It's amazing what a free-falling stock price will do to a guy's senses...

Democrats admit they were wrong? Let me quote that great philosopher Steven Tyler, "Dream on, dream on, dream on...."

I said it back then and I'll say it again now. Nothing in that article had not previously been revealed. The President himself had previously talked about how we go after terrorist finances. Go back and read the article, ok?

Man, it gets tiring slapping you bushbots around with the truth...

Well, first off, this is just one editorial writer retracting an opinion he wrote in an op-ed supporting the publication of the story. This isn't the New York Times admitting it was wrong in publishing the story.

But, this is a thought-out, well-written piece on the publication of the story. It's a breath of fresh air considering all the ignorant, foul and hateful thoughts that have been thrown at the Times about this story.

I always thought the NYT was way out of line regarding this disclosure. And I am surprised they did not get into legal trouble over it.

Admission of being wrong does not change the fact the damage cannot be undone.

There, again, I have shown that I sometimes agree with my Knuckleheaded Bush Republican buddies.

Tom Shipley,

"Well, first off, this is just one editorial writer retracting an opinion he wrote in an op-ed supporting the publication of the story. This isn't the New York Times admitting it was wrong in publishing the story."

You need to check the facts before posting, it will save you from embarassing yourself. Byron Calame is not just some editorial writer, he is the NYT's Public Editor, also known as the ombudsman. He is on the payroll of the NYT.

In this case, he is admitting that the NYT published a story they should not have. The SWIFT program broke no laws and no one's privacy or civil rights were infringed upon. But in keeping with the NYT's agenda to undermine the Presidency of George Bush, they published the article anyway.

Too bad that an effective tool to fight terrorism has been exposed and negated. Too bad if national security is jeopardized. Too bad if they've assisted the terrorists. The political agenda comes first.

Publishing the article, against the wishes of the US Government, about a classified program, is a felony. Hopefully, Mr. Calame and others at the NYT will be prosecuted for their actions.

"But, this is a thought-out, well-written piece on the publication of the story. It's a breath of fresh air considering all the ignorant, foul and hateful thoughts that have been thrown at the Times about this story."

Are you saying that Byron Calame's mea culpa is a
"thought-out, well-written piece" and a "breath of fresh air"? He tried to slip it by the readers by buring it at the bottom of a column about whether "...‘Magazines’ of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?". He screwed up and isn't man enough to admit it in a more public manner.

Considering that the NYT did a great dis-service to the nation and put all of us at additional risk by publishing the story, every bit of criticism was deserved.

I fail to understand how you can defend the NYT for their anti-American, borderline treasonous behavior. Actually, I can understand. You're a liberal. Your political agenda comes first. To he** with national security. If you have a chance to undermine the Presidency and our national security in a time of war, you'll do it.

A-10,

I know who Byron Calame is. Bill Keller is the executive editor whose call it was to print the story or not.

The news and editorial editors are separate entities, thus Calame's first op-ed endorsing the publication of the story. A formal admission that the story should not have been printed would come from Keller and the news group.

"He screwed up and isn't man enough to admit it in a more public manner."

No, he didn't. He had nothing to do with the publication of this story.

Here's a description of Calume's roll at the paper from the NYTimes site:

"Byron Calame is the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly on the Sunday Op-Ed pages."

Maybe you should know something about how newspaper work before you post.

"He tried to slip it by the readers by buring it at the bottom of a column about whether "...‘Magazines’ of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?". He screwed up and isn't man enough to admit it in a more public manner."

His column runs only a couple of times a month. If he writes some, it's going to be noticed. One of his columns is a very "public manner."

And, he didn't have to write his "mea culpa." His "screw up" was an endorsement. He came to change his mind and he was man enough to use half his column to say so. He could have just as easily written nothing on it.

TS,

I see you're still the chief apologist for the NYT.

A question for you: Was the NYT justified in publishing the SWIFT story?

Well, it's kind of hard to say so when their own editorial board is now against the decision.

I find it hard to argue with Calame, so I will say no.

But, I do not think the NYTimes should be prosecuted for the disclosure. I do believe they had the public good in mind when publishing the story. I don't think there was anything treasonous in their actions. And I do believe newspapers should be immune from prosecution of publishing classified information, unless there's evidence to show it was done will malice toward the United States.

