Jump to content

Even MORE Interesting...


Recommended Posts

Was Saddam a Broker for Terrorists?

Those dastardly fabricators at Foxnews are apparently going to Dan Rather-lengths now. Want to bet you won't see this anywhere else?

Now I'm SURE that the fair and objective BBC and liberal US media outlets just haven't gotten wind of these documents.

DOH! That's right. The evil Bush Administration, damn their souls to the Pits of Hades, must have made all of this up! How could I be so silly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A healthy bit of skepticism is in order regardless of your stance. Hemmoraging approval ratings for this Congress and the administration are probably a key factor in all these 'revelations' brought to you by Fox News.

Although tenuous ties to terrorists still doesn't make the 'imminent threat' argument any stronger in this post-2500 death, post-hundreds of billions of dollars military action.

North Korea is fueling their missile currently and is expected to have produced 10 nuclear weapons since 2002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look. We have a frickin' election in this country every 2 stinkin' years! There's a 50-50 chance that ANY revelation comes out in an election year!!!!!!! SHEESH!!

(Still, I know what you're saying about timing. You just gotta deal with it. It's the way things work in this country.)

My stance is simple. Ties to terrorism are ties to terrorism. Period. True, enough, North Korea is indeed a bigger fish to fry than Iraq. I agree personally with the order we are going in. I'm not really sure we were ready for a war with Korea on Sept. 12 2001. Maybe, just maybe, our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan will give that psycho some pause. If not, well, are units are now battle hardened. That counts for A LOT if you know your history, which I suspect you do. General "Stonewall" Jackson knew the best way to defeat a strong enemy was to decimate his weakest units first. Let the enemy learn your name on the battlefield, and let them learn to fear it. A strong battlefield reputation is akin to an extra legions' worth of hardy troops on the battlefield. Look what Jackson and Lee were able to accomplish with no supplies and far fewer men. Their names alone were enough to make some Union generals piss their pants.

The time will come, and all too soon I'm afraid, when you will get your wish and the US-Korea relations will deteriorate into cold-war if not all out war condition. It will not be pretty. We will win, but I fear the cost may make Iraq look like a day-trip to the beach.

Anyway, that is my take. I hope this gives you a little more insight into my beliefs and why they are what they are. I don't ask anyone to agree; just understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Those dastardly fabricators at Foxnews are apparently going to Dan Rather-lengths now. Want to bet you won't see this anywhere else?

Now I'm SURE that the fair and objective BBC and liberal US media outlets just haven't gotten wind of these documents.

DOH! That's right. The evil Bush Administration, damn their souls to the Pits of Hades, must have made all of this up! How could I be so silly?

Have I ever stated that I didn't believe that Saddam had ties to terrorists? I most certainly did not, and in fact I believe that he did in fact have ties to terrorism.

However, and this should get your gears grinding, we've had ties to terrorism as well. The Contra's for example.. they were trained by our people.

Regardless, we're making a serious effort to clean up both Terrorism we created, and terrorism other governments, including Russia, created.

Now, this news article, is probably not being reported by those "liberal media nuthouses" and the BBC because its probably hard to verify the credibility of the information until several years after its release, since typically documents that go with it to verify the credibility aren't declassified at the same moment in time. Well... the BBC at least; for the liberal media its probably because they're idiots who need to let go of their extreme bias (just as Fox needs to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Prez:

No argument from me - Foxnews is biased. About 12 more conservative media outlets to go, and it'll balance out!


LOL!

Actually, I find Fox News fairly centrist. If its conservative, it's certainly middle-of-the-road-conservatism.

In any case, part of the reason I think people see FNC as biased towards the right is, compared to how leftist the other outlets are, ANYTHING towards the middle is going to be to the right of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, the more I see fox coming out with their articles, CNN seems bent of ignoring it and posting their own take on what's going on.

