The editor of the Times needs to be tried for high treason!

Snow's letter to Keller is brilliant. I just hope Keller's next official letter comes from Alberto Gonzales, and begins with the word "Indictment."

Ditto. The fact that almost the entire nation is against the Times in this issue speaks volumes about the Times' idiocy.

"We the people", need to know. And the Flag Amendment is another phony issue. Right now, "we the people" can burn a flag if we'd like, if the Republicans get their way, they will have the power to regulate the actions of "we the people". This patriot votes:No! Peace

Ditto. The fact that almost the entire nation is against the Times in this issue speaks volumes about the Times' idiocy. - Art P'check

I'm not sure where you got this information, but I'd demand a refund if you paid for it! Chris Matthews (no flaming liberal) did an informal survey last night and the results were overwhelmingly against prosecuting the NYT. I'd be really suprised if a majority, let alone almost the entire nation, is against the Times.

This is called blowback my friends. This administration has straddled the line between legal and illegal so often few in the media (Faux News, the exception) will give them a free pass on the "trust me, I know best" meter. John Snow is not the editor of the New York Times so has no final say in what the Times prints.

Go after the leaker. But save your time trying to prosecute the Times. The government has never won a case of this type, and hopefully never will. If they do, the door is wide open for the Fourth Reich.

Where in the world did you get that notion, Art P'check? An informal poll on the Chris Matthews (no flaming liberal) Show overwhelmingly rejected any prosecution in this case.

The government has never won a legal case of this type against newspapers. And I pray they never do.

If they do, the door is wide open for the Fourth Reich!

This is a superb letter. One phrase that leapt out at me was "breathtaking arrogance".

Now we need to put Secretary Snow in charge of all White House rebukes and explanations. We need this type of forcefulness and articulation when we try to deal with any of the Left game-playing.

As for prosecuting the New Jihad Times, we should start with going after their sources. The government is riddled with radical lefties who have bought into the neorad idea that absolutely antthing is OK if it only harms the Bush Administration. While the NJT might have some protections under law, these traitors do not.

Make it clear that "protecting sources" does NOT extend to those who reveal classified information, throw any and all Times people in jail who refuse to reveal those sources, and get to the root of the problem. They might be able to hide behind the First Amendment in their campaign against the conservative administration, but they can't use that to avoid revealing the identities of those who gave them their information.

Ash, you simply MUST learn to figure out what people are actually saying before you start quoting Lardball at us.

The American public is disgusted with the New Jihad Times. That is a far different thing from thinking they should be prosecuted. America is still working on figuring out the boundaries of the First Amendment, never having had to face a once-major newspaper blatantly printing one treasonous article after another.

Disgust? Absolutely.
Prosecution? Jury's out on that but so far, no.

Two different things.

And your glee at having this out is a reflection on you. So stop with the Fourth Reich crap. Ranty has been hammering this for years, in her fingernails-on-a-blackboard sing-song, and only the most foolish among you still buy into it.

Turn off your radio, go to the library, and actually learn something. For a change.

BTW, if Lardball is not a flaming liberal, there are none. That comment alone shows your total out-of-touchness with reality. He's a loony lefty. Just because every now and then he falls prey to a fleeting moment of sanity does not change his basic philosophy.

Snow makes two valid points that seem to apply not only to the NYT but to most MSM outlets:

1.The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

2. Justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

In all circumstances the MSM believes itself to be more qualified than the administration or the Pentagon to assess and advise on foreign policy and military matters.

Thy justify leaking any and all information on the "public's right to know". When Keller was asked if he would have revealed the details of the Normandy invasion if he learned of them prior to D-Day, his answer was "probably'. That says it all.

The news media and those who work there are NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Prosecution should go forward.

Treason consists of crimes against the Constitution as well. Impeachment is a pretty transparent process, but charges of treason should be treated with extreme caution -- something the maniacs at this site don't seem to possess.
I guess if we're going to lob around charges of treason we should look hard at this administration and what they have been up to -- glad the NYT is on the job to watch our back.
Speaking of treason -- what do you do with those 60-some senators who are prepared to desecrate the Constitution for political gain by supporting the "Flag Desecration Amendment?"

