Rep. King Seeks Charges Against Papers Over Terror Reporting: Foxnews.com

[NoCalMike]

I love how the NY Times is getting all the bashing from right wing media, yet the Wall Street Journal, which as right as they come, is barely even mentioned.

[Baculus]

The problem here is that, once again, a story with generalized information is being used as an example of why the press should be muzzled to supposedly protect national secrets. The issue is that, similiar to some of the information that was supposedly vital to the War on Terror, the story contains broad data. So, my thought is that the story is being used as a general scapegoat in an effort to exert more control over the media or as example to those would report such related stories, especially if it exposes some information or truths, such as certain organizations or individuals having tries to terrorist funding or organizations, or drugs as well.

For example, who remember Sibel Edmonds?

http://www.justacitizen.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sibel_Edmonds

What she found in her translation could have interesting repercussions if she was allowed to discuss this subject.

We shouldn’t always assume that attempting to keep the media quiet is solely for guarding “nation secrets” or “national security.” Read more about the previously linked BCCI investigation and dismantling of this terrorism bank and the trail to which it leads...

[Kilmer17]

Neither is the LA Times. That's because both reported it based on the NYT story.

Once it's out, it's out.

[Prosperity]

"Stories about the money-monitoring program also appeared last week in The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. King said he thought investigators should examine those publications, but that the greater focus should be on The New York Times because the paper in December also disclosed a secret domestic wiretapping program."

Hmmm.

Nothing to see here folks move along

[Larry]

It's not that YOU are being informed. It's the fact that the ENEMY is being informed.

I really hope criminal charges are filed against the N.Y. Times and the reporters involved. This is an act of treason.

It's precisely that HE is being informed.

The enemy already knew:

• That we were kidnapping and torturing people.
  
• That we were wiretapping phones and communications.
  
• That we are looking at financial information.
  

The only reason these projects are classified is to keep the voters from finding out. (And to try to delay the day when the courts tell them what they already knew: That it's unconstitutional.)

The New York Times hasn't ruined National Security. They've ruined an illegal coverup.

[Larry]

It was funnier when Ann Coulter said it.

No it wasn't.

[Mad Mike]

When your track records includes misleading the Public. Then when the time comes for something to stay truly classified, nobody is going to believe you.

I know that sucks. But its the truth. Before it was that there were no wiretaps without warrents. then it was only taps that involved one end being outside the United States. then it was domestic.

After that trainwreck. Nobody is going to believe it when anybody in the Gov tries to say that its legal, and shouldn't be reported.

I see; it's all Bush's fault. :doh:

Really man, this is not your most intelligent post.

[Seabee1973]

Im gonna laugh when some liberal judge throws out a case against terrists because of the wire tapping then the terrorists end up doing some damage

[Mad Mike]

Some of you people are out of your damned minds. Terrorists knowing we are trying to track their money and knowing HOW we are doing it are two different things. There was no reason to disclose this info and every reason to keep quiet about it.

And BTW It looks like the NYT was the lead. Once they came out with the story you cant blame others for picking it up.

For the love of god and the sake of this country, STOP THE INSANITY. Call a spade a spade. What the times did was dead wrong and harmful to the nation.

[aREDSKIN]

It's precisely that HE is being informed.

The enemy already knew:

• That we were kidnapping and torturing people.
  
• That we were wiretapping phones and communications.
  
• That we are looking at financial information.
  

The only reason these projects are classified is to keep the voters from finding out. (And to try to delay the day when the courts tell them what they already knew: That it's unconstitutional.)

The New York Times hasn't ruined National Security. They've ruined an illegal coverup.

Damm Larry for all these years I never knew your name is Sulzberger.

[phishhead]

Dear Mad Mike,

Why would anyone listen to a douchebag with a picture in their sig of Saddam and the Twin Towers?

Anyone who isn't an insane wing-nut knows there is no credible connection between Saddam and 9-11. And spare me the "but he funded palestinian suicide bombers!!" or some bogus article from Worldnetdaily or some other freeper bullsh*t about how he had some extremely remote connection with al-Qaeda.

Take your own advice, stop the insanity.

[Mad Mike]

Dear Mad Mike,

Why would anyone listen to a douchebag with a picture in their sig of Saddam and the Twin Towers?