“And I do believe newspapers should be immune from prosecution of publishing classified information, unless there's evidence to show it was done will malice toward the United States.”

What a bunch of crap. It would be interesting to see what you (the left) decide is “evidence” as in enough to prosecute and secondly don’t you see a problem with FIRST determining with enough “evidence” that someone is actually being hurt or wronged by whatever classified information being published? And add to that shouldn’t there ALSO be enough “evidence” to be sure that exposing such classified information does not do more damage to the greater good of American than the problem caused to the individual wronged (if you could find one)?

TS,

"I find it hard to argue with Calame, so I will say no."

Finally, a correct answer. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. It has already hampered our ability to detect and stop terrorist attacks. Hopefully the NYT disclosures of classified programs doesn't get you or me killed. It has probably already gotten US service members killed because the terrorists have changed their communications techniques and financial dealings and we weren't able to detect their actions. That's blood on your and the NYT's hands.

"I do believe they had the public good in mind when publishing the story."

Sure, if you believe the "public good" is damaging the Presidency of a Republican or helping the terrorists. Tell me what "public good" is there is disclosing the existance and details of a perfectly legal intelligence operation that has been sucessful in detecting terrorists? The only "public good" was to the terrorists who now know about one of our methods of detecting their financial dealings and can adjust accordingly.

"I don't think there was anything treasonous in their actions. And I do believe newspapers should be immune from prosecution of publishing classified information, unless there's evidence to show it was done will malice toward the United States."

Except it is against federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 798. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

The disclosure by the NYT meets the standard of 18 U.S.C. § 798. Prosecute.

Further, who gave the NYT the authority to determine if the information will damage the security of the United States? The NYT was asked by the US Government not to publish the article because it would damage US security. They published it anyway.

I guess if you are of the opinion that the US Government doesn't know if it will damage our security or not, you could say its OK to publish the article. But, I would contend that only the US Government has that authority and obligation. Not the NYT.

So, in a nutshell, you think the NYT gets to decide if they are damaging US Security. Well, they decided to publish information about the Terrorist Intercept Program, which has damaged our national securtiy, then they went and publish information about the SWIFT program, again damaging our security. In this case, its two strikes, you're out.

The problem with liberals is you don't think about the consequences of your actions. You think that publishing the articles are OK since they damage President Bush. But that is your sole motivation, isn't it? Who cares if you're helping out the terrorists. Undermining the President is more important. That's why you are labeled "un-American", "un-patriotic", and "traitors".

Ahhh Shipley, you better ship out. They got the high moral ground on this issue. And in this case, I agree with A10 completely.

A-10, can't you keep a discussion about facts at hand instead of going off on another rant against liberals?

I find it highly ironic that you continually accuse me of having BDS, when you exhibit 10-fold the symptoms of such a disease, exchanging 'liberals' for 'Bush.'

I think the press serves as a check against the authority of the government. Our government can classify any information they want to keep it from the American people. I think it's a good thing that we have a free press that is able to disclose some of that if they deem it in the public interest. It's essentially citizens keeping a check on government power.

And make no mistake, newspapers and other media take this responsibility very seriously.

And yes, I'm well aware of the law you cite. I'm also aware that no president of government official has enforced it in over 50 years. I would presume it's because they see the benefit of the press having such a check on the power of government.

There's a reason why the press is called the Fourth Estate. It's an essential part of a good democracy.

Now, can we have a discussion without you invoke your ire of liberals or calling me a traitor?

"Ahhh Shipley, you better ship out. They got the high moral ground on this issue. And in this case, I agree with A10 completely."

Well, thanks for the advice, Canuk, but I don't happen to agree with A-10 completely.

TS,

"A-10, can't you keep a discussion about facts at hand instead of going off on another rant against liberals?"

The facts at hand are that the NYT illegally disclosed classified information and you (and other liberals) don't have a problem with that. I do. If you have a problem being labeled as "un-American", "un-patriotic", or a "traitor", trying acting like an American and a patriot.

"I find it highly ironic that you continually accuse me of having BDS, when you exhibit 10-fold the symptoms of such a disease, exchanging 'liberals' for 'Bush.'"

