PDA

View Full Version : IS THE MEDIA PUTTING US IN DANGER?


Maidenarcher
06-26-2006, 07:44 PM
The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal all printed articles today outlining a counter-terrorism program that tracks money transfers to suspected bad guys. This operation is very legal and useful when trying to locate terrorists.
Now the Bush administration asked some of the newspapers not to print the story, because public exposure basically shuts down the counter-terror operation. The papers printed the information anyway.
Left wing news papers really jumped on this to bash Bush even more....

Regardless of what side you are on, I think the press works (and have always worked) against counterterrorism and it puts our soldiers in danger and possibly the US altogether........WHAT DO YOU THINK EVERYONE? I am really interested to see what other people think about this.

Lyn
06-26-2006, 09:53 PM
That is a very interesting question. Would they do that to sell a few papers when ultimately they too could be harmed? I really do not know the answer. In the past I have heard don't trust the government, on the nightly news Bush seemed rattled to put it mildly that a US newspaper would ever print anything even closely related. Also, I guess someone from the Oval office met with the editor of the NYT and asked him NOT to print the story. This is still fresh news. thanks for bringing it up though! :)

tony hipchest
06-26-2006, 10:01 PM
the media is too desperate for a story where their really isnt one. let the counter terrorism experts do their work. unless im in the fbi or cia, i dont really need to know how they get their info. that includes torturing war criminals.

BlacknGold Bleeder
06-26-2006, 10:24 PM
New York Times = Al jeezra east!! TheWhite House asked the involved papers not to print the stories. They have basically shut down a valuable resource for tracking the monies involved so they could make a few dollars. :dang: The editors of those papers need to realize sometimes it is better for everyone not to print a story such as this, especially when you are asked by the White House not to do so. I may be showing a bright redneck but as far as I'm concerned they should be tried for treason!!! Some one should be accountable!!

CAH
06-27-2006, 09:05 AM
The Times said the people have a right to know.

They forgot that the people have the right to live.

Too bad, the Times didn't know of the killing of Zarqawi before hand. They could have warned him. :chair:

j-dawg
06-27-2006, 02:41 PM
here's something to ponder...

Scarborough: You gotta admit-it?s frightening. More so to us who know how Washington works and know how power can corrupt and know how power can be abused. I believe friends, we are in dangerous times for those of us who believe like Thomas Jefferson-that Washington is not to be trusted with unlimited police power.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/27/scarborough-chooses-jefferson/

floodcitygirl
06-27-2006, 03:33 PM
I think that the very same people that are saying it's no big deal to have leaked that information and are screaming first amendment rights would be screaming for an investigation into the Bush Whitehouse and why it failed to protect our country if there had been another terrorist attack on our soil and could be shown that the governement hadn't been using its resources to track this money.

I do hope that the source of this leak (as well as others) is found and prosecuted for treason.

So in case I wasn't clear....I think those papers did a bad thing. :rolleyes:

83-Steelers-43
06-27-2006, 03:39 PM
NY Times = Joke.

boLT fan
06-27-2006, 03:43 PM
That's pretty funny that people want to know every single thing going on in the war and bitch when they don't know, then when they do know they say it endangers us. I just think the media needs to stop reporting so much as what's going on, so what if people get pissy about it at least we'd be safer and the enemies we are combating wouldn't know what's coming. It isn't all the media's fault though, it's the fault of everyone in America wanting to know everything.

floodcitygirl
06-27-2006, 05:04 PM
Treason would be almost impossible...the Constitution requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act and even if this does rise to the level of treason, there was probably only one witness to the leak (the reporter). They might be able to get him on something else.

You're right about the investigation...that's just a sad sign of how partisan DC is. If Clinton had used the same snooping tactics as Bush, the Republicans would have called for impeachment and sicced another special prosecutor on them. There are very few people in power who care more about potecting America than about lining their own pockets.Are you implying that CLINTON didn't use the same and many more "snooping tactics"?????? :rofl:

CowherLover
06-27-2006, 06:50 PM
Hmmmm..... I really think this is an interesting topic, but I do want to know more before I state an opinion. I watch Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and read every Op-Ed in the daily rag but it still doesn't help when you're trying to make an informed decision on how you feel about a (any) topic.