Anyone who isn't an insane wing-nut knows there is no credible connection between Saddam and 9-11. And spare me the "but he funded palestinian suicide bombers!!" or some bogus article from Worldnetdaily or some other freeper bullsh*t about how he had some extremely remote connection with al-Qaeda.

Take your own advice, stop the insanity.

Brilliant. When lacking intelligence, or a well thought out argument, always resort to name calling.

BTW, who do you think had that picture made and what statement was HE trying to make?

[phishhead]

Brilliant. When lacking intelligence, or a well thought out argument, always resort to name calling.

BTW, who do you think had that picture made and what statement was HE trying to make?

You are right about the first part, I shouldn't have called you that. I apologize, but I still feel you are out of line calling other people insane while believing in the absurd things you apparently do.

I have no idea who made it, and neither do you. For all we know the U.S. could have produced it just to wet the appetite of imperialist Americans such as yourself, who feel that the Iraq war is somehow tied in with 9/11.. although that is rather unlikely. It wouldn't surprise me though, since the the Gov't has tried everything it can to keep the support up for an unpopular illegal war of agression.

[Larry]

Some of you people are out of your damned minds. Terrorists knowing we are trying to track their money and knowing HOW we are doing it are two different things. There was no reason to disclose this info and every reason to keep quiet about it.

And BTW It looks like the NYT was the lead. Once they came out with the story you cant blame others for picking it up.

For the love of god and the sake of this country, STOP THE INSANITY. Call a spade a spade. What the times did was dead wrong and harmful to the nation.

OK, let's pick an example where we've got a bit of information to discuss.

All of the (mock) outraged cries of "Treason!" have been heard before.

At Gitmo.

Abu Garahib.

Extroadinary rendition.

Warrantless wiretaps.

Capturing every single phone call in the United States.

In every single case, when it's been revealed that the government is doing something, the cries of "Treason!" rise. And the claims that National Security is being crippled are made.

Completely without basis.

To consider, however, the case of Bush's Warrantless Wiretapps, the only way the revelation could possibly have hurt the War on Terror, is if all of the following are true:

• At least one terrorist (or person who has knowledge of terrorism) has to be discussing terrorism over the telephone.
  
• The government has to be monitoring that phone.
  
• The terrorist has to know that there isn't a FISA warrant issued for his phone. (Or for the person he's talking to, either.)
  
• (Therefore, the terrorist has to think his phone is a secure form of communications, and the government is getting intel from it.)
  
• When the Warrantless Wiretaps story breaks, then the terrorist has to say "Gee! My telephone might not be secure. I need a new form of comminucations."
  
• The new form of communications has to be secure.
  

In short, the revelation that Bush isn't getting FISA warrants for his wiretaps most likely didn't change a thing for the terrorists. The only effect that the revelation had was that a politically embarasing fact was revealed to the voters.

[DjTj]

Im sticking to abstract thought here.

To prove a point.

If the press found out that the US was about to launch an attack on North Korea. And ran a story with coordinates of our ships. And NK then used that info to attack us first, would the press be responsible for their deaths? Certainly. And they should face the consequences.

In this situation it is obvious to any reasonable observer that publishing would cause imminent harm to soldiers. It is the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

However, in situations where publication isn't creating an obvious an imminent danger, I don't think newspapers should bear the responsibility of deciding what is and is not in the best interest of the country. The question we need to ask is how did the press find out about this? Isn't it top secret? Shouldn't there be very few people that know about it?

The government employee(s) that disclosed this information should face criminal penalties. If the newspapers refuse to cooperate, then the press may be implicated (a la Judith Miller).

Putting this on the press is an obvious scapegoating tactic ... the Bush Administration has a problem with loyalty within its own government. They need to find out where these leaks are coming from rather than rely on the press to clean up their messes.

[JimboDaMan]

This is another of those times I find that Larry has already posted almost my exact thoughts on a topic. The Times printed nothing that anybody didn't suspect with such certainty that bad guys would have already had to alter tgeir behavior. This is not a big deal at all, except for the right wing trying to stir the pot. God help us, another election year.

For the record, I would not have printed it. But only because it wasn't news, and therefore wasn't worth letting the yahoos bray their idiotic treason charges yet again.

