Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

President says New York Times is disgaceful

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
What would the founders think had the British said that they needed to monitor our financial transactions in order to ascertain which of us was likely to be cutting the Crown out of profit? Or which might be using money to revolt against the Crown monopoly? Isn't it funny how hundreds of years of history can be so crudely wiped away by yuppies in the white house and senate and house, to the point where people are more afraid of being killed by terrorists than being killed by governments or being taxed or ripped off by said governments. Which is the worse fear, a man in a cave and a few attacks once in blue moon or a group of individuals with hands on Nuculear buttons threatening to start WW12 in order to stop the "enemy" from doing it first? Bush borders on schizo-paranoia with all this talk about attacks and to be sure think of this, whom would be most likely to get away with a terror attack, one that has at their fingertips thousands of Nuclear and Biological weapons with multitudes of obedient soldiers, and worldwide bases with spies and blackbudgets or someone with a couple million and a cave?




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
We all know that The New York Times is considered my millions of people as a top newspaper.

Today, President Bush called it disgaceful.

Representative Peter King said: The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people.

Somebody remind that dude that freedom of the press is in interest of the people.


www.cnn.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Yahoo

Bush

Reply from the accused:

www.nytimes.com...



Classified material. National secrets, anyone?

With great power comes great responsability.

E/O/T



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
QWERTY... fat fingers.

Completely understandable.

Doesn't change ... You're reaching ...

That's just personal attack devoid of any information
relative to this subject. The facts are that this is
perfectly legal ... it works ... and both the republicans
and democrats who were briefed on it agreed that it
was legal and that it was necessary.

Where was it when real issues were facing real people?

You are being subjective and attempting to take this
conversation off course. The FACT is that by printing
this the NYT has negatively touched EVERY American
(all 'real' people) by disrupting a working security system
during a time of war and has put field operatives (more 'real'
people) at risk for their very lives.

Those are serious 'real' issues that effect every American -
all 'real' people.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I'm really glad that you quoted. "With great power comes great responsibility".

Unfortunately this administration doesn't seem to grasp this concept and they have made every
effort to insure that they will not be held responsible for their actions.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Perhaps the NYT piece, Bush's reaction and the media attention was all a calculated ploy? With all the intelligence gathered in Iraq and the info recovered at Zarqawi's safehouse; exposing this would force the terrorist into using money couriers for opperations and thus allow for conventional observation to determine active bases and safehouses?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
My statement was not to show that I advocate our elected official break the laws of our country. Now bending them is another matter. And if you think they dont (both Rep. & Dem.) you are naive. It is a simple expression of personal exasperation. I am trying to fathom not why NYT ran the story per se, but why on earth would they run it knowing full well that it was an integral component to the security of this nation and after being asked by many members of cong. on both side of the aisle and the admin. not to run it?

As far as the first amendment goes, how about we start holding those responsible who use the first amendment as a door mat to abuse that very same right? The first amendment says nothing about compromising national security to further along an agenda, which this blatantly is.

Having the right to free speech means nothing when your intention is to use that right to put this nation in danger or make it more difficult to protect its citizens.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Having the right to free speech means nothing when your intention is to use that right to put this nation in danger or make it more difficult to protect its citizens.


There is somewhat of a consensus here in that the measures being taken (i.e. request access to banking information) weren't all that effective in the first place. I don't think anybody was wiring significant amounts of money in the open, in the firstplace. So I don't quite buy the thesis that the article in NYT out our nation in danger. I don't think it did.

Bush needed to lash out on NYT to bolster his image as "strong on terrorism" whatever this is supposed to mean.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
You've generalized what the Times has done and what the process of tracking this info really is.

It isnt just the US participating in this activity. Its all of our allies as well. When the story broke from the Times about this type of activity, it not only compromised or destroyed our capacity to gather intelligence and track money but it also did the same for all of the countries helping the US and each other track money using the same tactic. This has ramifications that will ripple throughout the world in its own way.

I have another bone of contention as well. I'd like to find the weasel that "leaked" this activity to the Times, giving the Times the impetus to get this story together, and hang him by his nuts. Republican, Democrat, military, civilian, Martian, whatever. I dont care. If there is anybody that should be held treasonous for this story even being a shine in the NYT's eyes, it should be that person. I would hope that this type of leaking will be investigated and the person(s) responsible will be held accountable and prosecuted.

At minimun the NYT should have its press credentials reviewed and possibly even revoked.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
why on earth would they run it knowing full well that it was an integral component to the security of this nation


Maybe they simply don't buy that. I know I don't. This 'threat to national security' assertion is crap.



and after being asked by many members of cong. on both side of the aisle and the admin. not to run it?


One side of the aisle is just as crooked as the other. Crooks would ask that their 'crimes' not be divulged. Perhaps they have something to hide...

If they're not doing anything wrong, what are they worried about?



The first amendment says nothing about compromising national security to further along an agenda, which this blatantly is.


You're right. There are no such limits enumerated in the first amendment. If it was intended, I can't help but think the writers would have made it clear.