Does anyone know the name of the website that was around during the elections that claimed to be all about the truth? If anyone mentions Bill O'Reilly I will HAVE to polk your eyes out, lol! I never got a chance to check it out and was wondering if it's still around for an every-day type of format.

CAH
06-27-2006, 09:36 PM
The administration's raising a phony issue here.

There's nothing new about sniffihng around bank records or phone records--they've been doing it for the War on Drugs for a long time. Only thing Bush does different is not getting a warrant either beforehand or retroactively.

If this really endangered national security, they could have gone to court to block publication of the story. In the Pentagon Papers case, the SCOTUS ruled that prior restraint is permissible if there is a grave threat to national security--the administration lost because the Pentagon Papers didn't meet that standard. Also, if it's such a big deal, they need to start an investigation NOW to identify the leaker and come down on them hard.

What are the Lulus gonna do, not use banks? Great...that's a huge inconvenience for them. Take their chances using banks? Great, we'll catch them.
Our government has used the bank checking before but the NY Times printed the method being used. They gave away the METHOD.

Using that method, there have been many terrorists caught but the Times has saved a lot of terrorists' lives.

What would Roosevelt have done if the Times printed that D-Day was going to happen at Normandy and the date? My guess would be they would be thrown into prison.

This thing with the Times is not a minor deal. Wonder how many Americans will die because of it? They informed the enemy of what we were doing. I say find the leaker and put him/her in the same cell with the Times Editor.

BlacknGold Bleeder
06-27-2006, 09:54 PM
You're right about the investigation...that's just a sad sign of how partisan DC is. If Clinton had used the same snooping tactics as Bush, the Republicans would have called for impeachment and sicced another special prosecutor on them. There are very few people in power who care more about potecting America than about lining their own pockets.[/QUOTE]

He was impeached but he just wouldn't leave. :bouncy:

Maidenarcher
06-28-2006, 03:33 PM
Hmmmm..... I really think this is an interesting topic, but I do want to know more before I state an opinion. I watch Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and read every Op-Ed in the daily rag but it still doesn't help when you're trying to make an informed decision on how you feel about a (any) topic.

Does anyone know the name of the website that was around during the elections that claimed to be all about the truth? If anyone mentions Bill O'Reilly I will HAVE to polk your eyes out, lol! I never got a chance to check it out and was wondering if it's still around for an every-day type of format.

Please don't poke my eyes out....LOL
You can find some of this info on OReily Factor Website. Go to his show and type in media leaks terrorist info in the search and you will find all kinds of articles regarding this issue....
If anyone is not a conservative many of the articles come from newpapers and not just the FOXNews website.....
FYI...When I created this forum the press was only talking about that one story. However, now it is a even bigger topic of discussion...Hope you find all the info you are looking for....

CowherLover
06-28-2006, 06:15 PM
I prefer to gather information on all differen types of formats rather just a few. Have you ever heard of I Hate Bill O'Reilly.com? That's the only web site with his name in it that I would go to. I listen to him on his tv broadcast and that's enough for me. It doesn't matter what links he might have available because they're ALL slanted, IMHO. I'm not a Republican or Democrat, I fall smack in between 'em I guess. I can damn sure tell ya I don't trust either one!

j-dawg
06-29-2006, 02:55 AM
Our government has used the bank checking before but the NY Times printed the method being used. They gave away the METHOD.

Using that method, there have been many terrorists caught but the Times has saved a lot of terrorists' lives.

What would Roosevelt have done if the Times printed that D-Day was going to happen at Normandy and the date? My guess would be they would be thrown into prison.

This thing with the Times is not a minor deal. Wonder how many Americans will die because of it? They informed the enemy of what we were doing. I say find the leaker and put him/her in the same cell with the Times Editor.


http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/28/keith-strikes-back-against-nyt-bashers/
thought this helped clear some of the air on how "secret" this method was....