That first thread and link to fox about the Mustard and sarrin gas this is CNN's reply to that story:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A former CIA officer says he made repeated efforts to alert top agency officials to problems with an Iraqi defector's claims about the country's mobile biological weapons labs but he was ignored, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

So far, not even a word about the fox article and you know how the news media is on jumping on other stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where you guys were when the WMD story came out, but it played on ALL the networks. I know, I saw it. The difference being that the "MSM" didn't continue with the story because it didn't pass the smell test... well, that and the fact that senior officials in the government clearly stated (jedi mind trick) "these are not the WMD's we were looking for". Oh and one might consider the fact that the Bush admin themselves (besides Rumsfeld's lame attempt at neither confirming or denying) have kept their mouths shut.

Poor Rick Santorum, being 18 points down in the polls has got to have him worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Grizzle:

I don't know where you guys were when the WMD story came out, but it played on ALL the networks. I know, I saw it. The difference being that the "MSM" didn't continue with the story because it didn't pass the smell test... well, that and the fact that senior officials in the government clearly stated (jedi mind trick) "these are not the WMD's we were looking for". Oh and one might consider the fact that the Bush admin themselves (besides Rumsfeld's lame attempt at neither confirming or denying) have kept their mouths shut.

Poor Rick Santorum, being 18 points down in the polls has got to have him worried.


Simply saying "I saw it" is what doesn't pass the smell test. In the other thread I was looking for links to the other networks reporting it and couldn't find any.

Perhaps you could enlighten us?

As far as the Bush administration not saying anything ... that's normal. Why would they give up ANYTHING concerning national security to the press, which, in the recent New York Times story regarding bank accounts, cares more about the story than the safety of Americans.

Funny, how the NEW YORK TIMES reported that story, though ... being from NEW YORK and all, you'd think they'd be more invested in national security than most after 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Simply saying "I saw it" is what doesn't pass the smell test. In the other thread I was looking for links to the other networks reporting it and couldn't find any.

Perhaps you could enlighten us?

As far as the Bush administration not saying anything ... that's normal. Why would they give up ANYTHING concerning national security to the press, which, in the recent New York Times story regarding bank accounts, cares more about the story than the safety of Americans.

Funny, how the NEW YORK TIMES reported that story, though ... being from NEW YORK and all, you'd think they'd be more invested in national security than most after 9/11.


I "saw it" on television, I've no idea if their websites carried the story or not and I don't care. The story has already been debunked by the government themselves.

As far as the NYT goes.. good for them. Two weeks from now the whole thing will be forgotten.

Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists? I would expect any government to do at least that under similar circumstances.

The issue is how the administration goes about getting these things done. Among other reasons, Congress exists to provide oversight of the executive branch to make sure they aren't sticking it to the good citizens of this country. The Constitution does not get suspended during a time of War.

It amazes me to see theses politicians huffing about the arrogance of the NYT and "just where do they get off..." stance. They seem to forget one thing, this country belongs to the people not the government. They exist to do our bidding, not the other way around.

Now if the story exposed information about ground operations and military strategy in Iraq I might agree with you, but on this particular topic it's a non-issue.

Expect to see more and more of this as we get closer to the election. Who wants to guess when we'll next see another "Terror Alert - Condition Orange". Remember those? I predict there will be at least one more before the elections to "remind" people what danger we are in.

Yep, I'm a cynic alright and damn proud of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The document detailing Hussein's ties to terrorism is a far more important story imo than the WMD found in Iraq. It was the one I was referring to when I questioned whether you would see it anywhere else, and I have not seen anything on any other networks so far. News is news, whether it's an election year or not. I cannot believe how cynical everyone has become.

If, the week before the election, Osama Bin Laden was killed, more people in the U.S. would raise an eyebrow and be skeptical at the convenience of it happening when it did than those who would hail it as a great victory for the NATION. It's funny. When CNN or MSNBC begin ramping up their "Bush is a lying, stupid drunk" stories the months leading up to an election, I hear things like "That's politics for ya!". When even the perception exists that Foxnews is doing it, well, everyone gets all indignant.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - There isn't enough money in the world to make me want to be a politician, much less the President. Everything you do,and everything that happens while you are in office is perceived as a political "stunt", and no one is ever happy with anything.

As far as the NYT, I've think they've proven time and again that they would whore their own mothers out to get a scoop if it is damaging to a person not of their political persuasion, regardless of the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prez,

It is a bit disheartening isn't it? But this is purely a consequence of a government out of touch with it's people. Cynicism rarely sprouts up all by itself, it's a reaction to being constantly disappointed.

