Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleaNeway2sayHooray
Cresley Wusher
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/07/05
Posts: 7,653
Loc: Orphic Trench
NY Times
    #5798089 - 06/28/06 12:56 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Now the bush admin. is taking stabs at the press.I didnt see another post for this topic so please forgive me if this is a repost.

I dont see how they think this violates the espionage act.


Congressman Wants N.Y. Times Prosecuted

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee called Sunday for criminal prosecution of the New York Times, saying its report Friday on U.S. government surveillance of confidential banking records “compromised America’s anti-terrorist policies.”

Interviewed on “Fox News Sunday,” Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said the newspaper compromised national security when it exposed a Treasury Department program that secretly monitored worldwide money transfers to track terrorist financing. The program, instituted after the Sept. 11 attacks, bypasses traditional safeguards against government abuse.

Similar reports were published the same day by the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets.

“By disclosing this in time of war, they have compromised America’s anti-terrorist policies,” said King, referring to New York Times reporters and editors. “Nobody elected the New York Times to do anything. And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people.”

Calling the report “absolutely disgraceful,” King said he would call on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to begin a criminal investigation of the newspaper.

The Bush administration urged the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times not to publish their reports, but the editors of each newspaper concluded that it was in the public interest to go forward.

“One of the most hotly debated issues in the country right now is the conduct of the war on terror,” Los Angeles Times Editor Dean Baquet said Sunday. “It is our job to publish what we know about the government’s role, to offer the public what it needs to know to participate in that debate.”

Officials at the New York Times had no immediate comment on King’s statements.

Senators from both parties declined to join the Long Island congressman’s call for an investigation and defended the role of newspapers as guardians against government abuse.

“We have seen the newspapers in this country act as effective watchdogs,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said on the same program.

“I don’t think that the newspapers can have a totally free hand. But I think in the first instance, it is their judgment….

“I think it’s premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it’s premature to say that the administration is entirely correct.”

On CNN’s “Late Edition,” Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said that although he would have preferred the New York Times not publish the information, “the truth of the matter is, they’ve uncovered an awful lot of things that the government has been doing that doesn’t make sense as well.”

Both senators cited Thomas Jefferson’s maxim: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

According to the reports in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the financial tracking program was part of an aggressive post-Sept. 11 effort to gather intelligence, tapping into the world’s largest financial communication network for information on bank transfers.

The network — run by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT — carries up to 12.7 million messages a day. Those messages typically include names and account numbers of bank customers — private citizens and huge corporations alike — that are sending or receiving funds.

To gain access to the information, the Bush administration used administrative subpoenas, which are not subject to independent governmental reviews designed to prevent abuse.

The SWIFT program is part of the administration’s broad expansion of anti-terrorism intelligence-gathering methods, which also include warrantless surveillance of some phone calls and e-mails into and out of the U.S. The New York Times first reported on that program, run by the National Security Agency, late last year.

On Sunday, Specter indicated that Congress and the White House were nearing agreement on a proposal to submit all such eavesdropping to the secret federal court that considers intelligence matters.

“We’re getting close with the discussions with the White House, I think, to having the wiretapping issue submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” he said. “That would be a big step forward for the protection of constitutional rights and civil liberties.”

The White House had initially argued that the president could approve warrantless surveillance in terrorism cases under his powers as commander in chief, but critics contended that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978, required communications surveillance in the United States to be approved by the secret intelligence court.

https://freepress.net/news/16240


--------------------
Mad_Larkin said:  Death is just a thang.
:clementine:
MrJellineck said:  Profits, prophets. That's all you jews think about.
sheekle said: life is drugs... and music... and cat... :snowman:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: NY Times [Re: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5798096 - 06/28/06 12:59 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Damn, they blew our cover! The terrorists had no idea they were being watched until the NY Times spilled the beans. :eyeroll:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5798135 - 06/28/06 01:15 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I almost posted this yesterday just for the humor in the government saying they may press charges against the NY Times for committing espionage.:rofl2:

And people believe we have free press that isn't being intimidated by the government.

Yeah right.:hehehe:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleaNeway2sayHooray
Cresley Wusher
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/07/05
Posts: 7,653
Loc: Orphic Trench
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5798161 - 06/28/06 01:28 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Its quite ridiculous they are trying to regulate something as large as the NY times.

To me its more of a "we know we have the power to do whatever we want and we are going to prove it" sort of thing.