Hammer67
06-29-2006, 07:32 AM
Treason would be almost impossible...the Constitution requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act and even if this does rise to the level of treason, there was probably only one witness to the leak (the reporter). They might be able to get him on something else.

You're right about the investigation...that's just a sad sign of how partisan DC is. If Clinton had used the same snooping tactics as Bush, the Republicans would have called for impeachment and sicced another special prosecutor on them. There are very few people in power who care more about potecting America than about lining their own pockets.


#1) It interesting that you allude to the fact that Clinton didn't do any "snooping" during his presidency.

#2) Clinton was also not in the middle of the current political environment (i.e. war!). NOT TO mention the change in foreign policy brought on by 9/11

#3) Regarding the story leak, there was advance negotiation between the paper and the Bush administration long before the story ran and the Bush administration had asked that they not carry the story. The NY Times ran it anyway

CAH
06-29-2006, 08:51 AM
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/28/keith-strikes-back-against-nyt-bashers/
thought this helped clear some of the air on how "secret" this method was....
The method the government was using had classified information as to how they were going about it. The Times felt it was their duty to inform the terrorists so they couldn't get caught by that mean Bush.

It now seems some countries have backed out of the deal since they would be exposed for helping the U.S.A. The Times committed treason beyond any doubt.

CAH
06-29-2006, 09:10 AM
The Wall Street Journal ran that story the same day. If the Times really committed treason and/or undermined the war on terror, so did the WSJ but the right is strangely silent about it. That's a good sign that this is about politics and not security.
The Wall Streel Journal was informed by the Times that they already had it in print so they decided to run it, too.

Not too sure but I believe the WSJ got the story from the Times. Not easy trying to keep up with the talking heads. LOL

j-dawg
06-29-2006, 11:48 AM
The method the government was using had classified information as to how they were going about it. The Times felt it was their duty to inform the terrorists so they couldn't get caught by that mean Bush.

It now seems some countries have backed out of the deal since they would be exposed for helping the U.S.A. The Times committed treason beyond any doubt.



do you have a link for this? i'd like to read it...

roger cressey, former official of the national security council, said that there is no evidence that the n.y.t. disclosed any secret bank monitoring program...

Mosca
06-29-2006, 02:37 PM
The money tracking, the phone call tracking, none of that is new. I fill out Form 8300 every time someone gives me more than $10000 in cash, or in cashiers checks or money orders totalling more than $10000. OR, if I think it's a suspicious transaction I fill out Form 8300.

What IS new is that the government doesn't believe it has to get a warrant to search these records, or to ask anyone before looking.

Think about that for a second. if it is true, then there is no check to the government's ability to do whatever they want regarding your privacy. There is no record of what they wanted to find, or why they wanted it, or anything.

I'm all in favor of the government using these tactics to hunt down the bad guys. What I'm against is their imperious belief that they don't need to justify their actions, that they don't need to show cause when searching.

In instances where time is crucial, a retroactive warrant HAS NEVER BEEN DENIED. Therefore, there is no reason for the government to not request one, unless 1) there really is no justification to ask for one in a particular instance, or 2) the government wants to extend its power to invade its citizens private lives; in other words, the government intends to set itself off from its citizens, rather than be a government of the prople, by the people, and for the people. And EITHER of those scenarios is frightful, and frightfully wrong.

So, is the media putting us in danger? Well, would you prefer not to know? I for one would prefer to know.


Tom

CAH
06-29-2006, 07:04 PM
The money tracking, the phone call tracking, none of that is new. I fill out Form 8300 every time someone gives me more than $10000 in cash, or in cashiers checks or money orders totalling more than $10000. OR, if I think it's a suspicious transaction I fill out Form 8300.
That is their way of going after drug dealers. Make your deposit, if cash $9500.

What IS new is that the government doesn't believe it has to get a warrant to search these records, or to ask anyone before looking.
It depends on how much you want to stop drug dealers.