Maybe the reason that certain things are seen as a political 'stunt' is because they are.

Consider advertising, these folks spend millions learning how to subtlety (and not so subtlety)manipulate the public. To learn what makes us tick and which buttons to press to make us drool. To segment, categorize, analyze and nail us to the wall just so they can push product. When they find something that works, they exploit it until it doesn't work anymore, then move onto the next thing.

The government is exactly the same.

George Carlin has a new routine where he babbles on for about five minutes using all the buzzwords you find in advertising and the public arena to describe himself... I don't think it's funny and I wondered if he's just not funny anymore. Then I realized why he does it... he is just expressing what we've all become and how those that have the power to mold us, view us.

As for the NYT story. Ask yourself why Bush and Cheney made such a big stink on Monday, but now that some Congressmen are calling for legal action against the NYT, they haven't said squat. What's the deal? Did they "drop the ball" so that Congress could run with it thereby rendering themselves exculpable andleaving Congressman to take the hit and gamble on suing a newspaper (something that has not proven successful in the past)? Are they fearful that an investigation into the NYT will reveal who leaked the story? Are they worried that what they've done is actually unconstitutional and an investigation will invariably expose that? Who knows, but the way I see it, our Government has long since been respectable or operated on the level of anything even closely resembling integrity.

It's downright depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


I "saw it" on television, I've no idea if their websites carried the story or not and I don't care. The story has already been debunked by the government themselves.

The story has NOT been "debunked". NO ONE has said that we did NOT find those weapons. The only argument was over whether or not it is relevent to the discussion on WMDs and Iraq.

But, again, there was NO DEBUNKING of ANY story. We found EXACTLY was the report said we found - that not being true was NEVER the debate.

quote:


As far as the NYT goes.. good for them. Two weeks from now the whole thing will be forgotten.

Doubt it. We'll revisit this in two weeks.

quote:


Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists? I would expect any government to do at least that under similar circumstances.

Right, but you're OBVIOUSLY not familiar with the story. EVERYONE knew we were tracking financial transactions, that's NOT the issue. The issue is that the NY Times IDENTIFIED the SPECIFIC clearinghouses we use to track such transactions, therefore equipping our enemies to AVOID said clearinghouses.

Let me draw a parallel: We ALL know that cops stake out drug houses, so if the media reported that, there would be no problem. But what if the media reported EXACTLY WHAT HOUSES the cops were staking out DURING THE INVESTIGATION? That would be irresponsible, to say the least, because the people we are investigating would change their activities to mask what they are doing.

The problem becomes that the NY Times has gone from reporting the news to CREATING it. Due to their GENIOUS reporting, now terrorists will be better able to conceal their activities. The terrorists concealing their activities is news.

Get it?

quote:


The issue is how the administration goes about getting these things done. Among other reasons, Congress exists to provide oversight of the executive branch to make sure they aren't sticking it to the good citizens of this country. The Constitution does not get suspended during a time of War.

Funny how the left always has a problem with how the administration goes about their business, but they never have a solution. That tells me that the REAL problem is that the left doesn't like the administration and there isn't anything it can do right.

quote:


It amazes me to see theses politicians huffing about the arrogance of the NYT and "just where do they get off..." stance. They seem to forget one thing, this country belongs to the people not the government.

The people want to be safe and, I'll bet that most people would rather be in the dark about the specifics of an ongoing investigation that risk compromising their safety.

quote:


They exist to do our bidding, not the other way around.

The government is trying to keep us safe, which IS our bidding. What is wrong with that?

Here's another CLASSIC example of a liberal's catch-22: Our bidding, Mr. Government, is for you to keep us safe. However, we are compelled to take actions to make your accomplishing our bidding markedly more difficult.

How is the government to be realistically successful in accomplishing the tasks the people give it, if the people (which is the government) works against it? See how convoluted it is?

Good.

quote:


Now if the story exposed information about ground operations and military strategy in Iraq I might agree with you, but on this particular topic it's a non-issue.

