The War Over "War Secrets": Why The NY Times Is Not Treasonous (Op/Ed)

Which doesn't seem to apply in this case, since the administration itself has publicly boasted about the same program they are condemning the Times for "revealing"....

But nevermind, lets not let the facts get in the way of our "talking points" and phony outrage...

Johhny Ohm: I noticed on crooksandliars that, in the collumn of the left of their page, that Clintons name wasn't there. It's quite obvious that they have an agenda, and put themselves in the same light as moveon; hardly un-biased.

I'm not saying that some of what they have there isn't true, because I check it ALL out, no matter the source. I did notice that they put their own little comments in the transcription of the Delay interview; not good.

I also wonder if they've paid for the copyrighted material they have on the page (the videos).

[edit on 30-6-2006 by zappafan1]

Zappafan, they don't need to rwad the NYT or watch TV, they can just go to the SWIFT Website, or read the SWIFT Magazine...

You, and others who are "outraged" by the NYT don't understand what happened. The only reason you are "outraged" is because Bush told you to be outraged, even though he was the first person to expose SWIFT in 2001.

According to Bush the Terrorists are sophisticated in technology, why the Government needs to read your email, but now are saying they didn't know about SWIFT Website?

Damn shame what happened to this country, republicans, conservatives, they've never done anything good have they? Anti-Woman Right to Vote, Anti-Free Blacks, Anti-Civil Rights, Anti-Gay Rights, Pro-Hitler/NAZIs by sending him money, even after USA declared war on him, Pro-Saddam and OBL in the 1980's, infact they are the oens who sold the weapons being used on us now... Oh and the Great Depression happened under a Conservatives watch after the Booming 20's under an evil liberal, and an Evil Liberal got us out of the Depression while the Holy Conservative got caught trying to rig the election and resigned for it.

Hmmm, those darn Evil Liberals, we should do something about them, like stalling the vote to renew the Voting Acts Right of 1960 something so we can keep blacks from voting.

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
Hmmm, those darn Evil Liberals, we should do something about them, like stalling the vote to renew the Voting Acts Right of 1960 something so we can keep blacks from voting.

Get it straight, please. They did not stall renewal to keep blacks from voting, and you know it. Spreading disinfo like that takes away what little credibility you have.

Then why stall it? Hmmm, no answer there is it? besides to take the black mans right to vote away! They are going to make what they've been doing legal, turning blacks away for being black at the voting polls in Florida and Ohio.

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
Then why stall it? Hmmm, no answer there is it? besides to take the black mans right to vote away!

Can you really not think of any other possible reason for stalling it? Did you do any research on the issue at all?

Here's the first paragraph from one random source I pulled:

WASHINGTON -- Renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which eliminated many anti-black voting practices, suffered a setback Wednesday when House Republicans disagreed on whether to require bilingual ballots and federal oversight of Southern states.
seattlepi.nwsource.com...

Not to come down on you, but you really need to do a better job of understanding an issue at least superficially. Don't fall for sensational soundbites as the basis for your arguments.

Yeah, and why do they need federal oversite of Southern States?
BECAUSE THEY KEPT THE BLACKS FROM VOTING!

So, again, how is this NOT keeping the blacks from voting?

My opinion on this is that the NY Times did just as they were supposed to do. The admin leaked it for a reason and they fell right in line. If our press intend to print everything they know even if it aids and abeds our enemies, then they are game to be used.

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
Yeah, and why do they need federal oversite of Southern States?
BECAUSE THEY KEPT THE BLACKS FROM VOTING!

So, again, how is this NOT keeping the blacks from voting?

I'm not going to prove a negative. Show me one politician who is in favor of keeping blacks from voting. Show me a piece of legislation that is designed to specifically prohibit blacks from voting.

You want it to be true so you can say your argument is true. But just wishing doesn't make it so.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
.................
Damn shame what happened to this country, republicans, conservatives, they've never done anything good have they? Anti-Woman Right to Vote, Anti-Free Blacks, Anti-Civil Rights, Anti-Gay Rights, Pro-Hitler/NAZIs by sending him money, even after USA declared war on him, Pro-Saddam and OBL in the 1980's, infact they are the oens who sold the weapons being used on us now... Oh and the Great Depression happened under a Conservatives watch after the Booming 20's under an evil liberal, and an Evil Liberal got us out of the Depression while the Holy Conservative got caught trying to rig the election and resigned for it.

Hmmm, those darn Evil Liberals, we should do something about them, like stalling the vote to renew the Voting Acts Right of 1960 something so we can keep blacks from voting.

First of all, what the heck does this has anything to do with the topic?....

Second of all, nice try with the generalizations, exagerations and lies....

Originally posted by xmotex
You kids need to get over this ridiculous idea that "critical of the Bush administration" == "anti American". By that standard, the majority of the population of the country is now "anti-American". Let me guess, if the majority of Americans are "anti-American"... I guess they're all traitors spurred on by the treachery of the dreaded "liberal media"...

.....can you tell us why do you believe that the "majority of Americans are anti-Bush?...." oh yeah i forgot, polls done to 1,000-3,000 Americans in certain areas equals to what all Americans think and want....

Originally posted by Muaddib
First of all, what the heck does this has anything to do with the topic?....
Second of all, nice try with the generalizations, exagerations and lies....