I'm not deranged about liberals. I don't blame them for everything that is wrong with the world. I don't equate them with Hitler or Satan. I'm not advocating "taking to the streets in revolution" if Republicans don't hold the House and Sentate.

From my vantage point as a veteran, who is still serving in a civilian capacity, I just think liberals are dead wrong. When you come posting on a conservative site, irrationally blaming the President for mismanaging the war on terror and for everything else wrong in the world, you are going to be countered with our facts and opinions. If you don't like it, go post on DU or Kos (we can't, because as conservatives, we'll be banned. Detect any hypocracy?). You're welcome there.

"Our government can classify any information they want to keep it from the American people."

Again spoken as one who knows nothing about the military, intelligence operations, and the government in general. There is a complex classification procedure. The US Government doesn't just classify information and programs just to keep it away from the American people. They classify it to keep it away from our enemies.

"I think it's a good thing that we have a free press that is able to disclose some of that if they deem it in the public interest."

Again, that's the problem. The US Government says its not in the public interest to disclose information on a completely legal program to track terrorist financial transactions. They told the NYT that disclosure would jeodardize the program and our anti-terror efforts. The NYT published it anyway, knowing at the time that the program was legal and no one's personal information was revealed. There was no "public interest". Their only motive was to damage the Presidency of George Bush.

"It's essentially citizens keeping a check on government power."

No, it's a bunch of elitists, posing as journalists, with an agenda: undermine the Presidency and promote the Democrat Party, assuming powers they think they should have. The media should report the facts and let us make up our own mind. They should not be "making" the news up. They should not let their political affiliation (80% Democrat) influence their stories.

If you re-read my post, I didn't call you a traitor. I pointed out why liberals ("you") are labeled that way. Only you, through your actions, can remove that label. Stop supporting and apologizing for those who expose classified programs.

If you do a little research, you'd discover that our intelligence programs have been effective in detecting and stopping terrorist attacks. Why in the world would you be in flavor of exposing these programs and helping the terrorists? For the "public good"? Hopefully, we have a number of other programs in action which can overcome the damage the NYT has done. I just pray that they don't expose them. A patriotic American would assume that after the out-cry about exposing our Terrorist Communications Intercept program, they would have thought twice against exposing another program (especially since the US Government specifically asked them not to publish the article).

You should take "Canuckguy's" advice. Your fighting a losing battle that you cannot win.

Shipley, to amend my statement, I just agree with A10's stance against the NYT actions. I don't agree on any bogus bluster against bleeding heart liberals in general. Note I said 'bogus', there are legit criticisms against certain liberal stances. Naturally my definition of 'legit' may vary with the definitions the Knuckleheads may have. But I blather on and digress.

"You should take "Canuckguy's" advice. Your fighting a losing battle that you cannot win."

Actually, I believe I will win this battle.

Considering it's mostly conservatives who believe the Times should be prosecuted for this, and Republicans have held the White House and both Houses of the Senate for the months since the story was published, I don't see the Times being prosecuted for this.

Why would this be? As you show, there's clearly a law on the books that says it's illegal.

Well, I think it's as I said prior, those in power recognize that the press should have this power. If it's shown that they exhibit due diligence in their decision making, and if there's no evidence that this was done with malice toward our government or country, I don't think members of the media should be tried for revealing classified information.

I know, A-10, that you believe the Times motivation was malice for the Bush administration, but there really is no evidence of that.

"The media should report the facts and let us make up our own mind."

Well, this is what the NYTimes did.

As usual, the NYT does it all the time: Undermine
the President of the United States, and the fight
against Terrorists worldwide. They wonder WHY their subscriber rates are falling off- it should be no surprise that people finally see this liberal rag for what it is. A leftist/propaganda
biased MSM aid, in the undermining of our country,
and it's traditionalist populus. They are truly
a "secular-progressive" paper, that should be exposed for their total bias towards the majority
of the American citizens-

If you want to 'understand what is happening with our MSM, the newspapers in America, the colleges,
the ACLU, George Soros-the Commie-in-arms$$$-plus
the attacks on traditional views and religion in our country,
I suggest you read Bill OReilly's:

"Culture Warrior",

which happens to put ALL that is happening and the
changes that have been subltly attacking our very own country, and trying to move it more to the European way of life.(and you can see what is going on there with the Islamo/Fascist takeover-France riots once again) This book is a MUST READ, and will clear things up for those of you who have felt the discomfort in our society, and the ones who are trying to pull this off, and thus
changing our traditional way of life and freedoms of religion. Do yourself a favor, and READ THIS BOOK-it is quite an eye-opener, and VERY SCAREY.