You clearly didn't know the story. Hopefully my earlier points illustrates the problem.

quote:


Expect to see more and more of this as we get closer to the election. Who wants to guess when we'll next see another "Terror Alert - Condition Orange". Remember those? I predict there will be at least one more before the elections to "remind" people what danger we are in.

I wonder what you'd say if we were hit by a terrorist attack and there was no alert. Again, what can they do right?

quote:


Yep, I'm a cynic alright and damn proud of it.

Being a cynic is fine; I consider myself one as well. But I find it intellectually urgent to assure that I'm a "fair" cynic, so said cynicism doesn't shroud reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, remember how the Times lit up the administration for leaks during the Valerie Plame scandal? Funny how the information the NY Times received regarding the financial institutions being investigated were the result of leaks.

Doesn't ANYONE find it to be the least bit hypocritical that a newspaper will so venomously attack the administration for one inconsequential leak and then go on to UTILIZE a DIFFERENT LEAK to run a LEAD STORY? If they REALLY cared about "leaks", why do they so often rely on them?

Or did they just want to find something else to say "gotcha" to Bush for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grizzle:

The problem I have with the NYT in a nutshell? It is Bush's and Cheney's job to play politics; they are politicians. It is NOT the NYT's job to play politics, advance agendas, etc. It is to report the NEWS; the facts, the TRUTH of issues that concern Americans.

It is fundamentally wrong for an organization that claims to be in journalism to compromise national security, take political pot-shots under the guise of "reporting the truth", or otherwise shape (distort?) certain facts in order to win people over to a certain way of thinking. The NYT repeatedly has done all of these and more. This is not journalism; this is crusading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Prez:

Grizzle:

The problem I have with the NYT in a nutshell? It is Bush's and Cheney's job to play politics; they are politicians. It is NOT the NYT's job to play politics, advance agendas, etc. It is to report the NEWS; the facts, the TRUTH of issues that concern Americans.

It is fundamentally wrong for an organization that claims to be in journalism to compromise national security, take political pot-shots under the guise of "reporting the truth", or otherwise shape (distort?) certain facts in order to win people over to a certain way of thinking. The NYT repeatedly has done all of these and more. This is not journalism; this is crusading.


Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what reason does Bush have to make political stunts anyways, he cant run again and hes really not the kind of person who cares about polls- or else he would have stupidly pulled out of Iraq at the first sign of a raging liberal media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The story has NOT been "debunked". NO ONE has said that we did NOT find those weapons. The only argument was over whether or not it is relevent to the discussion on WMDs and Iraq.

But, again, there was NO DEBUNKING of ANY story. We found EXACTLY was the report said we found - that not being true was NEVER the debate.

Pure semantics. IÔÇÖm not arguing that the report is false, just that what has been reported is not new information nor a vindication of the WMD story. IÔÇÖm still waiting for the administration to support SantorumÔÇÖs and HoekstraÔÇÖs claims that this is the smoking gun, but IÔÇÖm not going to hold my breath. I suggest you donÔÇÖt either.

quote:

Doubt it. We'll revisit this in two weeks.

Deal.

quote:

Right, but you're OBVIOUSLY not familiar with the story. EVERYONE knew we were tracking financial transactions, that's NOT the issue. The issue is that the NY Times IDENTIFIED the SPECIFIC clearinghouses we use to track such transactions, therefore equipping our enemies to AVOID said clearinghouses.



The problem becomes that the NY Times has gone from reporting the news to CREATING it. Due to their GENIOUS reporting, now terrorists will be better able to conceal their activities. The terrorists concealing their activities is news.

Get it?


Um yeah, I am familiar with the story. I read the article.

Rather than tussle over the details, letÔÇÖs take it down a notch and talk about how money moves. The only way for terrorists to avoid being traced through financial transactions is to stop using financial institutions. ThatÔÇÖs not going to happen. At most they will reduce their usage or find other banks whose transactions circumvent the infrastructure used to transfer international funds. Guess what, there are no banks that circumvent the infrastructure, they canÔÇÖt because all banking transactions are regulated and will eventually pass through the gates of these clearing houses. So now all they can do is carry tons of cash around in suitcases and even at that, at some point theyÔÇÖll need to visit a bank to get more.