If congress wanted to keep it silent, I guess they shouldn't have leaked it to the press. Someone had a reason to blow this open. Time will tell.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
I find it funny how in the USA, anybody who questions or does'nt follow the direct line of the government is immediately called "left-wing" or "liberal". Grow up


[edit on 27-6-2006 by Xeros]


REPLY: Funny how that doesn't apply when the Left are in power. The Wash Post; NYTimes; LA Times Et Al:

Section 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) 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.

Hoover would have had those people in prison, right along with those who leaked the information; Lincoln would have had them shot. It's Treason and Sedition no matter what side of the fence your on.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
The idea that this is a super-secret program, and its revelation compromises the "war on terrorism" is just silly.

No one is suprised this monitoring is going on.

No one is supposing that the bad guys never assumed their transactions were secret.

No one is suggesting that this type of monitoring should stop.

But... many are demanding that proper oversight return to this administration... and that's what this is about. At least, that's what this story should be about. Thanks to deception and deflection, the important issue is skirted once again.


And anyway... we're at war with Iraq. The fight against terrorism is a criminal matter.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

We all know that The New York Times is considered my millions of people as a top newspaper.


REPLY: So excellent that they laid off a hundred or so people because of dwindling sales and subscriptions?


Somebody remind that dude that freedom of the press is in interest of the people.


REPLY: Aiding and abetting, or giving aid or comfort to the enemy is in the interest of no-one except the enemy.

[OUTSIDE SOURCE]
Section 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be
used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a
foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts
to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or
to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign
country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States,
or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or
citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance,
or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished
by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.....

[edit on 27-6-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
This story is about as damaging to U.S. national security as an article telling us that the DEA is
keeping their eye on drug dealers.

However, this story does further expose the mis-use of third party data merchants to circumvent
the protections of the U.S. Constitution & The Bill of Rights and it is highly politically embarrasing
to this administration.

It also means that we are tracking private banking information from other countries which directly
affects our relationship of trust in the international geo-political arena.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

This story is about as damaging to U.S. national security as an article telling us that the DEA is
keeping their eye on drug dealers.

However, this story does further expose the mis-use of third party data merchants to circumvent
the protections of the U.S. Constitution & The Bill of Rights and it is highly politically embarrasing
to this administration.

It also means that we are tracking private banking information from other countries which directly
affects our relationship of trust in the international geo-political arena.



REPLY:Ummmmm, the other countries know about it; they use it, too. It's not illegal.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Section 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) 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.


Does this also apply to the leakage of information in the Valerie Plame incident, or do the neo-cons get a free pass, because they're neo-cons?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
This story is about as damaging to U.S. national security as an article telling us that the DEA is keeping their eye on drug dealers.


If this is true as you and others are asserting (and I totally agree) then

What is the president so upset about?
What is he SOOOOO worried about the people discovering?


Isn't this what we should be asking ourselves? Look beyond the headlines. Ask yourselves what exactly are they wanting to keep hidden? Why do they feel they're losing control?

There's a lot more here than the NYT printing a story.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I'm not sure if there is any one thing in particular they are afraid of or if it's just that
the citizens are becoming more and more aware of the Total Information Awareness
program that was supposed to have been defeated.

Obviously, now it is clear that they are using covert 3rd party info merchants
to get around the inconvenient legalities of warrantless spying on American
citizens.
This includes the tracking of financial aid coming from Islamic Americans to friends
and relatives overseas.

I know first hand that a local Mosque was gathering as many camping supplies as they could
to help earthquake victims after the Iranian earthquake.
There was also a major outpouring of support after the Asia Tsunami.

Were these relief supplies being used to supply terrorists or simply humanitarian aid to
those who had lost everything?

We do know that the U.S. and Israel have done all they can to stop the flow
of financial aid to the Hamas lead Palestinians.
In my view, this is a deliberate attempt to undermine the survival of the democratically elected Palestinian leadership. Like them or not.
Therefore any financial aid being sent by American citizens to Palestinian family members
would certainly come under close scrutiny.

Warrantless surveillance of American citizens is illegal.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by The Iconoclast



Does this also apply to the leakage of information in the Valerie Plame incident, or do the neo-cons get a free pass, because they're neo-cons?


REPLY: Damn!!! Don't you do any research. The Plame thing was crap-ola.... a red herring. Why have no charges been filed? because no "outing" was commited.

1- Russia outed her in the late 1990's, which is why she had a desk job, and no longer covert.

2- Her husband introduced her at a few parties as his "CIA wife".

3- She outed herself in 1999 by voting for Algore with her real name, and giving her place of employment in a CIA front company.

The term "neocon" is as valid as "hispanic" people.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Patriots don't need talking points to tell them what to think!


God...... don't tell the Dem's that!



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
This administration has lost control of itself.

We are witnessing the shrieks of indignation and fear, becuase there is far more to come. We may find out just how badly this White House has bungled their "war on Terror", and how badly the Constitution has been abused by the President and his staff. That is what drives the hysteria we are watching.

Its not that people stand for the presidents actions that bothers me, human nature is to not admit mistakes. BushW will have supporters for no other reason that that.
Its that people are so ignorant to not stand up for themselves and the Constitution their ancestors died fighting for.

NO president takes an Oath to defend the Nation against terrorists. They do however Swear to protect the Constitution. Remember that the next time you try to defend this Corrupt White House.


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join