WHat am I lying about? Are you saying Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld weren't the ones selling weapons to Saddam? Or that they weren't the ones to put OBL into power with training from the CIA? These are public knowledge, so what am I lying about? WHy do you think Saddam hated OBL so much? OBL was an AMerican puppet, Saddam hated America, therefor he hated the American Puppet. Of course OBL hated Saddam because in the Middle East Saddam is an evil Liberal, bringing power, running water, and schools to Iraq. Sure he gassed some Kurds, with the gas Bush Sr. and RUmsfeld sold him, but we didn't do anything then, did we? Not until our oil interests were threatened did Saddam go from a Business Partner to an Evil Arab. Hell I bet Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld would have kept selling Mustard Gas and Sarin Gas to Saddam if he hadn't attacked Kuwait.

On Topic, still, NYT did nothing wrong, only reason people like Muaddib or Zappa are "mad" is because Bush told them to be "mad". If Bush never told them to be "mad" they wouldn't be mad. WHy? Because BUSH HIMSELF exposed SWIFT, in 2001, as did SWIFT ITSELF through a public Website and Magazine.

Are you saying Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld weren't the ones selling weapons to Saddam?

REPLY: YES!!! All we gave him was intel, and credits for the purchase for farming equipment. Do the research.

Or that they weren't the ones to put OBL into power with training from the CIA?

REPLY: That's true, and the reason we did so is found below:

OUTSIDE SOURCE"Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian." End OUTSIDE SOURCE.

So, we helped train him and he turned on us. What's your point?

Of course OBL hated Saddam because in the Middle East Saddam is an evil Liberal, bringing power, running water, and schools to Iraq.

REPLY: Look up the "mother of all connections", which explains the ties between OBL and Saddam. Little power, unclean water, slave wages for teachers, and no books on democracy or freedom.

Not until our oil interests were threatened did Saddam go from a Business Partner to an Evil Arab.

REPLY: Disproven and BS. Who taught you that?

"....only reason people like Muaddib or Zappa are "mad" is because Bush told them to be "mad". If Bush never told them to be "mad" they wouldn't be mad.'

REPLY: Outright BS and quite pompous and presumptuous, considering you don't know either one of us.

BUSH HIMSELF exposed SWIFT, in 2001,

REPLY: Could you link to the speech, or whatever, that Bush mentioned Swift, in particular.?

[edit on 2-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Well SO I don't see any conspiracy here, but I do see a fairly simple President still smarting from the last blow landed by the New York Times. His remarks about the paper were probably just his way of showing the paper that two could play that same game. As you correctly point out though, this kind of thing could quite easily get out of hand.

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
Because BUSH HIMSELF exposed SWIFT, in 2001, as did SWIFT ITSELF through a public Website and Magazine.

I really feel the need to clarify this.

SWIFT is over 30 years old and has never been hidden. SWIFT is not some sneaky spy program; it's the messaging system that financial institutions use. What was exposed was that the US govt has been sifting through SWIFT information on a fishing expidition, in order to get around allies rules and regulations for access non-US citizens financial information.

Perhaps within the US this is nothing new, but it's a little bit disconcerting for those of us who thought we were citizens of a different country.

So, has the NYT been charged with anything yet? No? Why not? I thought treason was a very serious crime in America. Why was there no need to charge them? Or was there no way to charge them since it wasn't treason?

Originally posted by Jamuhn
So, has the NYT been charged with anything yet? No? Why not? I thought treason was a very serious crime in America. Why was there no need to charge them? Or was there no way to charge them since it wasn't treason?

REPLY: As has been mentioned, the anti-American/anti-Bush people in the intelligence agency(ies) are the ones who commited treason, and shopuld be brought to justice.
However, sedition might be defined as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", them the NYT editor is guilty of it, as are Murtha, Kerry, et-al.

Check out the history of the NYT, below:
[link] www.abovetopsecret.com... [/link]

Yeah those dirty whistleblowers, the nerve of them exposing the illegal actions of the American leadership to the American people. The American people are clearly the enemy - look at Dear Leader Bush's abysmal approval ratings. And giving classified information to the enemy is clearly treason.

It's become obvious that any opposition to Bush within the .gov and .mil must be liquidated, so that we might finally march forward in lockstep behind our Great Leader into the glorious future!

(/me pukes)

[edit on 7/5/06 by xmotex]

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: As has been mentioned, the anti-American/anti-Bush people in the intelligence agency(ies) are the ones who commited treason, and shopuld be brought to justice.

It's interesting how a growing and vocal segment of this and other online communities can inject political side-taking into every topic. Additionally, it's become massively irritating to see anti-Bush equated to anti-American. This history of this nation is well-populated with high-integrity patriots who risked much to reveal wrong doing throughout all levels of public governance. This administration has seemingly created an environment where this activity is suddenly against the fiber of the nation, and has spawned vitriol-spewing minions to spread the word.

However, sedition might be defined as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", them the NYT editor is guilty of it, as are Murtha, Kerry, et-al.

Could you explain how this is?

What nation is the enemy of our state as it relates to these news items?

We're seeing legal intervention, both domestically and internationally, in regards to some of the items revealed by these series of stories. Such activity is a strong indication that this material was important to have been released.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's interesting how a growing and vocal segment of this and other online communities can inject political side-taking into every topic. Additionally, it's become massively irritating to see anti-Bush equated to anti-American. This history of this nation is well-populated with high-integrity patriots who risked much to reveal wrong doing throughout all levels of public governance. This administration has seemingly created an environment where this activity is suddenly against the fiber of the nation, and has spawned vitriol-spewing minions to spread the word.

Perhaps it is more interesting the reducing number of readers of the treasonous rags..........

There are many who do believe the US is at war. The "elite" media is in denial. As are the defenders of the NYT's.

The elite media is like a small spoiled child sitting in a pool of gasoline and throwing matches. Eventually all hell breaks loose.........litterally.......

It is time to smack the elite media. Put some arrogance in jail. Nowhere does the constitution place anyone above the law. Not even "reporters"............