This is why the administration, while in talks with the NYT about the story, explained that running the story might cause these clearing house to retract their cooperation (which by the way they cannot do because the subpoenas required to gather the information are legally binding). The administration is not concerned that this information will make it harder to track the transactions because long before this story ran, the terrorists had already been made aware of the tracking and had begun using couriers to move some money but have not stopped using banks.

quote:

Funny how the left always has a problem with how the administration goes about their business, but they never have a solution. That tells me that the REAL problem is that the left doesn't like the administration and there isn't anything it can do right.

Kind of reminds me of another recent administration who coincidentally had many unflattering articles about them printed in the NYT. Only that time it was the Republicans who felt they could do nothing right. Why are we even talking about this?

quote:

The people want to be safe and, I'll bet that most people would rather be in the dark about the specifics of an ongoing investigation that risk compromising their safety.

If we continue to allow the administration to do whatever the hell they want without oversight or accountability, then weÔÇÖll all have reasons to hide in dark places.

quote:

The government is trying to keep us safe, which IS our bidding. What is wrong with that?

Not a darn thingas long as they follow the policies and procedures set forth to facilitate the efforts they want to implement.

quote:

Here's another CLASSIC example of a liberal's catch-22: Our bidding, Mr. Government, is for you to keep us safe. However, we are compelled to take actions to make your accomplishing our bidding markedly more difficult.

How is the government to be realistically successful in accomplishing the tasks the people give it, if the people (which is the government) works against it? See how convoluted it is?

Good.


Yes it is a double edged sword. Jefferson once said of the press ÔÇ£a government that could not stand up under criticism deserved to fall.ÔÇØ even though he himself was the subject of such scrutiny. Clearly he understood the importance of a free press.

I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I would much rather live in a country with freedom of the press, even if that very freedom has the potential to cause harm, than a country that has little or none like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

So for anyone that doesnÔÇÖt like a free press, there are places where you might feel right at home.

As I said before, letÔÇÖs see how this plays out. LetÔÇÖs see if actions against the NYT (and LAT and WSJ) are successful. LetÔÇÖs trust in the wisdom of our forefathers and our present judicial system to discern if this has been an act of treason or if indeed any harm has or will come of it.

Rail on the NYT all you want, but let's not forget for every story they publish that casts the government in a bad light, there's one they didn't.

In the meantime weÔÇÖll continue to monitor phone calls and track banking transactions in an effort to catch terrorists. Hopefully we'll catch a few doing money transfers over the phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Pure semantics. IÔÇÖm not arguing that the report is false, just that what has been reported is not new information nor a vindication of the WMD story. IÔÇÖm still waiting for the administration to support SantorumÔÇÖs and HoekstraÔÇÖs claims that this is the smoking gun, but IÔÇÖm not going to hold my breath. I suggest you donÔÇÖt either.

Umm, no. You said the story was "debunked". I asserted that it was not "debunked". If you want to change the scope of the story in order to debate it, go ahead ... but start another thread.

The story was that declassified documents showed that WMDs were found in Iraq. That story is true, and that story (about the 500 pieces) was new. And, that story was NOT debunked. Semantics don't come into this.

quote:


Um yeah, I am familiar with the story. I read the article.

Doubt it. Either you weren't familiar, or you didn't understand it because you said "Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists?", and that wasn't at ALL the center-point to the problem over the story.

So either you, like a typical liberal, IGNORED what wouldn't support your argument or you simply didn't care.

quote:


Rather than tussle over the details, letÔÇÖs take it down a notch and talk about how money moves. The only way for terrorists to avoid being traced through financial transactions is to stop using financial institutions. ThatÔÇÖs not going to happen. At most they will reduce their usage or find other banks whose transactions circumvent the infrastructure used to transfer international funds. Guess what, there are no banks that circumvent the infrastructure, they canÔÇÖt because all banking transactions are regulated and will eventually pass through the gates of these clearing houses. So now all they can do is carry tons of cash around in suitcases and even at that, at some point theyÔÇÖll need to visit a bank to get more.

You have NO IDEA how it works! There are SEVERAL clearinghouses that handles transactions. We caught the terrorists using one (S.W.I.F.T.) and were able to monitor them. Now, all they have to do is find banks not associated with SWIFT and we can't monitor said transactions.

