NYT and State Secrets

[Mr. Dictionary]

pres·i·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prz-dnt, -dnt)
n.
One appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of people, such as an assembly or meeting.
Abbr. Pres.
The chief executive of a republic.
President The chief executive of the United States, serving as both chief of state and chief political executive.
The chief officer of a branch of government, corporation, board of trustees, university, or similar body.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praesidns, praesident- from present participle of praesidre, to preside. See preside.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
presi·dent·ship n.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


president

A leading decision maker of a company. The president is sometimes the company's chief executive officer.

Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Main Entry: pres·i·dent
Pronunciation: 'pre-z&-d&nt, -"dent
Function: noun
1 : an official chosen to preside over a meeting or assembly
2 : an appointed governor of a subordinate political unit
3 : the chief officer of an organization (as a corporation or ins ution) usually entrusted with the direction and administration of its policies
4 : the presiding officer of a governmental body <the Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate —U.S. Cons ution article I>
5 a : an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic having a presidential government b : an elected official having the position of chief of state but usually only minimal political powers in a republic having a parliamentary government —pres·i·den·tial /"pre-z&-'den-ch&l/ adjective —pres·i·den·tial·ly adverb —pres·i·dent·ship noun

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

president

n 1: an executive officer of a firm or corporation 2: the person who holds the office of head of state of the United States government; "the President likes to jog every morning" [syn: President of the United States, United States President, President, Chief Executive] 3: the chief executive of a republic 4: the officer who presides at the meetings of an organization; "address your remarks to the chairperson" [syn: chairman, chairwoman, chair, chairperson] 5: the head administrative officer of a college or university [syn: prexy] 6: the office of the United States head of state; "a President is elected every four years" [syn: President of the United States, President, Chief Executive]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[Spurminator]

Great, now that the Terrorists know about our wiretappping and transaction monitoring, they're going to stop wiring money and making phone calls. We'll NEVER catch them now!

[xrayzebra]

^^I wont question that newspapers have rights under to Cons ution to publish
stories "against or for" the government.

I will question their "authority" or "right" to give the enemy aid and comfort by
telling them how our government is spying or obtaining information on that enemy.

They, the newspapers, or media, whatever have a responsibility to "protect" their
readership from injury or death or threat of injury or death. Giving the enemy
a heads up on how our government is attempting to do this is not in the best
interest of anyone, especially the public in general.

It is what is called a "compromise of classified information". The Cons ution does
not protect "international" communications. It protects people "within" the
borders of the United States.

Now let us consider something else. What was the NYT real reason for doing this.
They say the public's right to know. I say BS. Their is no inherent right to know
built into the Cons ution. Otherwise, your personal business could not be your
personal business.

The real truth of the matter, which I hate, is that ever aspect of American life
has been politicized. Not by Republicans or Democrats but by politicians and you
as a reporter should know that. I have dealt with many reporters in my time.
I had a complaint from one, one time, and he complained he couldn't get some
information because someone wouldn't stop what they were doing and attend to
him and was told to get out of the way. I ask him, how would you like for me
to come to your desk, rummage through it, look at everything. He stated he
wouldn't like it. I said there is your answer. Don't go to their workplace and
expect anything different. I have rambled and may not have answered you question.
If so accept my apologize. I take it you work for the San Angelo Standard Times.
A very good newspaper. Had some very good reporters many years ago.

[Crookshanks]

The NYT overriding motivation behind this story was not "the public's right to know." It was their overwhelming hatred of Bush and all things conservative and their rabid desire to do anything and everything to give this administration a black eye.

And they don't care if it helps the terrorists and costs American lives - and they wonder why their circulation numbers are down! Subversive idiots!!

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

^^I wont question that newspapers have rights under to Cons ution to publish
stories "against or for" the government.

I will question their "authority" or "right" to give the enemy aid and comfort by
telling them how our government is spying or obtaining information on that enemy.

They, the newspapers, or media, whatever have a responsibility to "protect" their
readership from injury or death or threat of injury or death. Giving the enemy
a heads up on how our government is attempting to do this is not in the best
interest of anyone, especially the public in general.