Ash, "Chris Matthews (no flaming liberal)" Good Joke. I'm still laughing.

Treason for the NYT? I don't know. They could well have made a legal and useful program they don't like be much less effective. Is this because they hate the program? Don't want us to catch terrorists? or, do they just hate Bush and this is just another way to attack?

After so many attacks, on so many things, I conclude they just hate Bush and don't care what damage they do if it hurts him. I see the same hate is the "liberal" posters here.

One phrase that leapt out at me was "breathtaking arrogance".

I had the same reaction, Almiranta. I think the NYT has pushed the envelope too hard and one too many times.

I got a fundraising call from the RNC yesterday. I told the very nice young lady on the other end of the line that my next donation would be forthcoming when a prosecution of the NYT and those who leaked to them had been initiated. She said that was not the first time she'd heard that sentiment.

"Chris Matthews (no flaming liberal)" - Speachwriter for "Jimma" Carter, top aide to Tip O'Neill for six years, worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie, ran for Congress as a Democrat.

No, he's no liberal.

First, for anyone who might have been foolish enough to have maintained a paper subscription to the New York Slimes, you need to cancel your subscription and demand a refund of any monies due. Then, cancel your e-subscription if you have one. Then, we need to deluge this haggard treasonous hack of a paper with indignant comments. Then, we need to contact our Congressional Representatives and the Attorney General and demand that the Slimes be prosecuted to determine the identity of the leaker(s) in question. If they are cooperative, we MIGHT let them off the hook (one more time), but we ought to aggressively pursue legal consequences - whether the case is really strong or not - to ensure that they get the message loud and clear. And when we get the inside leaker(s), we need to have a court case that would make the O.J. Simpson case look low-keyed. Then, having proven treason, we need to have a public execution, plain and simple.

If we continue to countenance having the rug pulled out from underneath our efforts against terrorism and terrorist ambitions, we are certain to lose the momentum that we have so clearly established thus far - and possibly wake up to another 911 in the near future. The New York Slimes needs to be shut down as a business model and as a media operative. They have abused their public trust and turned upon this nation in a time of war...

Sylvia,
"Treason consists of crimes against the Constitution as well"
Can you cite this?
By this standard income tax is treason ("No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

I think it actually says, "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Treason?????

Polling (as of today):

Is the U.S. media justified in publishing reports of how bank records are being tracked by Washington in the hunt for terrorists?

Yes
68%

No
32%

"The American public is disgusted with the New Jihad Times."

No. Almiranta it is you who needs to get a grip on reality. The American Public? What a broad, broad, dare I say it ignorant statement? The NYT is 3rd in circulation behind only the milquetoast USA Today and the Ayn Rand Daily,er Wall Street Journal. So your statement is patently false.

The New York Times is doing what the media should do and that is to hold the feet of our leaders to the fire. The administration has a shady record, walking a fine line between legal and illegal activities, and I want to know about it.

Almiranta-

The public agrees with the New York Times.

"Turn off your radio, go to the library, and actually learn something. For a change."

I'd suggest you do the same. Then maybe you'd know the difference between a Secular Muslim and a Fundamentalist Muslim.

Anyone keeping up on the Arlen "Protector of the Constitution" Specter's dive into executive powers?

I really want to hear what flack they are going to get to come up and assert that executive powers trump legislative powers. LOL

Why have you been told to act out against the New York Times? The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the LA Times also broke the story, and the networks followed with stories of their own.

Also, the letter you quote says that the only thing Snow and the rest of the Bush administration did was try to talk the New York Times out of printing the story. If the Bush administration really thought printing the story would help the terrorists, why aren't you mad at the Bush administration for not doing more to stop it from happening, since they knew about it beforehand?

dbogdan,

Good work!!

Hopefully the New York Slimes will go to prison!!

and Hopefully more than ten years!!!

i CALL FOR A COMPLETE BOYCOTT OF THE NYT - ANYONE WITH ME?