I said it back then and I'll say it again now. Nothing in that article had not previously been revealed.

SteveGA, here is an excerpt from an E-mail I received a couple days ago from another retired Navy Spook who retired a few years after I did:

I have a fellow that worked for me at my last assignment prior to retirement in 1996 that transferred to Omaha (he retired the first of July this year) and was working for three years on tracking terrorist banking and e-mail records. The Times blows three years of work, probably more since there was a large effort and he certainly was only one of many working on the project. He said after the story broke the information dried up immediately. They found other means.

Shipley, you of all people, should know "The First Rule of Holes". Whether or not they are ever prosecuted, what the NYT did is simply indefensible.

RS,

I have said I don't think the NYTimes should have published the story. I'm not defending that action.

What I will defend is the right of the free press to publish classified materials if, in their judgment, it benefits the good of the people. It seems in this case, the NYTimes made the wrong call. (It is notable that they did hold on to the story for over a year, and basically only published it so they wouldn't get scoop by one of their reporters had a book coming out on the subject). Did they make a wrong judgment call? Yes.

But I will steadfastly defend all that I have said above.

TS,

"Republicans have held the White House and both Houses of the Senate for the months since the story was published, I don't see the Times being prosecuted for this."

Contrary to liberal belief, the White House and the Houses of Congress do not make the determination if a law breaker should be prosecuted. That is the responsibility of the Justice Department. As I understand, the CIA has asked the DoJ to investigate. We'll see how it shakes out.

"if there's no evidence that this was done with malice toward our government or country, I don't think members of the media should be tried for revealing classified information."

So in your alternate universe, if there was no evidence of "malice", law violators should go unpunished. Now that's a wonderful philosophy. As long as we don't have internal memos describing the rationale for publishing classified information, its OK. Nevermind the damage to our national security. Nevermind that Americans may die. If there is "no Malice", no harm done. Sorry, but the "absense of malice" might work in a civil case, or in Hollywood, but it isn't a viable defense in a criminal case or when our national security is concerned.

And you wonder why we say liberals (or Socialists) can never be allowed to run our national sescurity again.

Why not just drop the whole idea of classified information, if there is no penalty for revealing it? A law without a penalty for breaking it is exactly the same as no law at all.

The person who leaked this information to the NYT should definitely be found, and prosecuted. And the NYT should be held in contempt if they refuse to reveal the name of their source. The confidentiality of sources surely should not extend to protecting lawbreakers.

I read RS's note from his friend, who actually DID have three years' work trashed by someone who revealed classified information, and wonder where are the Libs who swooned with righteous indignation after unsubstantiated claims were made that Valerie Plame's work was trashed when Bob Novak mentioned that she worked for the CIA. Remember that? National Security Was Compromised. Her Life Was In Danger. Her Family Was In Danger. Years Of Work Were Destroyed. It was like a Mexican soap opera, but with less emoting.

Novak made a general comment about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, never mentioning anything in detail, and the Left had kittens and demanded a full-blown investigation. But when the NYT reveals a TRUE secret and classified program, in detail, and we have PROOF of its effect on national security, the Left is strangely silent.

No, not silent. They are supporting those who did the damage.

I suggest that after we find and prosecute the person who leaked the classified information, even though that person may very well be a member of Congress, the writer of the NYT article be questioned in depth about his knowledge, or lack of same, regarding the classified status of the information he wrote about. And if he knew at the time that the information was classified, then he too should be prosecuted. And so should his editor, if the classified status was known to him. And so on, all the way to the top.

And then there's this pap: "I do believe they had the public good in mind when publishing the story."

Oh, really? Which public? What good? How on God's green earth can it be in the interest of the "public good" to derail a system which is designed to monitor the financial transactions of terrorists? A system which does not infringe on the rights or privacy of U.S. citizens, a program which in no way affects anyone but those who are moving money around to finance murderous plans to kill as many as possible of that same "public"?