It is what is called a "compromise of classified information". The Cons ution does
not protect "international" communications. It protects people "within" the
borders of the United States.

Now let us consider something else. What was the NYT real reason for doing this.
They say the public's right to know. I say BS. Their is no inherent right to know
built into the Cons ution. Otherwise, your personal business could not be your
personal business.

The real truth of the matter, which I hate, is that ever aspect of American life
has been politicized. Not by Republicans or Democrats but by politicians and you
as a reporter should know that. I have dealt with many reporters in my time.
I had a complaint from one, one time, and he complained he couldn't get some
information because someone wouldn't stop what they were doing and attend to
him and was told to get out of the way. I ask him, how would you like for me
to come to your desk, rummage through it, look at everything. He stated he
wouldn't like it. I said there is your answer. Don't go to their workplace and
expect anything different. I have rambled and may not have answered you question.
If so accept my apologize. I take it you work for the San Angelo Standard Times.
A very good newspaper. Had some very good reporters many years ago.

No apologies are necessary. I know what you're trying to get at.

As far as that reporter story goes, nobody has to do anything for us and you're right. All we ask is access to the same information that everyday Joe off the street has. I've seen reporters that have complexes and they're a problem, without a doubt.

I also know that there is a ton of politicizing of everyday issues and that's why the country is as polarized as it is.

My question to you is, and kind of a reply, what info did the NYT give out that wasn't already known.

"One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses. The theory here is straightforward: If we have good tools to fight street crime and fraud, law enforcement should have the same tools to fight terrorism."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050609-2.html

The gov't is telling us about the programs. The gov't is telling the terrorists that we're watching them.

I hate to say it (and I pray to God this isn't taken the wrong way), but a terrorist that doesn't think he's being watched/monitored is a pretty stupid terrorist.

All people are asking for (sane ones, at least) is that the Executive Branch of our government go through the law. Allow the Judicial Branch to check the Executive, which is what they are supposed to do, and it's all good.

Follow the legalities and follow the do ent that our way of life was born on.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

The NYT overriding motivation behind this story was not "the public's right to know." It was their overwhelming hatred of Bush and all things conservative and their rabid desire to do anything and everything to give this administration a black eye.

And they don't care if it helps the terrorists and costs American lives - and they wonder why their circulation numbers are down! Subversive idiots!!

Actually...

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

And it's generally accepted that newspaper circulation numbers are declining bcause people are getting their information from multiple mediums - including the internet, which most newspapers have failed in capitalizing on.

Think about it this way, I live in San Angelo. It is impossible to get a same-day issue of major national newspapers in this city, save for USA Today.

I've tried to subscribe to the NYT, the Washington Post, the Dallas Morning News, the Christian Science Monitor.

I can't.

Where do I go? To online editions, which do not count in daily/Sunday circulation numbers.

[xrayzebra]

^^Legalities were followed. What did they tell the terrorists. Well for one thing
SWIFT. Did they know that, I don't know. Nor do you.

They do now. How will help them. Like you say, they aren't dummies by any means.
So they will/may deal with people who use other means of transferring funds.

What I am driving at, is that that our methods were disclosed. Yes, they knew
we were watching money transfers, but may not have known how.

I have no problem with our government monitoring aspects of our life. I have
nothing to hide. And proper oversight was being done. Congress, or key members
of Congress, were informed and briefed of what was occurring. Nothing was
done in secret in the true meaning of the word. No information gathered has
been used to injure an American citizen to my knowledge.

The operation was kept secret from public view, but not by one branch of government.

My point being. Yes the terrorist know we are trying to keep tabs on them
in every aspect. How we are doing it is the secret, not that we are attempting
to do it. The methods are what kills the program. NYT gave details.

[fyatuk]

"certain information"

Go head and check mine since it's so easy.

You should be able to get it with a name, address, and fee, or social security number and fee.

Your credit report is checked by about 15 companies a year without your permission because they want to know if you are the type of person they want to market to. Most of those are listed on your credit report (their version of letting you know).