--------------------
Mad_Larkin said:  Death is just a thang.
:clementine:
MrJellineck said:  Profits, prophets. That's all you jews think about.
sheekle said: life is drugs... and music... and cat... :snowman:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePanoramix
Getafix
Male

Registered: 11/26/03
Posts: 634
Loc: Everywhere else
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: NY Times [Re: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5798176 - 06/28/06 01:39 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Bush said he was going to do that exact same thing ("Follow the... follow the money" as he so inarticulately put it) about three or three and a half years ago or so. He told the press directly they were planning to monitor bank accounts. My question becomes not 'how can the Bush admin. seriously consider that espionage?' but rather 'how is that even considered news?'. <- Got some nifty punctuation going on there, eh?


--------------------
Don't worry, I'm wrong.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: Panoramix]
    #5798197 - 06/28/06 01:51 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

It's news so big, threats of espionage charges are being considered against the NY Times :rofl2:


Seriously, the people are getting more restless, and angry and wanting answers about a lot of things. I think the government is scared that the press , wanting to meet those demands is going to start pushing it. I think it's an intimidation maneuver by the government to keep  the press restrained from some real investigative work and reporting about what the government is up too.

I think the waters are being tested from both sides to see how far either can push the other and get away with it.


:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleaNeway2sayHooray
Cresley Wusher
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/07/05
Posts: 7,653
Loc: Orphic Trench
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5798239 - 06/28/06 02:17 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:

I think the waters are being tested from both sides to see how far either can push the other and get away with it.







:thumbup: :thumbup:

I agree


--------------------
Mad_Larkin said:  Death is just a thang.
:clementine:
MrJellineck said:  Profits, prophets. That's all you jews think about.
sheekle said: life is drugs... and music... and cat... :snowman:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: NY Times [Re: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5799268 - 06/28/06 12:48 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Now the bush admin. is taking stabs at the press.




Turnabout is fair play. The press has only been "taking stabs" at Bush for five and a half years now. And of course the latests stabs are not just against the administration, but against the security of the entire country.

Quote:

I dont see how they think this violates the espionage act.




Probably because you don't understand the relevant legislation, much less the underlying principle behind the legislation. Try reading this as a starter --

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bush_should_welcome_a_fight_wi.html



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: NY Times [Re: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5799525 - 06/28/06 02:09 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Many stupid things being stated above.

To begin with, I seriously doubt that the Times will be indicted for espionage. So far I've only heard one Congressman, Peter King, asking for criminal charges, so the notion that the "government" is threatening this is laughable. The leakers should be charged, but I'll doubt that the Times will be compelled to do anything other than turn over their sources, if that. They should turn over the NSA leakers too. It is a criminal act for a government employee to divulge secrets. It is not and cannot be left up to individual employees to decide what is and is not a secret.

Secondly, regarding the notion of a monolithic press, it simply does not exist. Many, many news organizations are deploring the irresponsibility of the Times. I doubt that very many want criminal charges but they are quite adamant in their condemnation of this idiotic decision.

Thirdly, regarding the notion that "people are fed up and want answers," this is also not such a monolith either. Most adults realize that there is a need for covert action and that it occasionally has successes and there is thus a quite clear justification for keeping certain activities out of the public eye. Every internet sting that nabs a pedophile relies on secrecy. Every time an undercover cop prevents a murder he relies on secrecy. Most of the people are all for the government acting covertly, although they expect the actions to be taken within the law. The Times themselves admitted that this program was legal. They just wanted to put up a pointless headline to sell papers and didn't give a flying fuck that they were totally queering an effective program. They remain mystified at the huge backlash against them.
There are three groups of people who have become utterly separated from the general population.
Big time career politicians and bureaucrats
Big time media
Big time academics
They all have Pauline Kael's disease who, when apprised of Nixon's election victory, was stunned because nobody she knew voted for him. Intellectual incest is when you only talk to like minded people. Invariably it leads to deformed thinking.

This program was legal, effective, reliant on secrecy and it's exposure had absolutely no positive effects for anyone except terrorists who had been unaware of it. The Times was asked repeatedly to not report this and strongly, which Keller lied about. He said the requests were half-hearted. When cabinet members, Congressman (even Murtha), both Chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Senators all call to urge you not to publish, that is not half-hearted. From John Snow:

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.

Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. 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.

Lastly, 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.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

My bold above
If you guys think it's a good idea that the press be the ones who decide what is and is not secret you are abysmal fools. What election did they ever win? And just for added laughs, we have this editorial from the same idiots dated Sept. 24, '01:
Finances of Terror

September 24, 2001
"Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America’s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies."
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-demanded-financial-tracking-to-combat-terrorism

The whole editorial is at the link


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
    #5799528 - 06/28/06 02:10 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Turnabout is fair play. The press has only been "taking stabs" at Bush for five and a half years now. And of course the latests stabs are not just against the administration, but against the security of the entire country.