[Mad Mike]

OK, let's pick an example where we've got a bit of information to discuss.

All of the (mock) outraged cries of "Treason!" have been heard before.

At Gitmo.

Abu Garahib.

Extroadinary rendition.

Warrantless wiretaps.

Capturing every single phone call in the United States.

In every single case, when it's been revealed that the government is doing something, the cries of "Treason!" rise. And the claims that National Security is being crippled are made.

Completely without basis.

To consider, however, the case of Bush's Warrantless Wiretapps, the only way the revelation could possibly have hurt the War on Terror, is if all of the following are true:

• At least one terrorist (or person who has knowledge of terrorism) has to be discussing terrorism over the telephone.
  
• The government has to be monitoring that phone.
  
• The terrorist has to know that there isn't a FISA warrant issued for his phone. (Or for the person he's talking to, either.)
  
• (Therefore, the terrorist has to think his phone is a secure form of communications, and the government is getting intel from it.)
  
• When the Warrantless Wiretaps story breaks, then the terrorist has to say "Gee! My telephone might not be secure. I need a new form of comminucations."
  
• The new form of communications has to be secure.
  

In short, the revelation that Bush isn't getting FISA warrants for his wiretaps most likely didn't change a thing for the terrorists. The only effect that the revelation had was that a politically embarasing fact was revealed to the voters.

Sorry but you are simply making up senarios to support your argument. In short, you are REACHING. Nothing in your argument even remotely resembles reality. The cold truth is that it would be simple to imagine a terrorist assuming he could get away with a few phone calls.

The fact is that there are poeple who would kill americans by the thousands and we need to do everything we can to stop them. Unfortunately there are people who care more about hurting Bush for political gain than protecting the nation. And I say that as someone who STILL condems the republicans for their wag the dog arguments against Clinton when they should have been pushing him to do more to get bin Laden.

[Mad Mike]

You are right about the first part, I shouldn't have called you that. I apologize, but I still feel you are out of line calling other people insane while believing in the absurd things you apparently do.

I have no idea who made it, and neither do you. For all we know the U.S. could have produced it just to wet the appetite of imperialist Americans such as yourself, who feel that the Iraq war is somehow tied in with 9/11.. although that is rather unlikely. It wouldn't surprise me though, since the the Gov't has tried everything it can to keep the support up for an unpopular illegal war of agression.

You do not have a clue what I think. You have no clue what I believe. I'm an imperialist? Based on what? Dude you don't have a clue about much of anything. Go ahead and keep believing that the US had that painting made. In fact, invent whatever reality makes you believe America is the bad guy. Asume the worst of us with no factual evidence while ignoring Saddams history of supporting terrorism and hatred of the US. And you wonder how I could call anyone insane?

[Larry]

Sorry but you are simply making up senarios to support your argument. In short, you are REACHING. Nothing in your argument even remotely resembles reality. The cold truth is that it would be simple to imagine a terrorist assuming he could get away with a few phone calls.

The problem is, you have to imagine a scenario which involves a terrorist, discussing terrorism over the phone, over a phone that was being monitored, who decided to stop using the phone because he saw a newspaper article that said they weren't using secret warrants any more.

(And the terrorist's new communication has to be secure.)

That's the only way revealing the warrantless taps could have hurt the US.

In order for the revelation to hurt the US, the revelation has to cause someone who is currently an intel source, to no longer be an intel source.

So go ahead, invent such a scenario.

Then get back to me about who's REACHING.

[Prosperity]

You are right about the first part, I shouldn't have called you that. I apologize, but I still feel you are out of line calling other people insane while believing in the absurd things you apparently do.

I have no idea who made it, and neither do you. For all we know the U.S. could have produced it just to wet the appetite of imperialist Americans such as yourself, who feel that the Iraq war is somehow tied in with 9/11.. although that is rather unlikely. It wouldn't surprise me though, since the the Gov't has tried everything it can to keep the support up for an unpopular illegal war of agression.

If the photo is untampered with then saddam or a supporter made the painting as a propaganda tactic. Saddam of course was not behind 9-11 and did not support Al-Qaida.