Sure, its in the "public interest" that the US Government has programs to detect terrorist communications and financial transactions. It is not in the "public interest" that our enemies know that the specific programs exposed by the NYT exist and how they work.

If, because of the NYT providing the terrorists with specifics about our anti-terrorism programs, the terrorists are sucessful in executing another attack on US soil, not only will the NYT have innocent Americans' blood on their hands, they may be liable in a bevy of lawsuits for disclosing classified information that allowed the terrorists to succeed in their attack. In fact, I hope that some industrious attorney files a class-action suit against the NYT for jeopardizing the safety of all Americans by disclosing classified information.

I would settle for frogmarching the reporters and their editors on this story off to prison until they cough up the names of the leakers, then prosecute them for treason. A couple of rounds of this and these leaks would dry up.

"Chris Matthews (no flaming liberal) did an informal survey last night and the results were overwhelmingly against prosecuting the NYT."
-ASH

Yeah right. He was only a speech writer for Jimmy Carter and worked for 5 Democrats in office.

Yeah, he's a real straight down the middle guy. (rolling eyes)

THIS is brilliant and hilarious, watch as the wingnut, Chris Baker, gets so thoroughly eviscerated by Bernie Ward during an interview on MSNBC
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bernie-Sanders-S.mov

fact is, the right just cannot handle the very fact that someone has to keep this admin in check, and if the republican-led congress will not do it, the media will have to.

and what's this i hear the pentagon has been SPYING ON US STUDENTS?

I am still in awe at the idiots here who think its is just AOK to relase to the public CLASSIFIED information! Absolutely disgusting and idiotic!

Seriously, where will they draw the line? I believe they have no line and are currently working on ways to release the next big classified information. They would sell their own mother to the terrorists if it ment an opportunity to bash our President or put our national security at risk...oh, and make a few more bucks.

orion - you have a point - why is the bush admin not looking into WHO ACTUALLY LEAKED the info to the papers? bc it was probably an inside job done for the sole purpose of generating this faux controversy. THAT'S WHY!

manufactured faux outrage - that's all this crap is.

and one more thing to all of you who pretend to be so outraged by he fact that the Times is "providing the terrorists with specifics about our anti-terrorism programs" (in the words of A-10) - here is what chimpy had to say back in a campaign speech in april 19, 2004:

Here is President Bush, campaigning for re-election in Hershey, Pennsylvania on April 19, 2004, boasting about our vigilant efforts to monitor the terrorists' banking transactions:

Before September the 11th, law enforcement could more easily obtain business and financial records of white-collar criminals than of suspected terrorists. See, part of the way to make sure that we catch terrorists is we chase money trails. And yet it was easier to chase a money trail with a white-collar criminal than it was a terrorist. The Patriot Act ended this double standard and it made it easier for investigators to catch suspected terrorists by following paper trails here in America.

so were not the terrorists already on to us? were they not? did BUSH GIVE US AWAY? looks like it.

TREASON!
source is:http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/bush-lynch-mob-against-nations-free.html

I call for congressional hearings, a special prosecutor assigned, and Alberto Gonzalez to investigate into the violation of laws pertaining to classified data. We should demand that Gonzalez empanel a grand jury and subpoena everyone involved in the leaks, including Lichtblau, Risen, Keller, the reporters and editors at the Los Angeles Times, and all of the relevant personnel at the CIA and Pentagon with access to this information. If they will not reveal thier sources, they should be imprisoned until they do. We need our elected representatives to start taking national-security leaks seriously.

Bloviator...in your zealous stupor to try and bury Bush (you and your media supporters) all you're doing is making it more difficult and more dangerous for Americans.

Yeah right. He was only a speech writer for Jimmy Carter and worked for 5 Democrats in office.

Yeah, he's a real straight down the middle guy. (rolling eyes)

Your eyes will get stuck that way! I don't know of his past, but listen to him now and you will hear a Bush apologist and right leaning comments.

"Polling (as of today): Is the U.S. media justified in publishing reports of how bank records are being tracked by Washington in the hunt for terrorists?

"Yes - 68%

"No - 32%"

You have a source for this "poll"?

Mark,

I'm all with ya on this one buddy!!