You're operating under two FALSE assumptions.

1: All banks use all clearinghouses (not even remotely true).

2: All financial clearinghouses cooperates with the US government (also not true).

Seriously, why do you think that so many people are PISSED over the NY Times lack of discretion?

Again, you CLEARLY either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it's implications.

As far as carrying around cash in suitcases, I am trying hard not to laugh. You see, most countries have a thing called "customs" which would make "carrying suitcases" infeesible. Sure, MAYBE some would get through, but do you think terrorists with limited funds would RISK losing them?

Now, however, terrorists can simply avoid banks that use SWIFT and transfer funds the practical way. Hell, the NY Times even did some of the terrorists legwork for them and told them some of the major banks that use SWIFT (which is public knowledge).

quote:


This is why the administration, while in talks with the NYT about the story, explained that running the story might cause these clearing house to retract their cooperation (which by the way they cannot do because the subpoenas required to gather the information are legally binding). The administration is not concerned that this information will make it harder to track the transactions

Right, that's why they're this pissed...

As for these "subpoenas" which you're making up... they are NOT (or should I say, "would not" be) binding because SWIFT is based in BELGIUM, not the US. Belgium's banking laws are nearly as strict as Switzerland's, and there is no treaty governing cooperation between the US and Belgium with regards to banking and subpoenas issued by US courts.

quote:


... because long before this story ran, the terrorists had already been made aware of the tracking and had begun using couriers to move some money but have not stopped using banks.

Thanks for making my point. They didn't stop using banks because, practically speaking, they CAN'T (as I've illustrated). But now, they can stop using banks that use the SWIFT clearinghouse.

Are you FINALLY seeing the problem here?

Dude, I'm going to say this again so you can get it: NOT ALL BANKS USE THE SAME CLEARINGHOUSES AND NOT ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE REPORTED TO ALL CLEARINGHOUSES. ONLY BANKS AFFILIATED WITH A SPECIFIC CLEARINGHOUSE REPORTS TRANSACTIONS TO IT.

Seriously, did you think everyone was this upset over NOTHING? Bush himself SAID that we would be monitoring financial moves of known terrorists, so that was NOT news. The news was the EXACT MANNER of which we were doing it. Now, that program is WORTHLESS.

And, evidently, you're OK with that.

quote:


Kind of reminds me of another recent administration who coincidentally had many unflattering articles about them printed in the NYT. Only that time it was the Republicans who felt they could do nothing right. Why are we even talking about this?

They didn't get HALF the bad press Bush is getting. Furthermore, they DEFENDED Clinton (that's on RECORD).

Do some research, please.

quote:


If we continue to allow the administration to do whatever the hell they want without oversight or accountability, then weÔÇÖll all have reasons to hide in dark places

OK, but we're NOT letting them do things without oversight. Congress was made aware of the financial program.

They do need to get SOME measure of trust from us, however. The fact that a CLASSIFIED program was just leaked to the NY Times proves that perhaps LESS people should know about these things.

Unless, of course, we could trust our press to not report these things. But, we can't.

quote:


Not a darn thingas long as they follow the policies and procedures set forth to facilitate the efforts they want to implement.

We ELECT the government. The GOVERNMENT makes the rules that you want them to follow. The GOVERNMENT is also empowered to CHANGE those rules.

If you don't like how the GOVERNMENT executes aforementioned responsibilities, protest at the ballot box. But don't be angry if not everyone agrees with you, either.

quote:


Yes it is a double edged sword. Jefferson once said of the press ÔÇ£a government that could not stand up under criticism deserved to fall.ÔÇØ even though he himself was the subject of such scrutiny. Clearly he understood the importance of a free press.

I'll bet Jefferson didn't think that the press would have access to classified information. Furthermore, the information leaked and reported stands perfectly up to scrunity because it indicates NO wrongdoing whatsoever ... it only indicates what the administration was doing to protect us, and makes that tool useless.

That's called irresponsible reporting.

quote:


I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I would much rather live in a country with freedom of the press, even if that very freedom has the potential to cause harm, than a country that has little or none like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I agree with this. But restricting SOME things (such as this financial leak) would not make us into North Korea or China.