:lol:

They've been "taking stabs" at the Bush administration by reporting what's going on.  They're called facts.  But if you want to brush it off as "attacks" simply because the facts are not so flattering to the right, then go right ahead.  Also, there's a huge difference between reporting unflattering facts and using force to try to suppress the media.  What was that stuff you used to say about "initiation of force"?  I think you need to blow the dust off your libertarian handbook and have another look through it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: NY Times [Re: Silversoul]
    #5799542 - 06/28/06 02:15 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Do you even read either the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post? I don't see LA Times much but the WaPo and the NYTimes are far more than "reporting facts." Their choice of what they report, where they put it, how it is couched, choice of modifiers, all point to gratuitous maligning of the Bush administration. If you think all Dan Rather did was report the facts you are completely in throes of BDS yourself.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
    #5799598 - 06/28/06 02:34 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Turnabout is fair play. The press has only been "taking stabs" at Bush for five and a half years now. And of course the latests stabs are not just against the administration, but against the security of the entire country.





That's called checks and balances. Our media is suppose to report what's happening to keep the govt in check. Would you rather the media not report on the govt at all? How is a democracy suppose to function if the people are ignorant of what is going on?


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5799616 - 06/28/06 02:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Then why doesn't the Bush Administration just Sue the NY Times for slander and liable?

Like silver pointed out, Bush and others have declared on National Television that they planned to follow the money trail of the terrorists. That wasn't top secret classified information that would hinder any investigation or sting operation. It's my understanding that what got his feathers in a fluff was that the NY Times report implied the program was breaking laws.

I read yours and Phreds replies, you made a lot of understandable, reasonable and good points to consider.

None the less, it concerns me that the government can do anything and hide it behind "National Security" "War Time" If the war in Iraq or on terrorism never ends, they can bar the press from reporting all sorts of incriminating evidence against government corruption if they can claim "It was a part of a secret sting operation".

Somethings not right about that.

Where's the checks and balances? Where is the organization keeping our government within the Laws when the only Law enforcement is funded and run by the government?

The investigative news media is the closest independent organization the American public has.

I'm glad you agree that the espionage charge against the NY Times is silly and if they feel there was a breach of classified information, they should be going after the leeks to the press, not the press.

However, if the leeks were giving information of law breaking within the law making establishment itself, thats BS if they end up prosecuted and in jail for it while the law breakers get off Scott free.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5799786 - 06/28/06 03:28 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Even the NY Times admitted this was entirely legal. The idea that it wasn't a secret because everybody knew about it is just specious excuse mongering. "Everybody" didn't know about it and it had been useful. See the letter from John Snow above. Now it's shit.

The checks and balances on the government are in the government. It is not the monolithic gargantua that the paranoids make it out to be. Is the press a valuable part of that too? Absolutely. But, and I repeat myself, who elected these arrogant assholes that they have the right to gratuitously ruin effective programs with some specious "right to know" bullshit. The only logical conclusion to that argument is that only secret programs that they approve of should be kept secret. Or maybe none at all, since there will always be somebody who doesn't like something. This was clearly an example of the pointyheaded bitch Bill Keller usurping foreign policy and for no good reason other than to fuck with Bush. Or so he thought. It isn't exactly panning out that way.

As an aside, the shrill nest of whackos the Times has become is very negatively affecting their bottom line. They are hemorrhaging money and subscribers. The editor before Keller resigned in disgrace and the tone of the editorial page and the letters they choose to publish is 100% anti-conservative to the point of derangement. They have become the NY Nation. I subscribe and read it everyday just to see what the enemy is saying in my town.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexDuckYouSuckerx
xBannedx
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/06
Posts: 1,410
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
Re: NY Times [Re: Silversoul]
    #5799798 - 06/28/06 03:34 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
They've been "taking stabs" at the Bush administration by reporting what's going on. They're called facts. But if you want to brush it off as "attacks" simply because the facts are not so flattering to the right, then go right ahead. Also, there's a huge difference between reporting unflattering facts and using force to try to suppress the media. What was that stuff you used to say about "initiation of force"? I think you need to blow the dust off your libertarian handbook and have another look through it.




Both of these paragraphs are quotations from Phreds RealClearPolitics.com links.

Section 798 applies specifically to what the New York Times did last December, when it published a story revealing that the National Security Agency was listening in on calls from al Qaida suspects abroad to people in the U.S.

Last week the New York Times struck again, revealing details about how the U.S. tracks terrorist financing through a consortium in Belgium. Because of the worldwide publicity these stories generated, there can be no doubt al Qaida is aware of them, and will change its practices because of them.



