Reply With Quote
Hey, dont direct it at me. RG thinks you have him on ignore. So I quoted his post so that you could see it (i thought his point was valid).
Dont look at me like I am going to defend his position. I would fail miserably.
Okay, fine...
Where did the NYTimes article question the administration's motives? Seriously, what was the purpose of running the story on SWIFT? They admit it was legal and it was effective. What possible public interest outweighed disclosing a legal and effective counter-terrorism program?
Hey, dont direct it at me. RG thinks you have him on ignore. So I quoted his post so that you could see it (i thought his point was valid).
Dont look at me like I am going to defend his position. I would fail miserably.
I do have RG on ignore. I was addressing one of his points.
How will you know if he responds?
I don't care if he responds; I did it for the benefit of Dark Reign who, because he thought a valid point had been made, saw fit to quote Random Guy and bait me with the statement, "no more ignore."
By the way, DR; which point was valid?
Last edited by Yonivore; 07-06-2006 at 01:57 PM.
Im sorry, I did say "point". I should have said "question".
[RG]
Where DO you draw the line on the executive branchs' powers?
Unlimited detention without trials of US citizens deemed "enemy combatants"?
Torture?
[/RG]
The line is drawn by the U. S. Cons ution and the disagreements should be handled by the courts, not the media.
Where do you draw the line for unelected, non-government outlets such as the New York Times to make determinations on what should be kept secret?
Because, as the Supreme Court pointed out in the Pentagon Papers case, the government has no authority to exercise prior restraint on the media; but, at the same time, the media has no authority to publish in violation of statutes that would prohibit such revelations.
In other words, the government can't stop you from violating the law by publishing secrets but, they can prosecute you.
"but, they can prosecute you."
As with both Nixon and the current head, the decision to prosecute will be a personal or political issue, NOT a national security issue.
What if the government chooses to keep something secret that is highly illegal, and that a vast majority of Americans might object to?
Like selling weapons to Iran?
Does the press THEN have the right to tell us?
Or should illegal acts be shielded by arbitrary secrecy as well?
Aren't the American people themselves the ultimate authority on what is best for us?
I find it highly ironic that someone who probably hates paying taxes "at the barrel of a gun", would suddenly turn around and trust the same government with his rights.
The government of china thinks that keeping information on pollution or AIDS is a state secret and regularly jails its citizens for speaking out about such things.
Do we give our government the same kinds of powers to wave their hands and say "this is secret" (because we find it embarassing)?
How can "the courts" actually draw the line if the executive branch can wave its magic secrecy wand and deny access to enough information for the courts to reach a ruling?
What if the government chooses to keep something secret that is highly illegal, and that a vast majority of Americans might object to?
Like selling weapons to Iran?
Does the press THEN have the right to tell us?
Aren't the American people themselves the ultimate authority on what is best for us? If we don't know about the government spying on us, how can we give consent?
Or should illegal acts be shielded by arbitrary secrecy as well?
The government of china thinks that keeping information on pollution or AIDS is a state secret and regularly jails its citizens for speaking out about such things.
Do we give our government the same kinds of powers to wave their hands and say "this is secret" (because we find it embarassing)?
How can "the courts" actually draw the line if the executive branch can wave its magic secrecy wand and deny access to enough information for the courts to reach a ruling?
Ignored no more
Believe.
Position: Volatile Forward
Team: San Antonio Spurs
vBookie Cash: $500
Post Count: 1
Is the SWIFT program illegal?
No, they shouldn't be able to keep crimes secret.
Was the SWIFT program illegal?
How do you tell only those Americans that won't betray the country? Besides, we elect our government to act in our best interest. If you force the government to debate every decision with 300 million Americans before they take action, we're toast. That's why we're a Representative Republic and not a true Democracy.
Actually, you have given consent...in the form of the various legislations, passed by your elected representatives, and enacted by your elected President, that allow for various types of warrantless searches and seizures of varying significance.
Disagreements over the reach and authority of these laws is settled by the courts, not by public opinion.
Your characterization of "arbitrary" is not supported by any facts. I think the secrecy of the SWIFT and the NSA Programs was carefully considered and supported by the administration.
