New York Times: Traitors to the Republic

[Arrian]

In general, I really cannot blame the NY Times for delaying in order to do more research. They've been burned before, to the point where the paper's credibility was seriously damaged.

Besides, Che, facts didn't seem to play much of a role in the election anyway.

-Arrian

[Blaupanzer]

Salon apparently thinks the election, stolen in Ohio, would have turned out differently if the NY Times had published this article just prior to that election. Do you agree with that implication, Che? I thought you had indicated you were a Marxist. What do Communists care about elections?

[Jon Miller]

Many Communists wish to change the system by voting...

JM

[Jon Miller]

However, examples like this suggest that the only possible way to change might be revolution.

JM

[Arrian]

Yeah, 'cause if you can't win the argument, you should shoot the other guy. Brilliant!

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

No, but if the system makes it so that the argument can't even occur, then what other option do you have?

For example, if information that people need for discussion is not made available to them (Example US, other regimes). Or if there are people standing at the voting stations and you know something will happen to you if you vote 'wrongly' (Iraq, North Korea, many other 'dictatorships'). Then there is no way for people to change their government through legal means, and 'illegal' means become the best for use. This is an example of this (through information control rather than armed guards, but still..)

You can't say that with this information some people wouldnt' have voted differently.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The reason why I am against revolution in general, is that it often ends with the 'revolutionary' side doing the same evil, the oppressed become the oppressors.

JM

[Donegeal]

Some one please post the tinfoilhat smilie. I think I seriously need it for this thread.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: New York Times: Traitors to the Republic

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/14/times/index.html

What the Times knew, and when it knew it

Maybe it's just us, but when a newspaper comes up with information suggesting that the president of the United States has been engaged in illegal surveillance of American citizens, that's a story that ought to be told. And when the information is available to the newspaper in time for an election -- which is to say, in time for the American people to incorporate it into their thinking about whether to reelect said president -- well, it seems to us that the newspaper has a special obligation to get it into print promptly.

But then, we're not the New York Times.

When the Times reported on Dec. 15, 2005, that George W. Bush had authorized a plan for warrantless spying on American citizens, we -- and a lot of other people -- noticed a circumspect little sentence deep in the story. "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns," James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote, "the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting."

Did a year mean "365 days", or did it mean "about 365 days"? And if it was the latter, did it mean that the Times knew about the warrantless wiretapping before the presidential election in November 2004? We put that question to Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis at the time, but she never answered it. The Times' public editor, Byron Calame, pursued the question with the Times' executive editor, Bill Keller, but he declined to comment, too.

To his credit, Calame never gave up. Troubled by what seemed to be shifting language about the delay -- the initial story and a statement issued over Keller's name said the paper had held the story for "a year," but Keller later seemed to acknowledge implicitly that the delay had been longer -- Calame kept asking for details, and Keller has now provided them: Drafts of the article were written weeks before the presidential election, Keller says, and "the climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election."

They knew the President was breaking the law and they didn't let the American people know before an election.

Unfortunately, it's still not clear what law was broken, if any.

[Elok]

Fortunately, I felt certain that America was screwed either way the moment Kerry got the Democratic nomination. The incompetent clown we've got or a new incompetent clown, that's a wonderful choice to have to make...pssht.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Odin

"Those who would give a little liberty to gain a little security will recieve neither, and lose both." -Ben Franklin

I suppose you do not support forcing people to pay taxes to fund the police, Odin?

It's a great quote in principle, but...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, 'cause if you can't win the argument, you should shoot the other guy. Brilliant!

-Arrian

As Kennedy said, "Those how make peaceful evolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." If the government is thwarting the will of the electorate, what options do you have to re-establish government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: New York Times: Traitors to the Republic

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Unfortunately, it's still not clear what law was broken, if any.

No, it's quite clear the President broke the FISA law. He also broke the law which made the Geneva Conventions part of U.S. law, among others.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
What do Communists care about elections?

I'm a small "c" commie. My big thing is democracy, even if it goes against me. I don't think we have a fair system, but given what we got, it's better than many alternatives. I'll work within the system to try and make things better (fairer ballot access, get rid of the electoral collage, recalls, voter initiatives, IRV, public financing of elections, etc.).

So even though I don't like the Democrats, if they are the people's choice, then they should be in office, and not thwarted by dirty tricks or lack of information. For the same reason, I'm not as concerned about the trickery in Ohio, cause the electoral collage is anti-democratic.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Odin
"Those who would give a little liberty to gain a little security will recieve neither, and lose both." -Ben Franklin

I think the quote is "... deserve neither, ..."

Clearly, the Bushies do not agree with this. As long as they can keep stealing elections, why should they care about what we think. Che, you may not be much of a commie, if you don't insist on scientific rather than poll-related truth. Okay by me -- agree about the Electoral College. In fact, that is the reason it was created, to prevent the "mob" from stampeding the orderly exchange of power.