Address history and most other records can be obtained for processing fees thanks to the Freedom of Information Act.

Any PI worth his salt can pull all pertinant information on an individual in a few hours, for less than $100 cost to them.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep.

It's asinine to think a terrorist would think the government wouldn't check on these things -- especially when Bushie told them he would.

[boutons_]

head's recurrent wet dream for US media:

===========================

June 26, 2006

China Weighs Fines for Reports on 'Sudden Events'

By JOSEPH KAHN

BEIJING, June 26 — Chinese media outlets will be fined up to $12,500 each time they report on "sudden events" without prior authorization from government officials, according to a draft law under review by the Communist Party-controlled legislature.

The law, revealed today in most state-run newspapers, would give government officials a powerful new tool to restrict coverage of mass outbreaks of disease, riots, strikes, accidents and other events that the authorities prefer to keep secret. Officials in charge of propaganda already exercise considerable sway over the Chinese media, but their power tends to be informal, not codified in law.

Although more than 100 million Chinese have access to the Internet and hundreds of commercially driven newspapers, magazines and television stations provide a much wider selection of news and information than was available in the recent past. As a result, Chinese authorities have also sought fresh ways to curtail reporting on topics and events they consider harmful to social and political stability.

Editors and journalists say they receive constant bulletins from the Propaganda Department forbidding reporting on an ever-expanding list of taboo topics, including "sudden events." But a few leading newspapers and magazines occasionally defy such informal edicts. They may find it more costly to ignore the rules if they risked being assessed financial penalties.

The draft, under consideration by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, was described in outline by newspapers today.

It says that newspapers, magazines, news Web sites and television stations should face fines ranging from $6,250 to $12,500 each time they publish information about a sudden event "without authorization" or publish "fake news" about such events.

While state media did not offer a definition of "sudden events," in the past they have included natural disasters, major accidents, public health or social safety incidents.

Journalists say local authorities are likely to interpret broadly, giving officials leeway to restrict coverage of any social and political disturbance that they consider embarrassing, like demonstrations over land seizures, environmental pollution or corruption.

Last fall, the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets removed some information about natural disasters, including the death toll, from a list of topics that government agencies had the power to treat as official secrets. The move was viewed positively at the time as an attempt to provide the public with more timely and accurate information about such disasters.

The declassification came after central and local government authorities initially covered up the SARS respiratory epidemic in 2003. Health authorities later acknowledged that the cover-up made the SARS outbreak more severe.

The new law would appear to undercut the spirit of that revision, forcing journalists and editors to seek prior approval before writing about disease outbreaks.

"The way the draft law stands now it could give too much power to local officials to determine that someone has violated the law," said Yu Guoming, a professor of journalism at People's University in Beijing.

Mr. Yu said he hoped the legislature would review the draft and make its terms "much more specific" to avoid heavy new restrictions on media freedom.

Others suggested that the impact on the press might be mixed.

The new law could make it easier to punish media outlets for even routine reporting. But it also sets a limit on the fine that can be accessed for each violation. Major media outlets could clearly afford to risk a fine if they felt the value of the news in question warranted coverage.

Moreover, the fines could presumably be challenged in court, making them a more active forum in the future for deciding the limits of media controls in the country, a legal expert said.

====================

head would also upgrade the above to throw the journalists and their editors in Gitmo or extraordinarily renditioned to Morocco or Egypt or Eastern Europe.

[Crookshanks]

head would also upgrade the above to throw the journalists and their editors in Gitmo or extraordinarily renditioned to Morocco or Egypt or Eastern Europe.

Ding, Ding, we have a winner!! Can we make it retroactive?

[DarkReign]

Great, now that the Terrorists know about our wiretappping and transaction monitoring, they're going to stop wiring money and making phone calls. We'll NEVER catch them now!

/sarcasm

[Nbadan]

I think Xray has been writing the Denver Post again:

esponse to killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq

Re: "Soldiers' bodies found; deaths were 'barbaric,"' June 21 news story.

