New York Times: Traitors to the Republic

[lord of the mark]

a newspaper, even the NYT is a private entity.

If they think they need to be more certain before publishing a story that would change the election, and which, if they turned out to be wrong, would impinge their credibility, they have the right to do so. Werent you one of the folks all over their case for publishing Judith Miller?

If you dont like the NYTs standards, I suggest you stop purchasing the NYT, and get your news from somewhere that meets your standards. Like Salon, maybe. If Salon doesnt have the staff to find all the things the NYT does, thats life.


Now in Venezuala, lets say, the govt decided that it didnt like what the private newspapers cover. It puts out its own media, that make damned sure to cover all the nefarious doings of the right, and pays for it with tax dollars. If you like that approach, you can move to Venezuala. Or you can lobby to maintain funding to NPR

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
...cause the electoral collage is anti-democratic.

I used to think so too, but the past two have changed my mind.

Lets just say that the electoral college is elimnated and we have a straight popular vote. Where do you think the campaigning is going to take place? Most of it is going to take place in NY, LA, Chi and the other large population areas. The candidates are only going to go to the largest population arease to get their word out to the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time. If you don't live in these mega population areas, your opinion isn't going to matter. Who is going to vist Wyoming? Montana? The Dekotas or over 50% of the population of this country? It just won't be worth it to visit these small population areas because the candidates won't get the proper bang for the buck. They won't be visited and they won't matter.

Now with the electoral college, these little places have a meaning to the candidates. Hell, my little town of 65,000 people had the president of the United States stop by on his campaign trail. The only reason he stopped by was because of the electoral college. Without it, my little city (and thousands of similar cities) wouldn't rate a stop. I

The electoral college is the only thing that make rural and middle America matter on a national election.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

That the President should have gone to FISA, where it's almost certain he would have gotten the warrants, is obvious. That he was required to, in light of Noriega and legal opinion, is a lot less obvious than it seems. As long as the message intercept (as distinguished from collection, processing and analysis)was conducted outside the US and its territories, and the communication was international, then it's not at all clear that FISA is mandatory.

The purpose of FISA was to allow for processing of classified warrants in espionage and other national security sensitive investigations which might lead to criminal charges - it was not to expand or contract intelligence gathering capabilities or alter the scope of activities which require judicial warrants.

Bush & co. made use of a loophole, or at least a lack of coverage by FISA, but it's not clear any specific statute was violated in doing so. If you can cite one, be my guest...

WRT the Geneva Convention, the US is a signatory, but show me a US law which incorporates the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War into US law?

The recent SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo prisoners doesn't invalidate military tribunals (or possible executions resulting from those tribunals) per se, only in the form that was planned by Rummy and friends. The other aspect of their status that was in question is whether Rummy's blanket determination that al Qaeda or Taleban prisoners were unlawful combatants met the "determination by a competent tribunal" requirement of the Convention, which clearly it does not.

Legally, all that's necessary is three officers to make an individual review of the circumstances of each prisoner's capture, and 80% of them could be tossed right back into the unlawful combatant heap. The whole process wouldn't take much longer or need to be much more involved than the military tribunals which tied Manfred Pernass and other Einheits Stielau prisoners to a post during the Ardennes offensive. That's the legal option, but not politically viable, as Gitmo is now a mouldering, festering, oozing albatross that no longer serves a purpose as cowboy bling. One way or another, there's no US statute which has been broken by the President, regardless of your views of the political and moral issues.

I think both issues were handled half-assedly by Bush. The surveillance, to the extent it went beyong SIGINT and TPA, should have been run through FISA to preserve any options for prosecution, but I don't see anything to make me believe that was legally necessary. (I did, at first, and found the activity and the laws in question just don't meet up)

With respect to Gitmo, most of the prisoners there are low level, and I would have set up tribunals from the outset consistent with the UCMJ and MCM, and half those people would probably have gotten either life sentences or their turn in front of a wall by now.

[Az]

I'm a small "c" commie. My big thing is democracy, even if it goes against me.

[mactbone]

Donegal:
The problem with the Electoral College is the Winner Take All system that almost every state has. It's wrong that my vote and over 50% of the entire state's votes would be worthless because two of the three districts managed a 51-49 majority while the third district had a 20-80 split. Anyway, I lived in Northern Indiana and the last time a President visited my county was LBJ touring the aftermath of the Palm Sunday tornados. The Electoral College = teh dumb.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

NYT's did their best. Had they released it prior to the election it would have helped W as apparently 2/3 of the people so polled thought the NSA survellance of terrorists was the right and appropriate thing to do.


Ohh and to Arrians point there was that whole embarrassing gaffe that CBS pulled that probably meant the NYT's felt they needed to have their butts covered for accuracy reasons.

[Donegeal]

So then talk to your state. How a state sives out its electoral votes is up to the state. Don't junk a federal system because you feel its broke on a state level.