Think about that for a second. if it is true, then there is no check to the government's ability to do whatever they want regarding your privacy. There is no record of what they wanted to find, or why they wanted it, or anything.
LOL You would have never survived during World War II

I'm all in favor of the government using these tactics to hunt down the bad guys. What I'm against is their imperious belief that they don't need to justify their actions, that they don't need to show cause when searching.
Do you think "bad" guys walk around wearing a sign "Bad Guy"?

In instances where time is crucial, a retroactive warrant HAS NEVER BEEN DENIED. Therefore, there is no reason for the government to not request one, unless 1) there really is no justification to ask for one in a particular instance, or 2) the government wants to extend its power to invade its citizens private lives; in other words, the government intends to set itself off from its citizens, rather than be a government of the prople, by the people, and for the people. And EITHER of those scenarios is frightful, and frightfully wrong.
Bush's job is to protect the American citizens and he's doing that with a lot of interference by the Democrats.

So, is the media putting us in danger? Well, would you prefer not to know? I for one would prefer to know.
Tom
Yes they are. It isn't that they want to keep a secret from you. They want to keep the enemy from knowing. George Washington would have just shot him/her for treason.

j-dawg
06-29-2006, 07:27 PM
It isn't that they want to keep a secret from you. They want to keep the enemy from knowing.

you're wrong on this one... i'm sorry, but there is no evidence the n.y.t. released anything that was not already available to the public.

Mosca
06-29-2006, 07:52 PM
If you make your deposit as $9500 and I think it's suspicious, I have to report it. The law regarding money is not only for drug dealers, it is for all criminals. It is part of how the government tracks all "bad guys". It is also a (small) part of what was written about in the media.

No, I don't think the bad guys go around wearing signs. Do you think I haven't given these issues any serious thought? Do you think that the threat is so great that it is worth usurping our basic freedom? Do you think that giving away these checks to unlimited executive power is a substitute for our nonexistent port and border security? As a noteworthy aside, port and border security can only stop "bad guys"; unlimited eavesdropping could be used for, well, anything the chief executive wants to use it for, if he doesn't have to answer to anyone or show that he actually needs to do it.

Bush isn't protecting American citizens in spite of the Democrats. That is hogwash, poppy****, inflammatory rhetoric with no substance. The absence of attacks issn't defacto proof of protection, or else the case could be made that Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford did a great job of protecting Americans... using your logic, the case could be made that Bush has been the only recent president to NOT protect the American people, because 9-11-01 was during his administration! That is not my position; I use it only to show the flaw in your argument.

There isn't a politician alive in America today, Republican OR Democrat, who would be fit to care for Washington's horses. The Republican party today would be unrecognizeable to a great American like Ronald Reagan (whom I disagreed with on almost EVERY issue, but of whom I had no doubt about his belief in the sanctity of the structure of our government).

The current administration has concocted the neat trick of declaring war on an unconventional enemy, claiming that this war could go on indefinitely and maybe forever, and by extension using that to claim extraordinary executive powers virtually in perpetuity! And that is no longer government of the people, by the people, and for the people; it is government by executive fiat. Believe me, we are not that far from having elections suspended "until the current crisis is over..." which would then be, well, never.


Tom

CAH
06-29-2006, 10:11 PM
you're wrong on this one... i'm sorry, but there is no evidence the n.y.t. released anything that was not already available to the public.
Could you explain why the Times put it on the front page if the news was old?

tony hipchest
06-29-2006, 10:47 PM
Could you explain why the Times put it on the front page if the news was old? ummm....everybody knows brittany spears is pregnant and paris hilton is a ****. yet its still headline news every other day!

tony hipchest
06-29-2006, 10:48 PM
If you make your deposit as $9500 and I think it's suspicious, I have to report it. The law regarding money is not only for drug dealers, it is for all criminals. It is part of how the government tracks all "bad guys". It is also a (small) part of what was written about in the media.