I still don't hear any Congressmen screaming for a halt to any of these programs. They only cry about potential abuses for which there is no evidence.
Is scoring political partisan points against a President you hate worth compromising valuable intelligence assets?
Nope. And, none of the programs leaked to the NYTimes are of that nature.
Where has this occurred?
Back on ignore.
You continue to insist on that as truth, but there continues to be debate over the President's rather troubling (and unprecedented) claim that Article II was somehow the trump card that made the NSA Surveillance program legal (cons utional). I realize that your strategy in taking a position on that program is to ignore the well-reasoned counter-arguments as the fanatical ravings of those who do nothing other than oppose this President, but for those who bring even a marginally objective mind to the issue, it's far from settled in any legal sense.
If you're sincere about allowing courts to decide if governmental programs are legal and sincere about your belief that government should not be able to hide its illegal acts from the press, you'd have to concede, I think, that the press acts well within its purview to expose programs that might be illegal so that legality in those situations might be challenged in the courts. Otherwise, you create a very handy little Catch-22 -- new programs that have not yet been declared illegal shall not be exposed, making it highly unlikely that their legality will ever be litigated because they've not been exposed.
WWXRAYZEBRAD?
Funny you should mention the NSA program of ignoring the courts to do wiretapping at will.
This is pretty straightforward. We are a nation of laws and the President is ignoring those laws because "wants to".
Here is the Law that Bush ordered broken, because he felt like it and the penalties that are proscribed for it...
The Law
The penaltya)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
Bush's alarmingly aberrant take on the Cons ution is ironic. One need go back in the record less than a decade to find prominent Republicans railing against far more minor presidential legal infractions as precursors to all-out totalitarianism. "I will have no part in the creation of a cons utional double-standard to benefit the president," Sen. Bill Frist declared of Bill Clinton's efforts to conceal an illicit sexual liaison. "No man is above the law, and no man is below the law -- that's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country," Rep. Tom DeLay asserted. "The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door," warned Rep. Henry Hyde, one of Clinton's chief accusers. In the face of Bush's more definitive dismissal of federal law, the silence from these quarters is deafening. (recent rolling stone article)[/QUOTE]LE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1809 Prev | Next
§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.
Last edited by Ignore-o-tron; 07-07-2006 at 07:51 AM.
what is an executive order?
[/QUOTE]
I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. You quote a law
that gives Bush or any President the authority to use electronic
surveillance and then turn around say he broke the law.
What am I missing?
Reports are out this morning that the FBI has foiled a terrorist plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel in NY City and send a deluge of water into parts of Manhatten.
Most disturbing is this terrorist action here in the US has all the characteristics of having been stopped using the very same programs the NY Times has crippled in its mindless and treasonous attacks on the Bush administration.
Monitoring communications includes monitoring the overseas access to internet chat rooms. One can see the now exposed monitoring of the terrorists’ finances and NSA monitoring of overseas terrorists in the information being provided - meaning they may have had to act now because the terrorists were adjusting their tactics:
The tactical support is going to come through communications. The plot could have easily been initially detected when this “lone wolf” made contact with the Jordanian terrorists who could have been under NSA surveillance. Since the FBI is involved, the next logical sequence of events would be the NSA providing the lead to the FBI who then took it to the FISA court to make the person the target of surveillance here in the US once they decided it was a serious enough of a threat. It seems clear the authorities had to move before they wanted to for some reason or another:
U.S. agents were allowed to take part in the interrogation of Andalousli, a source said.
There were three ongoing investigations that were impacted by the NY Times’ traitorous exposure of the SWIFT program which was used to track terrorists cells around the world (not here in the US, by the way). It is highly possible the terrorists were adapting and disappearing from the radar screens of the international law enforcement agencies, so action now was required. The word ’scrambling’ is not something we want to see when dealing with terrorist threats.
Is the NY Times a danger to Americans in its lust for money and partisan payback on Bush? I’ll let you decide whether they think so based on the plans of these terrorists:
The efforts to try and play this down by anyone, but especially by the left, is abhorent. Picture you and your family driving through a tunnel or under a bridge when terrorists try this kind of action. Even localized death and destruction is unacceptable losses. If NY City needed a reminder of the stakes the NY Times is playing with (their Pulitzers vs NYC lives) there is no better example. Just imagine if this had slipped by because we had been blinded to the terrorist’s actions.