I know that there is one state out there that divids them up based on popular votes, but I don't remember which one. I think its Maine or Vermont or somewhere in New England. Push for your state to do that. (Personally, I wouldn't, because then your state would never become a "battle ground state" and the candidates would still ignore you)

[mactbone]

Wait, because my state could be ignored, we shouldn't change a broke system? This is all about flattery? The issue is about right and wrong. The Electoral College, and especially the method that the states have chosen to use it is wrong. If the point of the Electoral College is to prevent a simple majority from winning, then why don't we just have both sides of Congress vote on the President? They each represent one Electoral vote.

[Kuciwalker]

With the electoral college, just different people are ignored, and they pay way too much attention to the people who SHOULD be ignored - the tiny minority of farmers.

[PLATO]

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

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That the President should have gone to FISA, where it's almost certain he would have gotten the warrants, is obvious. That he was required to, in light of Noriega and legal opinion, is a lot less obvious than it seems. As long as the message intercept (as distinguished from collection, processing and analysis)was conducted outside the US and its territories, and the communication was international, then it's not at all clear that FISA is mandatory.

The purpose of FISA was to allow for processing of classified warrants in espionage and other national security sensitive investigations which might lead to criminal charges - it was not to expand or contract intelligence gathering capabilities or alter the scope of activities which require judicial warrants.

Bush & co. made use of a loophole, or at least a lack of coverage by FISA, but it's not clear any specific statute was violated in doing so. If you can cite one, be my guest...

WRT the Geneva Convention, the US is a signatory, but show me a US law which incorporates the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War into US law?

The recent SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo prisoners doesn't invalidate military tribunals (or possible executions resulting from those tribunals) per se, only in the form that was planned by Rummy and friends. The other aspect of their status that was in question is whether Rummy's blanket determination that al Qaeda or Taleban prisoners were unlawful combatants met the "determination by a competent tribunal" requirement of the Convention, which clearly it does not.

Legally, all that's necessary is three officers to make an individual review of the circumstances of each prisoner's capture, and 80% of them could be tossed right back into the unlawful combatant heap. The whole process wouldn't take much longer or need to be much more involved than the military tribunals which tied Manfred Pernass and other Einheits Stielau prisoners to a post during the Ardennes offensive. That's the legal option, but not politically viable, as Gitmo is now a mouldering, festering, oozing albatross that no longer serves a purpose as cowboy bling. One way or another, there's no US statute which has been broken by the President, regardless of your views of the political and moral issues.

I think both issues were handled half-assedly by Bush. The surveillance, to the extent it went beyong SIGINT and TPA, should have been run through FISA to preserve any options for prosecution, but I don't see anything to make me believe that was legally necessary. (I did, at first, and found the activity and the laws in question just don't meet up)

With respect to Gitmo, most of the prisoners there are low level, and I would have set up tribunals from the outset consistent with the UCMJ and MCM, and half those people would probably have gotten either life sentences or their turn in front of a wall by now.

So the title to thread is correct then...They are traitors for revealing a legal inteligence gathering operation!

[Donegeal]

The large heavily populated areas don't get ignored with the electoral college. The big states are still the biggest goals, but with the electoral college, candidates can't just ignore me (or more like people like me) and just hit the big population guys. And Kuci, it isn't just the farmers that would get ignored, its the 150,000,000 + that don't live in the biggest population areas.

This past election, my voted counted for absolutely nothing. I voted Bush in a state that went to Kerry. Am I upset that my vote didn't count towards anything? No, because my state mattered in the election. If there was no electoral college, my entire state wouldn't have mattered.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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

Originally posted by PLATO


So the title to thread is correct then...They are traitors for revealing a legal inteligence gathering operation!

Actually for revealing a classified intelligence gathering operation.

Its legality is immaterial. Its classified status is.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Donegeal
The large heavily populated areas don't get ignored with the electoral college. The big states are still the biggest goals, but with the electoral college, candidates can't just ignore me (or more like people like me) and just hit the big population guys. And Kuci, it isn't just the farmers that would get ignored, its the 150,000,000 + that don't live in the biggest population areas.

This past election, my voted counted for absolutely nothing. I voted Bush in a state that went to Kerry. Am I upset that my vote didn't count towards anything? No, because my state mattered in the election. If there was no electoral college, my entire state wouldn't have mattered.

But how is it fair that your vote did matter more than the vote of, say, a Californian? Sure, your state mattered a lot less than California, but doesn't it make a lot more sense to look at individuals? It's hard to justify a system that weighs some people's votes more heavily than others. Candidates should still have to pay attention to small states, but only in proportion to their population. Why is it fair for some states to receive a disproportionate amount of attention?

[Donegeal]

Because its the only way they'd receive attention. In a strictly popular election, sure, my vote would count just as much as everyone elses, but since I live in a less populated area, no one would listen to me.

[Kuciwalker]

What percentage of Americans live in what you call a "less populated area"?

If it's significant, then a candidate will have to pay attention to you lest the other capture a large number of extra votes. If it's not significant, then you should be relatively ignored.