Why have those who have continually howled at our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo met the recent kidnapping and sadistic and brutal murders of our two young soldiers with deafening silence? Where is your outrage now? Not only should we behead 100 prisoners in retaliation (complete with Web-posted snuff videos), but also the editors, commentators, college professors and left-wing congressmen who would suddenly break their silence to come out in support of these enemy jihadists. We need to stop listening to these sanctimonious hypocrites who apply the rules of war only to our side. Let us untie the hands of our troops and allow them to fight and win.

Dave Petteys, Littleton

Denver Post

Believe it or not, this hate-filled editorial was written by a student from Columbine High School.

[Nbadan]

Bernie Ward, defending the NY Times, smacks down a wingnut talk show host: He storms off the set!

[Gerryatrics]

Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

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 bersome 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

[fyatuk]

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.

Wonder if he realizes he implies there are illegal programs...

[Nesterofish]

Hey, I have a great idea. Let's let the NYT publish sotries about tropp movements. The public has a right to know. Oh wait, that's treason. This is too.

[boutons_]

"doesn't sound like keller knows what he's talking about"

The bold statements are coherent

Terror financiers use cash movement, just like drug gangs, (because they know EFT is traceable) but it's very difficult compared to EFT. In the cocaine 80s and early 90s the Federal Reserve in South Florida was inundated with billions in excess cash, due to drug trafficking and cash laundering thru Miami.

Banks have been required to report EFT movements of $10K+ for a couple decades, IIRC. Financial instruments of $10K+ must be declared at US customs. Terrists worth anything already know all these US and intl banking rules.

The NYT exposing the dubya EFT snooping doesn't tell the terrists anything they didn't already know, so no more US troops dead.

However, starting a bogus war DOES waste US troops, but the conservative knee-jerk high-dudgeon chorus remains silent about ACTUAL US military blood on dubya/ head's hands.

[xrayzebra]

the new york times is a lefty leftist rag written, edited and read by lefty leftists

nyt supports terrorism, hates freedom and doesn't even like the marines!

So it seems, so it seems.

[Crookshanks]

OH, THE HYPOCRISY OF THE NYT!!!
================================================== ========

Reader Douglas Rose has drawn our attention to this September 24, 2001 New York Times editorial ("Finances of Terror") (access limited to TimesSelect):

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.

Osama bin Laden originally rose to prominence because his inherited fortune allowed him to bankroll Arab volunteers fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Since then, he has acquired funds from a panoply of Islamic charities and illegal and legal businesses, including export-import and commodity trading firms, and is estimated to have as much as $300 million at his disposal.

Some of these businesses move funds through major commercial banks that lack the procedures to monitor such transactions properly. Locally, terrorists can utilize tiny unregulated storefront financial centers, including what are known as hawala banks, which people in South Asian immigrant communities in the United States and other Western countries use to transfer money abroad. Though some smaller financial transactions are likely to slip through undetected even after new rules are in place, much of the financing needed for major attacks could dry up.

Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial ins utions based in these nations. The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them.

The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "s banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws. Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.

New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.

If America is going to wage a war against terrorism, it must indeed act on all fronts. In 2006, it needs to act on the home front and direct its attention to those whose war on the administration is unconstrained by the espionage laws of the United States.

Posted by Scott at 06:47 AM

Isn't this just like most libs? and moan that the Bush administration is not doing enough - then and moan even more when they do like you ask!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Wake me when the indictments are sent to the papers who ran the story.

[boutons_]

"The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity"

Anybody seen these new laws? Any new regulations?

In context of this particular lying, incompetent WH, "just trust us (to whatever the we want to do in ing secret" has long been totally unaccpetable.

[exstatic]

The only people responsible for getting Marines killed look an awful lot like Bush and Cheney when they face a mirror.

[Ocotillo]

This is a non-story that the Republicans are stoking because it excites their base. The terrorists have long been aware this was going on and the administration has bragged of it in the past. The Rethugs are really trying to rally the base, gay marriage, flag burning, illegal immigrant hordes and now the NY Times. Can a Hillary attack be far behind?

[boutons_]