the NYT story to damage the U.S.

Maybe the Washington Post just has better sources than the NYT, but the story I read there gave all the important details about how the system works. So, yes they can.

[GePap]

It seems actually that the arguement is that the NY Times did not release ANY operational data whatsoever, beyond confirming SWIFT was part of the program, and that the same admin. that claims it was terrible for US security to state the program existed had already been going around making public statements about how successfuly they were tracking terrorist fnuds through banks for years, meaning that there is likely NO HARM to the US from the "revelation" since our government already, for its own political benefits, did it already.

Sorry to sound judgemental, but conservatives seem in a tizzy over **** given how wrong they have been shown in a varitey of policy choices. What is better than scapegoating, after all?

[Drake Tungsten]

GePap keeps his place near the top of the list.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
GePap keeps his place near the top of the list.

I am heartbroken, really, Potemkin...

Your exhalted opinion being so SO vital....

I mean, I respect it deeply, you know, slightly more than Fez's opinion, thought slightly less than that of horse manure.

sniff

[Drake Tungsten]

I am heartbroken, really

Why? If I were you, I'd be happy to at least be good at something...

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why'd you change your sig? It was perfect for this thread.

Fixed.

[Ramo]

I actually agree with Tingkai - the average American assumes that we are capable of doing this, but isn't sure if we actually are doing it. Since I doubt the terrorists have much in the way of spies in the federal government (except, by proxy, the NYT's), they probably had roughly the same idea. Now they know that we're doing it, and how.

Total bull**** since the NYT gave away nothing of use to the terrorists, since, once again, SWIFT encompasses virtually every commercial bank (I'm not sure why this needs to be repeated so much). The "how" is totally immaterial to the terrorists.

Of course the terrorists knew that we were doing it. The Bush Admin has been trumpeting this fact for years. Again, they've publicly stated that they've intercepted vast amounts of money in terrorist transfers. If they were idiotic enough to ignore something this blatantly obvious and publicly advertised by our gov't, an NYT article isn't going to make any difference. And more to the point, they wouldn't be a real threat.

First, as a tangent, IIRC there's no privacy issues because it's banking, which isn't protected [from the government] by privacy rules.

Nonsense. The lack of legal issues, which is far from certain, doesn't mean that there are no privacy issues. Not to say that I necessarily disagree with the program, but that certainly doesn't absolve the gov't of possible conflicts with our privacy.

Second, is a revalation that the government is doing what you knew it was doing any use to you at all? If revealing the mechanism doesn't give the terrorists any usable information... how would it give any to you?

I don't know why I keep having to repeat things to you. To make informed decisions over the scope of gov't power to look into our financial records.

[Drake Tungsten]

Total bull**** since the NYT gave away nothing of use to the terrorists, since, once again, SWIFT encompasses virtually every commercial bank (I'm not sure why this needs to be repeated so much). The "how" is totally immaterial to the terrorists.

There's a big difference between knowledge of the general outline of a program and knowledge of its specific operational details. Here are some details from the June 23 story that you have to wonder whether the terrorists knew before:

i) The US and its allies are tracking not only bank accounts, but also information from stock exchanges and mutual fund managers.

ii) The US does not however have easy access to individual ATM transactions on American soil.

iii) Wire transfer information is not available in real time, but only after a lag of several weeks.

iv) Nor is it logistically possible to get real-time information on credit-card purchases - of, for example, fertilizer or timing devices.

v) The United Arab Emirates fully cooperates with the program.

vi) Individual member banks are growing unhappy with the program and want it to end.

Doesn't that strike you as potentially useful information - especially points iii and vi?

The Times should have the courage of its convictions. Instead of pretending that the information revealed was useless, it should forthrightly admit: Yes we may possibly have helped the terrorists - but we believe that any risks to security were more than worth it. Then we could argue that latter point. Their current line of defense is disingenuous and cowardly.

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI3MDVlOGFlZTE4Zjc4ZWYzNjFhNjQ2NzFmNDU0YWY=

Of course the terrorists knew that we were doing it.

Why did we catch Hambali in 2003 then, a year after this program was supposed to have become common knowledge among terrorists?

And more to the point, they wouldn't be a real threat.

Are you saying that the head of Jemaah Islamiyah and mastermind behind the Bali bombing wasn't a real threat?