No, I don't think the bad guys go around wearing signs. Do you think I haven't given these issues any serious thought? Do you think that the threat is so great that it is worth usurping our basic freedom? Do you think that giving away these checks to unlimited executive power is a substitute for our nonexistent port and border security? As a noteworthy aside, port and border security can only stop "bad guys"; unlimited eavesdropping could be used for, well, anything the chief executive wants to use it for, if he doesn't have to answer to anyone or show that he actually needs to do it.

Bush isn't protecting American citizens in spite of the Democrats. That is hogwash, poppy****, inflammatory rhetoric with no substance. The absence of attacks issn't defacto proof of protection, or else the case could be made that Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford did a great job of protecting Americans... using your logic, the case could be made that Bush has been the only recent president to NOT protect the American people, because 9-11-01 was during his administration! That is not my position; I use it only to show the flaw in your argument.

There isn't a politician alive in America today, Republican OR Democrat, who would be fit to care for Washington's horses. The Republican party today would be unrecognizeable to a great American like Ronald Reagan (whom I disagreed with on almost EVERY issue, but of whom I had no doubt about his belief in the sanctity of the structure of our government).

The current administration has concocted the neat trick of declaring war on an unconventional enemy, claiming that this war could go on indefinitely and maybe forever, and by extension using that to claim extraordinary executive powers virtually in perpetuity! And that is no longer government of the people, by the people, and for the people; it is government by executive fiat. Believe me, we are not that far from having elections suspended "until the current crisis is over..." which would then be, well, never.


Tom

*the sound of crickets chirping*

well i will respond with a simple round of applause

Mosca
06-30-2006, 06:55 AM
The more I think about this crap, the more I realize I'm a libertarian. F both parties, they've failed us.

Tom

CowherLover
06-30-2006, 07:23 AM
The more I think about this crap, the more I realize I'm a libertarian. F both parties, they've failed us.

Tom
I agree completely. They have managed to morph into one party, neither seeming to have anyone's best interest at heart except their own.

Mosca
06-30-2006, 08:27 AM
As an interesting aside,

in 20 years, I've had my form 8300s used 3 times.

First one was straightforward white collar embezzlement. The guy was a nice guy, too. I liked him. Of course, I didn't know he was embezzling at the time.

The second one was drug money. I knew that from the start. I expected that one.

The third one was blue collar embezzlement. The buyer was the scale worker at a scrapyard; she was jimmying the scales and pocketing the $$. She and her boyfriend showed up with sacks full of small bills.

The stuff does work. Most cash transactions are older folks who don't like banks, and they never get audited. But for real criminals, having a trail of where the money is going can help in identifying, prosecuting, and convicting them.



Tom

CAH
06-30-2006, 09:30 AM
ummm....everybody knows brittany spears is pregnant and paris hilton is a ****. yet its still headline news every other day!
OK You're comparing Britney Spears' pregnancy to classified information.

tony hipchest
06-30-2006, 09:54 AM
OK You're comparing Britney Spears' pregnancy to classified information.no, im comparing old news being rehashed as new news.

its like last year when the media did the piece of jerome bettis getting out of bed monday morning, and could barely walk up the stairs because he was so battered and bruised.

the exact same piece was done about 3-4 seasons ago. they just made it seem like it was a new problem in what was perceived to be his final season.

Mosca
06-30-2006, 10:45 AM
It's required to report any amount over $10000 in cash, or any amount of cash that you believe is suspicious. The example given as "suspicious" is when someone asks you "Do you fill out form 8300?" And when you answer yes, they give you $9900 in cash and the rest in a check. But when we were audited, the auditor said to be on the safe side fill out the form for everything over $9000. I only do it if I have genuine concerns. The sacks of bills for that particular purchase was something like $25000. It was pretty obvious. And a person who legitimately works for tips usually has a bank account; I was a Good Humor Man in Pittsburgh for 6 years, and my income was change, ones, and fives; I always deposited it in the bank and wrote checks to pay bills.