Implying as much is absurd.

quote:


So for anyone that doesnÔÇÖt like a free press, there are places where you might feel right at home

Again, absurd. The British have restrictions on the press, and they're not quite North Korea.

quote:


Rail on the NYT all you want, but let's not forget for every story they publish that casts the government in a bad light, there's one they didn't.

Please research this and show where you get this statistic, because it's FALSE.

quote:


In the meantime weÔÇÖll continue to monitor phone calls and track banking transactions in an effort to catch terrorists. Hopefully we'll catch a few doing money transfers over the phone.

Unfortunately, although I know you WANT it to work like this, it doesn't.

Again, come equipped with facts next time please.

[ 06-29-2006, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: aramike ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dam that NYT thing REALLY PISSES ME OFF! They think its some great thing to diclose government intelligence, even if it risks a network that has been at work tracking terrorists for a long time. Its like an early warning radar for the baddies... Cant they just freakin leave stuff alone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Umm, no. You said the story was "debunked". I asserted that it was not "debunked". If you want to change the scope of the story in order to debate it, go ahead ... but start another thread.


No, you are arguing semantics because I used the term debunked which you seem to feel does not apply in this case. IÔÇÖll even grant that youÔÇÖre correct, debunk wasnÔÇÖt the proper term to use. I assumed most people would understand my intent, which is to say that SantorumÔÇÖs claim that this evidence vindicates the government and validates the WMD story is bullshit. There, bullshit is a much better term anyway. Thanks.

quote:

Doubt it. Either you weren't familiar, or you didn't understand it because you said "Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists?", and that wasn't at ALL the center-point to the problem over the story.

So either you, like a typical liberal, IGNORED what wouldn't support your argument or you simply didn't care.

Why so testy?ÔǪ not only do you accuse me of lying you assume IÔÇÖm a ÔÇÿtypical liberalÔÇÖ. Sorry Mike, besides those comments being completely unnecessary theyÔÇÖre both completely incorrect.

quote:

You have NO IDEA how it works! There are SEVERAL clearinghouses that handles transactions. We caught the terrorists using one (S.W.I.F.T.) and were able to monitor them. Now, all they have to do is find banks not associated with SWIFT and we can't monitor said transactions.

You're operating under two FALSE assumptions.

1: All banks use all clearinghouses (not even remotely true).

2: All financial clearinghouses cooperates with the US government (also not true).


SWIFT does in fact track information on *most* international financial transactions which is why they were chosen. The likelihood of an international transfer showing up in the SWIFT database is very high but not all inclusive. In addition, the government has acknowledged that terrorists had already started using other means:

ÔÇ£Current and former U.S. officials said the effort has been only marginally successful against Al Qaeda, which long ago began transferring money through other means, including the highly informal banking system common in Islamic countries.ÔÇØ

So exactly how does this ÔÇ£newÔÇØ information change anything? You assume the terrorists are stupid and lack knowledge of international banking transactions and regulation, that they themselves have no way of finding out what we are doing to hunt them down. ThatÔÇÖs a really poor assumption.

Will there be some negative repercussion? Probably, but itÔÇÖs certainly not the crippling blow everyone wants to make it out to be. And again itÔÇÖs a side effect of a free press that we must accept.

quote:

As far as carrying around cash in suitcases, I am trying hard not to laugh. You see, most countries have a thing called "customs" which would make "carrying suitcases" infeesible. Sure, MAYBE some would get through, but do you think terrorists with limited funds would RISK losing them?

IÔÇÖll assume you are laughing with me because that was exactly my point. If the terrorists want to be effective they are forced to use banks, if they want to transfer money across international boundaries they have no choice but to use a bank.

quote:

OK, but we're NOT letting them do things without oversight. Congress was made aware of the financial program.


Sorry, being informed of a policy after it has been implemented doesnÔÇÖt even come close to democratic ideology or respecting the will of the people. If the executive branch of government has nothing to fear then allowing these processes to take place wonÔÇÖt be a problem.

quote:

As for these "subpoenas" which you're making up... they are NOT (or should I say, "would not" be) binding because SWIFT is based in BELGIUM, not the US. Belgium's banking laws are nearly as strict as Switzerland's, and there is no treaty governing cooperation between the US and Belgium with regards to banking and subpoenas issued by US courts.