Mad Mike has put it in his sig for a long time...I suspect he is implying there was somehow a causal connection between Saddam and 9-11. This is of course wrong. However, MM is not the typical imperialist like many others we have on this board, he truly believes in what he says and thinks this was a war needed for our countries defense. I haven't seen him make any posts indicating we ought to invade other countries to steal their natural resources or for the sake of bases to mount other imperialistic attacks on other nations. I could be wrong, but I have not seen him make any assertions like that.

[Larry]

If the photo is untampered with then saddam or a supporter made the painting as a propaganda tactic. Saddam of course was not behind 9-11 and did not support Al-Qaida.

Mad Mike has put it in his sig for a long time...I suspect he is implying there was somehow a causal connection between Saddam and 9-11. This is of course wrong. However, MM is not the typical imperialist like many others we have on this board, he truly believes in what he says and thinks this was a war needed for our countries defense. I haven't seen him make any posts indicating we ought to invade other countries to steal their natural resources or for the sake of bases to mount other imperialistic attacks on other nations. I could be wrong, but I have not seen him make any assertions like that.

He has, however, accused everybody in this thread who disagrees with him of being a terrorist sympathiser who's hatred of Bush is so all-powerfull that they'd rather see thousands of americans dead just so thay can bash Bush.

And he claims they're all posting without any facts to back up their accusations.

[/irony]

[Mad Mike]

If the photo is untampered with then saddam or a supporter made the painting as a propaganda tactic. Saddam of course was not behind 9-11 and did not support Al-Qaida.

Mad Mike has put it in his sig for a long time...I suspect he is implying there was somehow a causal connection between Saddam and 9-11. This is of course wrong. However, MM is not the typical imperialist like many others we have on this board, he truly believes in what he says and thinks this was a war needed for our countries defense. I haven't seen him make any posts indicating we ought to invade other countries to steal their natural resources or for the sake of bases to mount other imperialistic attacks on other nations. I could be wrong, but I have not seen him make any assertions like that.

Thank you. We may not always agree But I apreciate that you don't try to lump me in with the crazies on the far right. I don't support any party, I simply support what I believe is best for the defense of this nation from the threat of terrorism.

The point of my sig is simple. Saddam was not a nice guy. At the very least he celebrated 9/11, and considering his long standing ties to terrorism, his hatred of America and his known contact with Al Qaeda, I DON'T TRUST HIM. And yes, at a personal gut level, I think he was involved if even in a small way.

[luckydevil]

Got this from another blog ,it is a very important question that needs to be answered.

If journalists can be prosecuted for publishing what their conscience tells them to be information vital to the public interest, what is to stop the government from classifying anything that it does not want to be known?

Also where do you draw the line, what is appropriate and what isn't ( to publish).

[DjTj]

Got this from another blog ,it is a very important question that needs to be answered.

If journalists can be prosecuted for publishing what their conscience tells them to be information vital to the public interest, what is to stop the government from classifying anything that it does not want to be known?

Also where do you draw the line, what is appropriate and what isn't ( to publish).

This is the point I was trying to make.

It's very difficult to draw the line, unless you put it very far to one direction - I think you could deifnitely outlaw publication of anything that would cause imminent danger e.g. it would be illegal for a newspaper to publish the date and location of the D-Day landings.

If this is all confidential information being leaked, the real criminals here are not the newspapers. There are people in the government whose job it is to keep things secret who are NOT keeping things secret. We shouldn't be shooting the messenger here - it is the informants that should be punished.

[Mad Mike]

He has, however, accused everybody in this thread who disagrees with him of being a terrorist sympathiser who's hatred of Bush is so all-powerfull that they'd rather see thousands of americans dead just so thay can bash Bush.

And he claims they're all posting without any facts to back up their accusations.

[/irony]

No where have I accused anyone of being a "terrorist sympathiser", but don't let reality get in the way of your argument.

I believe people are simply blinded into a one track mode of supporting anything that hurts Bush. I believe that some people have a lower standard of proof for Bush than Saddam. Or can you in fact show me the money that Bush is supposed to have made from his profit over the war. Show me one shread of proof that Bush is more concerned with attacking American rights than catching terrorists. The FACT is that there is 10 times the evidence to indicate that Saddam was too dangerous to leave in power than there is to sho that Bush is somehow the devil some people make him out to be.

Please, share with me your "facts". Prove me wrong.