Tom

BlacknGold Bleeder
06-30-2006, 12:26 PM
I

The current administration has concocted the neat trick of declaring war on an unconventional enemy, claiming that this war could go on indefinitely and maybe forever, and by extension using that to claim extraordinary executive powers virtually in perpetuity! And that is no longer government of the people, by the people, and for the people; it is government by executive fiat. Believe me, we are not that far from having elections suspended "until the current crisis is over..." which would then be, well, never.


Tom

Hav another sip of Kool-Aid, have you ever seen "Conspiracy Theory":rolleyes:

Mosca
06-30-2006, 12:37 PM
The only part of that that is a stretch is the suspension of elections... the rest of it has already happened while you were waving the flag.


Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-30-2006, 02:14 PM
Just before first day of ground assault durring the Persian Gulf War...We asked what would be our first target...the answer? CNN's ability to broadcast!

And unless we forget...who remembers the troops landing at Somalia ..and the press waiting for them....

Whether through financial networks or all out military invasion...the term "FIRST STRIKE" means having the ability to move instead of making a counter-move.:dang:

I truly fail to see how anyone could fail to see that acting is ALWAYS better than reacting!!

Mosca
06-30-2006, 05:20 PM
I truly fail to see how anyone could fail to see that acting is ALWAYS better than reacting!!

LOL, that's how you get ambushed.

And you are missing the point. No one is saying don't do these things. What I am saying is, get your warrants retroactively. All the previous administrations have. Lay down the trail explaining what you did. If you give the executive unlimited power, he will use it however he pleases... and if you disagree with the aims of the next executive, you might not be happy with the results. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Tom

Maidenarcher
07-01-2006, 07:29 PM
Tom,

When you said,"If you give the executive unlimited power, he will use it however he pleases"...
They do and always will...The government is corrupt to the core.
I really like something else you said too....."There isn't a politician alive in America today, Republican OR Democrat, who would be fit to care for Washington's horses.
I have to give you reps for that...

Also, I appreciate all of you responding to my forum....Although I may not agree with everyone's point of view...I have really enjoyed reading them...It makes you think things from a different point of view.

Mosca
07-01-2006, 08:31 PM
Maidenarcher,

Thank you. I'm actually a pretty conservative guy. But I do not believe in giving one man, or a small cadre of men, complete power AND complete trust to use it wisely.

I work for one of the most conservative congressmen in the House, Rep. Don Sherwood; not in his office, but I run part of one of his businesses. He and I don't see eye to eye on much, but we get along really well. We listen to each other. One thing we DO agree on is that withdrawal from Iraq would be a complete disaster. We have a tiger by the tail, but we can't let go. We have to kill the tiger. That won't be easy, and it won't be quick, and we might not succeed. But we can't let go.


Tom

CAH
07-01-2006, 09:16 PM
The job in Iraq is doing very well. They've voted several times, got a constitution, Iraqis signing in their army in droves and they've taken over many of the jobs our troops handled before. I'd say that is pretty good. After all, our own constitution took longer than that to get ratified.

Keep in mind the Democrats want back in power and they'll say anything to make it look bad for Bush. When the job is done, the troops will come home. Maybe someone knows how long we remained in Germany and Japan after WWII. I know it was pretty long.

Maidenarcher
07-01-2006, 09:20 PM
Maidenarcher,

Thank you. I'm actually a pretty conservative guy. But I do not believe in giving one man, or a small cadre of men, complete power AND complete trust to use it wisely.

I work for one of the most conservative congressmen in the House, Rep. Don Sherwood; not in his office, but I run part of one of his businesses. He and I don't see eye to eye on much, but we get along really well. We listen to each other. One thing we DO agree on is that withdrawal from Iraq would be a complete disaster. We have a tiger by the tail, but we can't let go. We have to kill the tiger. That won't be easy, and it won't be quick, and we might not succeed. But we can't let go.


Tom

I couldn't agree more with you, especially about withdrawing from Iraq...I want nothing more than to bring our soldiers home...However, we do have to kill the tiger...I'm just afraid that it will never end....