Just how does alerting those terrorists, those killers-in-waiting, to efforts to catch them and save the lives of those they are planning to kill, serve ANY "public good"?

The only ones served were those who were warned to find other ways to finance their plots. And they were aided in their plotting by whoever warned them.

Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? Do you ever take the time to hear just how insane you sound?

Thank you, A-10, for picking up on the silly Lefty mantra of how important motive is. Because to them, it's all about FEELING.

This is why they are so enamored of "hate crimes". Because the fact that the victim is dead is not nearly as important as WHY he was killed. To the Left, he is a whole lot deader if he was not just killed because he was behind the cash register---what matters is if he was killed because he was BLACK and behind the cash register.

Remember the hysteria when Bush refused to go along with a Hate Crimes Bill in Texas? Remember how he was pilloried and called a racist, and even had that contemptible TV ad run which tried to link him to the brutal killers who dragged that man to death? Bush kept saying that the killers were caught, tried, and executed, and there could be no greater penalty than that, but the rabid Left was foaming at the mouth because NO ONE CARED ABOUT THE MOTIVE.

I didn't care why they did what they did. It could have been racism, jealousy, or simple blood lust. It didn't matter. The man was savagely killed, and that was all that mattered. But to the Left, it is always about emotion. How did the killers FEEL? (BTW, this is the same political group that piously claims it is wrong to prosecute people for what they THINK---such as plotting mass murder. We have to wait till they do it, because it is wrong to prosecute people for what they THINK. Unless of course it is how they think about some things....)

So according to them, if the NYT cannot be proven to have printed that story out of malice, then no matter how many laws were broken, or how many lives lost as the result of the terrorists finding new ways to finance their plots, or what other consequences there were, it was all OK---because they didn't mean to do THAT.

Let's do put the Left in charge. Let's do put those emoting relativists in control. Let's see what happens when bank robbers are only arrested because the police HATE them, are only investigated because the system WANTS REVENGE, only tried out of spite, and released because they had a perfectly good reason for breaking the law. There was absolutely no malice in their actions whatsoever.

Terrorism Rehearsal on Oslo Flight

Aftenposten: Czech security police (BIS) have reported an attempt to storm the cockpit of a flight from Oslo to Prague.

The BIS annual report for 2005, released on Tuesday, mentions flight OK 447 in September 2005, where three Egyptian citizens tried to gain access to the pilots.

According to BIS spokesman Jan Subrt, police terrorism experts believe that the three Egyptians were not trying to hijack the plan but rather testing the security measures on board the plan, which was owned by Czech Airlines (CSA).

“The crew on board discovered the three Egyptians trying to open the door into the cockpit. When the stewards intervened they immediately gave up their attempts and gave the excuse that they were looking for a staff member because they wanted to buy chewing gum,” Subrt said.

Man, it gets tiring slapping you bushbots around with the truth...

Man, it gets tiring laughing my arse off at stupidity--steveGAY, you're a funny little boy...

What I will defend is the right of the free press to publish classified materials if, in their judgment, it benefits the good of the people.

Shipley, I don't know how to impress on you just how wrong-headed this view is. The press in this country may be "free", but it is not "free" to have access to classified material, much less to decide which classified material should be released for the good of the people. A-10 was right on the money when he said:

The US Government doesn't just classify information and programs just to keep it away from the American people. They classify it to keep it away from our enemies.

Putting people who share your views in charge of our national security would be like putting Mark Foley in charge of the Page Program.

But you see, Spook, Tommy Boy thinks that he, somehow,is qualified to make the decision about "the good of the people". Clearly the "good of the people" does not mean the "safety of the people" or even the "peace of mind of the people" but that's not the point.

The point is that the radical Left thinks IT is the only authority that should be allowed to make this kind of decision, and many more. For example, we don't know how to spend our own money, the money we worked hard for, often took risks to earn---we need the Left to confiscate that money and spend it oh so much more wisely than we ever could.

And you notice that Tom has not addressed the issue of why it is "good for the people" to have the bad guys able to finance their attacks against us. Maybe he is speaking Libspeak, and by "people" he means "terrorist" or "enemies"...because HIS view of journalism would only be for THEIR good----certainly not the "people" who happen to live in this target country.