The paper didn't make some vague comments, it gave specific information. I'd say we should burn the NY times headquarters to the ground, but I'd have said that before this bit of skullduggery, too.


--------------------
Unions are the bastions of the mediocre. - luvdemshrooms

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexDuckYouSuckerx
xBannedx
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/06
Posts: 1,410
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5799827 - 06/28/06 03:42 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Like silver pointed out, Bush and others have declared on National Television that they planned to follow the money trail of the terrorists. That wasn't top secret classified information that would hinder any investigation or sting operation. It's my understanding that what got his feathers in a fluff was that the NY Times report implied the program was breaking laws.



I don't know how you could say both of those statements at the same time. Clearly, your understanding isn't.
Quote:


I read yours and Phreds replies, you made a lot of understandable, reasonable and good points to consider.



Did you honestly read Phreds reply? Did you click on the link that he provided and read it thorougly? The paper didn't say "Oh yea Bush and cohorts might look at some banking shit, or something", it said SPECIFIC DETAILS, which SPECIFIC BANKS in SPECIFIC CITIES. Top secret information, "understand"?
Quote:


The investigative news media is the closest independent organization the American public has.



Laughably ignorant.
Quote:


I'm glad you agree that the espionage charge against the NY Times is silly and if they feel there was a breach of classified information, they should be going after the leeks to the press, not the press.




Nope, if the press knows something is top secret and reports it, they clearly violated the Espionage act. Since you clearly did NOT read Phreds link, I'll excerpt some of it here for you.

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits...or publishes ...any classified information...concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States...shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Quote:


However, if the leeks were giving information of law breaking within the law making establishment itself, thats BS if they end up prosecuted and in jail for it while the law breakers get off Scott free.



Welp, if the queen had balls, she'd be the king. She doesn't, and the leAks didn't. The leaks were giving up confidental, top secret information relating to the war on terror, very specific information. Your straw man argument and "what-if"'s aren't relevant at all. You aren't informed, you aren't arguing the issue and you aren't making any salient points.


--------------------
Unions are the bastions of the mediocre. - luvdemshrooms

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: NY Times [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5799840 - 06/28/06 03:47 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

This is very off-topic, but pretty much every print newspaper is losing profits and subscribers at record rates, regardless of their political leanings. I would be very hesitant to assert that these losses are because of any sort of political rhetoric. The paper copy of the NYT may be losing subscribers, but I would bet pretty much anything I could round up on the the online copy of the NYT having a record number of readers in comparison to the past rates.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: xDuckYouSuckerx]
    #5799871 - 06/28/06 03:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Thank you for sharing your opinions.  :smile: I'm not in this thread to argue anything. I originally jumped in to laugh at the idea of the NY Times committing espionage.

The terrorists knew from public admissions their money trail was being tracked. This is not new news to them or any of us.

I already said that I had no problems with or arguments against the points Zap and Phred raised.

What I don't find funny is this-

Read the report about laws being broken within the program. That's what this is about and that's what the NY Times wanted to report.

You have a right to turn 100% blind faith and trust over to our government that it is serving you in your best interest. I have a right not to do that, so far. It'll suck if they day comes where I am no longer publicly allowed to question their actions or risk being tried for treason and espionage.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: NY Times [Re: Redstorm]
    #5799916 - 06/28/06 04:07 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I have no doubt the Times' internet readership is higher than it's ever been. They haven't had that presence all that long.

Since Jan '04 the stock has gone from 48 to 24, after several years of stability. It is remarkably coincident with the scandals and the negativity. Not necessarily the liberal bent but the overall shrill deranged tenor of the paper is turning people off. They don't want the NY Times to be The NY Nation


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5800001 - 06/28/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:

Read the report about laws being broken within the program. That's what this is about and that's what the NY Times wanted to report.






Please tell us what they reported was illegal.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Government Information Awareness Edame 630 1 07/13/03 06:04 PM
by Crobih
* Porous Mexican Border as a Terrorist Entry Point
( 1 2 all )
Autonomous 4,118 36 01/05/04 11:19 AM
by Xlea321
* How to handle terrorists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Phred 5,925 63 02/20/04 06:21 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* The Case Against War EchoVortex 1,139 3 10/31/02 06:24 PM
by Anonymous
* Rice Faults Past Administrations on Terror PsiloKitten 355 0 10/31/03 03:03 PM
by PsiloKitten
* I fear my own government more than I do terrorists chodamunky 926 3 05/03/03 10:35 PM
by Madtowntripper
* Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 3,758 32 11/06/02 04:01 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* The administration
( 1 2 3 all )
SoFarNorth 3,644 55 08/22/02 12:32 PM
by toxick

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,847 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.