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

[Tingkai]

Nice spin Drake, but it is still right-wing BS filled with distortions and information that is not true.

The June 23 story only deals with the use of SWIFT information.

It does not say that U.S. does not have access to ATM transactions, but rather that this particular spying program does not have access.

You say the information gathered has a lag time. Well what a shocker. Given the vast amount of information (11 million SWIFT transactions a day) of course there is going to be a lag time. It doesn't matter though because the paper trail remains. The information that you transferred money to a group six month ago is still valid information that could be used in court if you were doing something illegal.

All of this was known to terrorists because some terrorists had been convicted with this information.

The June 23 article does not say that the United Arab Emirates fully cooperates with the program, or at least I can't see any such reference.

The fact that some SWIFT members and U.S. government members want it to end does not help the terrorists in any way.

The big question remains: Should the U.S. government be allowed to monitor your banking records?

[Drake Tungsten]

Nice spin Drake, but it is still... BS

All of this was known to terrorists because some terrorists had been convicted with this information.

Yeah, I'm the one spewing BS...

The big question remains: Should the U.S. government be allowed to monitor your banking records?

SWIFT doesn't monitor my banking records; it monitors the transactions of large financial institutions. Not that the U.S. government doesn't have the right to my financial records, if they want to examine them. It's pretty well established that financial records can be examined if the government wants to. You have heard of the IRS, haven't you?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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.

Once again: if all of this information was common knowledge, why was it front-page news?

[Kuciwalker]

You say the information gathered has a lag time. Well what a shocker. Given the vast amount of information (11 million SWIFT transactions a day) of course there is going to be a lag time. It doesn't matter though because the paper trail remains. The information that you transferred money to a group six month ago is still valid information that could be used in court if you were doing something illegal.

It doesn't matter if you've blown yourself up by then.

All of this was known to terrorists because some terrorists had been convicted with this information.

From the NYT article itself:

In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program to keep it secret, officials said.

edit: fixed a c/p

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Once again: if all of this information was common knowledge, why was it front-page news?

Forth time beating down this strawman. Average guy didn't know but terrorists and people who pay attention did know. The terrorists already knew because they had previousl been effected by it (I.E. Ahmed sent money via a bank; Ahmed arrested, guy who Ahmed was giving money to arrested, and money gone) while the people who pay attention knew because Bush kept publically bragging about this very program during the last election.

The articles by the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post were written to educate the average man on the street about what their government was doing in their name. Sure, currently the goverment is claiming only terrorists are being monitored (at 11 million transactions per day there must be a lot of terrorists) but I recall when the warrentless wire tapping case broke first the administration claimed only a few international calls were tapped, then it became millions of international calls are routinely tapped (but they swore nothing domestic), and then it turned out the Administration had lied since the program also covered purely domestic calls. Fool me once shame on you but fool me twice shame on me. We're know on fool me two or three dozen so, yes, we shouldn't trust them.

[Kuciwalker]

Forth time beating down this strawman. Average guy didn't know but terrorists and people who pay attention did know.

Then why would so many people care about it being revealed? Don't say that it'd make them look bad - the whole affair has been great for Bush politically.

[Drake Tungsten]

it became millions of international calls are routinely tapped

This is complete ****ing horse****, but I would expect nothing less from the new Ted Striker...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I recall when the warrentless wire tapping case broke first the administration claimed only a few international calls were tapped, then it became millions of international calls are routinely tapped (but they swore nothing domestic), and then it turned out the Administration had lied since the program also covered purely domestic calls.

Have you actually read anything in this thread or are you just repeating talking points?

1) Not Warrantless:

Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift

2) It actually is mostly international transactions, and there are safeguards in place to keep records private:

Among the safeguards, government officials said, is an outside auditing firm that verifies that the data searches are based on intelligence leads about suspected terrorists. "We are not on a fishing expedition," Mr. Levey said. "We're not just turning on a vacuum cleaner and sucking in all the information that we can."

[Q Classic]

Frankly,since it seems as if the press has done nothing right in a while... why not just get rid of it?

It's not like the Right bears any love for the liberal media based in the reality community, and it's not like the Left really has any love for those goddamn pussies...

...so why not just nationalize the ****ers and shut them down for good?

We all get our news from the Internets now, anyways.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Uh...well Puerto Rico is a really nice place and the people are great, but I don't think we should turn control of the House over to them.

PR = Proportional Representation. Although the idea of outsourcing the voting process does have a certain appeal to it.

Judges are good at judging but are not administrators. And if they were, they'd be lousy administrators.

How 'bout redistricting drawn up by a mutally agreeable computer program??

If we could agree on algorithm Based on pop, natural, and political boundries!

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?

Was it perfectly legal?

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.

Or maybe the NYT spent the weeks they didn't publish it cleaning up the story so it would be useless to the terrorists

It doesn't matter if you've blown yourself up by then.

The financiers aren't blowing themselves up...

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Frankly,since it seems as if the press has done nothing right in a while... why not just get rid of it?

It's not like the Right bears any love for the liberal media based in the reality community, and it's not like the Left really has any love for those goddamn pussies...

...so why not just nationalize the ****ers and shut them down for good?

We all get our news from the Internets now, anyways.

Pravda

[Q Classic]

Well, Pravda, if I recall correctly, only spoke The Truth.

It was in its title, even.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Well, Pravda, if I recall correctly, only spoke The Truth.

It was in its title, even.

I respond with a quote:

Pravda - ah, Pravda - Pravda said: (Something unpronouncable) - 'It stinks'
But Izvestia! Izvestia said: (Something unpronouncable) - 'It stinks'

To be fair though, in Romania one of the main newspapers is called Adevarul, which also means The Truth. It is, however, unlike Pravda, somewhat more truthful

[Drake Tungsten]

Was it perfectly legal?

Yes. Not even the New York Times disputes that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

it became millions of international calls are routinely tapped

This is complete ****ing horse****, but I would expect nothing less from the new Ted Striker...

Unlike you I actually use sources instead of just making things up or posting crappy one liners.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122305K.shtml

If you don't like that one then how about ABC?

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/01/abcs_scoop_mill.html

Or the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?ex=1292821200&en=91d434311b0a7ddc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Or NPR?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5170376

Let's face the facts Drake. The scope is in the millions and millions of phone calls per day and you have nothing to go on other then cheap insults and wishful thinking.