This is what we need to say to the guy who leaked the secret,

hoo, bad boys, bad boys, watcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when eh come fer you!!
nobody now get no break, policeman give ya no break, gotcha now, hey hey, hey hey, watcha gonna do when eh come fer yooooou!!

only this time have sixteen knots waitin on em!!

like paul harvey always says.

good day!

Jeremiah.

Nice poll...have a link there LEFTYORIUM?

*Sighs*

Is it hard to understand the difference of saying, "We're going to chase the money" to explaining step by step how we do it? (I.e. you wire money and that information is instantly checked and the reciever staked out.)

That's like going up to a SWAT guy before a raid and asking him what he plans to do. If he says he's going to go in there and get the bad guys. No worries. If he says we'll be going in the south door with 5 guys while another team climbs to the roof to come through the roof enterance. See the difference?

Lefty -- You going to give us a link for that "poll," or should we just assume you made it up?

bloviator,

As I posted on another thread, the answer is twofold:

When the President announces that we will be monitoring financial transactions he can do so without being guilty of revealing classified information because he is the ultimate authority in classifying and de-classifying information. If the President wants to de-classify the information and release it he can. The NYT, on the other hand, has no such authority. They can claim it is in the public interest all they want. But if they are in the possession of classified information, they have no authority to release it. To do so is a crime.

Secondly, all that the President did in 2001 was make the statement that we would be tracking financial transactions to detect terrorist activities. He did not disclose the specifics of the programs. A good analogy would be the President announcing that we will be encrypting communications between Government Agencies, without revealing how we would be doing the encryption. The mere presence of the knowledge of our tracking of financial transactions is not damaging to our efforts to detect terrorists. Detailing how we are doing the tracking is damaging.

ahh but A-10, it is the tracking activity itself which has not been established to be legal in the first place. similar to revelations about the existence of the NSA and TALON program, the SWIFT program's legality is very much in doubt because it runs counter to existing American laws restricting government access to private financial records. this is a principal fact most individuals in this thread fail to understand or ignore when arguing that the editors of the NYT somehow committed treason (despite willing to acknowledge that the WSJ, LAT, also reported on this and that someone on the inside of the administration would have to have provided the information to the press in the first place).

Further, (in the words of Glenn Greenwald) "There is not a single sentence in the Times banking report that could even arguably "help the terrorists."

But I’m about to SHOOT YOUR ASSERTION OUT OF THE WATER that these ‘supposedly reported’ details of the SWIFT program compromised our efforts to track down terrorists – guess what – the details of the SWIFT program have been available on former State Department official Victor Comraes detailed Counterterrorism blog found here:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php

AND ALSO, additional detailed reports of US monitoring of SWIFT TRANSACTIONS OF TERRORIST GROUPS have been available to the public for some time on the United Nations’ website:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/725/72/PDF/N0272572.pdf?OpenElement.

So the idea that this information was newly released to the public is 100 percent bogus. But don’t take my word for it – check out the links!

ahh but A-10, it is the tracking activity itself which has not been established to be legal in the first place. similar to revelations about the existence of the NSA and TALON program, the SWIFT program's legality is very much in doubt because it runs counter to existing American laws restricting government access to private financial records. this is a principal fact most individuals in this thread fail to understand or ignore when arguing that the editors of the NYT somehow committed treason (despite willing to acknowledge that the WSJ, LAT, also reported on this and that someone on the inside of the administration would have to have provided the information to the press in the first place).

Further, (in the words of Glenn Greenwald) "There is not a single sentence in the Times banking report that could even arguably "help the terrorists."

But I’m about to SHOOT YOUR ASSERTION OUT OF THE WATER that these ‘supposedly reported’ details of the SWIFT program compromised our efforts to track down terrorists – guess what – the details of the SWIFT program have been available on former State Department official Victor Comraes detailed Counterterrorism blog found here:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php

AND ALSO, additional detailed reports of US monitoring of SWIFT TRANSACTIONS OF TERRORIST GROUPS have been available to the public for some time on the United Nations’ website:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/725/72/PDF/N0272572.pdf?OpenElement.