What subpoenas am I making up?

Heres a quote compliments of SWIFT themselvesgot it from their website:

ÔÇ£In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, SWIFT responded to compulsory subpoenas for limited sets of data from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury.ÔÇØ

Look up the term compulsory, then do some research to find the international finance laws that support it. I canÔÇÖt do all of the homework for you.

quote:

Seriously, why do you think that so many people are PISSED over the NY Times lack of discretion?

I donÔÇÖt know, maybe they have an axe to grind?

As a firm believer in freedom of speech, I will always defend anyoneÔÇÖs right to speak their mind especially when it comes to the government and if that means putting ourselves in harms way then thatÔÇÖs the risk we must all be willing to take to preserve and protect the freedoms granted us in the Constitution.

I cannot (nor did our forefathers, nor should you) trust the government enough to let them make up the rules as they go along, to consistently ignore due process and to increase the executive powers.

quote:

Now, that program is WORTHLESS.


Hardly worthless. LetÔÇÖs check back in a few months and see if itÔÇÖs still being used.

quote:

I'll bet Jefferson didn't think that the press would have access to classified information.


No, there was much debate over the limits of freedom of the press and it was decided there should be none. There are laws to deal with lawbreakers (albeit after the damage might have been done as in this case), but to place limits on the press was deemed to be antithetical to the idea of freedom and democracy.

If the press breaks the law then itÔÇÖll be decided in court.

quote:

Furthermore, the information leaked and reported stands perfectly up to scrunity because it indicates NO wrongdoing whatsoever ... it only indicates what the administration was doing to protect us, and makes that tool useless.

You are correct, but keep in mind this is also after several modifications and limits were placed after the program started and some of the institutions involved expressed concern that it went too far and there were too many loosely defined limits.

Only time will tell what harm has been done and if the government has a legal case against the NYT.

I'm not saying people don't have reason to be angry at the NYT and I'm not saying their decision was necessarily the right one. This is clearly a case of freedom of the press and in those cases the power of the people will always triumph because the day that it doesn't is the day this is no longer the United States of America.

Interestingly just as I was finishing this I hear the Supreme Court ruled against Bush regarding Gitmo War Trials stating GWB "lacks the authority" to schedule military trials for detainees... strike two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you're grasping at straws. I'll respond point-by-point later today, and in doing so, repeat many points YET AGAIN because you have apparently found something that Republicans AND Democrats have apparently missed.

You DO NOT know the story, hands down. I will illustrate that again in a VERY harsh way, but I'll start with this, just as a teaser:

You said...

quote:


"Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists?"

Because that is NOT the reason there is a problem with the story, and because that is NOT the STORY in question, you ILLUSTRATE that you did NOT know the story when you wrote that. Most of what you wrote subsequent to that is irrelevent, although I only skimmed it due to the fact that:

(a) You didn't know what you were talking about to begin with, as I've illustrated...

(B) Most of it is double-talk. Example: "Hardly worthless. LetÔÇÖs check back in a few months and see if itÔÇÖs still being used." If it's classified, that won't be possible.

OK, so you can either continue to illustrate your ignorance on this subject or I'm going to have to keep doing it for you, and laugh all the way to the bank.

Funny thing is, even DEMOCRATS have problems with this thing (Murtha).

PS: By the way, I LOVE how you HIGHLIGHTED the word "compulsory". You should have looked up what a "compulsory" subpeona is. Again, you need to do research. You said:

quote:


which by the way they cannot do because the subpoenas required to gather the information are legally binding

A "compulsory" subpeona is NOT LEGALLY BINDING. That's why it's called a COMPULSORY SUBPEONA and not simply a "subpeona".

Guess what - if we could simply subpeona all the info we need, than this wouldn't be a problem. Get it yet?

I'm not even sure if I should go point-by-point because you STILL demonstrate that you're unwilling to research and understand the topic. I'll still do it, though, because it's fun.

[ 06-30-2006, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: aramike ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...