So the idea that this information was newly released to the public is 100 percent bogus. But don’t take my word for it – check out the links!

Disclosing American secrets, especially during a time of war, is deplorable. Any person(s) leaking critical information should lose their U.S. citizenship.

bloviator,

Like a typical liberal, you think every program developed by the Bush Administration to combat terrorism is illegal. Who are you to decide if the programs are legal or not. As with the NSA communications intercept program and the telephone call data mining program, these programs have been vetted by the lawyers at the agencies involved, by the Justice Department, members of Congress have been briefed, the programs are legal under the Constitution or US law, and several court ruling have upheld the authority of the President to gather foreign intelligence, collect telephone call records which were voluntarily provided by phone companies, and track terrorist financial transactions. In every case, the programs have been held to be legal.

And don't give me any BS about members of Congress being unable to voice their concerns about the legality of the programs. They could easily express their concerns to the President, the Vice President, the Attorney General, or other members of the Administration. With the single exception of one letter allegedly written several years ago and placed in a safe, they have never said a word. And being quiet about classified programs is not a virtue members of Congress possess. Many time in the past, members of Congress have disclosed classified information and programs. Some have lost chairmanship of committees, some have been booted off commitees, and some have been censured.

I guess my response to your first link would be to quote part of the title of the link: "The Practice Has Been Known By Terrorism Financing Experts For Some Time". It should be known by Terrorism Financing Experts. It should not be known by the general public. It should not be broadcast on the front pages of the NYT. It was, and is, a classified program. Disclosure of details of a classified program is a felony.

You second link leads to a dead page at the Official Documents System of the United Nations. Try again.

Finally: "So the idea that this information was newly released to the public is 100 percent bogus." Inclusion of a general statement in a report to the UN (which is not accessible to the general public) is not the same as disclosing specifics of the program on the front page of the NYT. Inclusion of a reference to the report on a obsure web site the the general public would probably never stumble across is not the same as headlines in the NYT and the subsequent coverage by all the networks on the evening news.

I would wager if you did a poll prior to the NYT publishing classified information of average American if they had heard of any financial tracking efforts by our Government, the only positive responses would be general references to disrupting the financing of terrorism, not the existance of this program. You'd probably have 99% answering that they don't know about the efforts. After the NYT published the classified information and the networks jumped on the story, the percentage of those knowing is now over 65%.

I also think that the revelation that several years ago the NYT wrote an editorial urging the Bush Administration take steps to track the financing of terrorism, then when the Administration does (they would have anyway, without the NYT urgings), the NYT comes out with a scathing report shows the hyprocracy of the NYT and the liberals in general.

"Polling (as of today): Is the U.S. media justified in publishing reports of how bank records are being tracked by Washington in the hunt for terrorists?
"Yes - 68%
"No - 32%"

Come ON, Bloviator, it's now been OVER 30 HOURS since you posted this bullsh*t poll. That should be more than enough time for you to find a source for it, or at least to admit you made it up. Which is it???

I couldn't get that link for the UN report to work, but here's another for the same report.

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/2002/1338&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC

The juicy bit: 31. The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America.
Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.

OK, bloviator, it's clear your "poll" was a lie. But I've got a REAL poll for you now. Here it is:

Hugh Hewitt: Larry [Kudlow], the New York Times stock is hurting. What do you hear about the reaction to their perfidy of last Friday? Has it hurt them with their subscriber base, their advertisers, or are they just sitting on a monopoly niche that they're going to keep?

Larry Kudlow: Killed 'em. Killed 'em. You cannot believe the intensity of anti-New York Times feeling. Killed 'em. You know, we sent a guy, Cody Willard, who's a contributor to our program, and we do this little cam thing. He goes out and interviews people on the street, and I had him ask the question about the Times. People are furious. We did a poll, investor class poll on it, and people were just...80/20 against the New York Times...

(applause from crowd)

SOURCE: http://www.radioblogger.com/

So it looks like 80% of the "investor class" hates the Times for exposing a perfectly legal program that was saving American lives. Sure puts your bogus "poll" in the toilet!