So, now we know why NY Rep Peter King was so angry at the NY Times when they published the SWIFT story. And we have more proof that authorities may have had to move quicker than they wanted to (losing leads to other terrorist support chains) due to the NY Times:
We can all thank the egomaniacs at the NY Times for this mess.
And, now, CNN is reporting this group of international terrorists had been under investigation for a year or more, meaning this definitely predates the NY Times SWIFT and NSA stories.
That means the NY Times stories exposing our anti-terrorism defences did threaten this ongoing investigation. We have the NSA monitoring the overseas communications (and probably the overseas chat room), and then we have the FBI following the leads to the jihadists here. And there was financial tracking from elements in Jordan. How is the NY Times going to dismiss the fact this investigation was definitely at risk of being lost through their carelessness and cavalier at udes?
I hope Sulzberger and Miller rot in .
"NY Times stories exposing our anti-terrorism defences did threaten this ongoing investigation"
total reaching bull .
For the millionth time, terrorists already knew SWIFT and almost any other financial conduits were being monitored, at least since the 1980s for drug and tax evasion. Pussy eater insults and under-estimates the intelligence and discipline terrorists have demonstrated.
I use to think pussy licker was intelligent, serious, but just wrong, but now his desperate reaching to justify Iraq with trivial rat that doesn't add up to 2500+ US military dead and a $1T wasted, nor the incompetence of the Iraq war, is quickly changing "intelligent" to typical right-wing dumb .
Expect more bogus announcements like the Miami 7 and the NY tunnel plots to accelerate in the run up to November mid-terms, as Rove and the Repugs run on their "national security record" while slandering the Dems as traitors, and hoping people forget the WTC attack occurred under the national security responsiblity of the Repugs.
Nice of you to skip over and not address the remainder of my post but, that's okay.
Now, when I said, "Nope. And, none of the programs leaked to the NYTimes are of that nature," to which your above diatribe purports to respond, I was referring to your previous assertion that keeping the NSA and SWIFT programs a secret was akin to, in your words:
It is my response that No, the government wasn't keeping these programs secret because they represented an embarrassment to the government but, that they were keeping them secret because their disclosure would aid the enemy.
I see the distinction...maybe you don't. I can't speak to your intellect.
As for your response above, I think the security of the nation requires this debate -- whatever its merits -- to be had after hostilities are over unless you or anyone else can produce an American citizen that was harmed by the execution of these vital intelligence programs...which have probably saved untold American lives, including those who would have been in the Holland Tunnel when the terrorists, thwarted this week (by such programs), executed their plot.
And, along that same line of reasoning, let me add some thoughts regarding the Supreme Court's actions during a time of war. Referring to The Los Angeles Times column by Boalt Hall Professor John Yoo on the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision: "The high court's Hamdan power grab." Yoo writes:
I challenge anyone to point to a time when the Supreme Court has acted in such a manner as this.
Charles Krauthammer's column complements Yoo's: "Emergency over, saith the Court." I guess the Holland Tunnel plotters didn't get the memo.
And, At NRO, Matthew Franck adds an important qualification to Krauthammer's column regarding the damage the Court did in Hamdan.
Last edited by Yonivore; 07-07-2006 at 11:25 AM.
Frankly, the part I quoted was the only part that was relevant to the point I was making.
I didn't post the other matters that you attribute to me in the remainder of your "response," so I have no idea why it is that you are trying to argue with me about those things. My point, stated simply, is that there is an inherent (and eventually irresolvable) tension between your claimed willingness to let the courts sort out the legality of particular programs and your apparent unwillingness to recognize the Cons utional right of the press to report matters that it is perfectly legal to report.
The legality of the NSA program has been anything but conclusively established -- despite your willingness to ignore the arguments that run contrary to yours. I've never once postulated that the NSA program was intended to be kept secret because it was potentially embarassing -- that would be a facile argument, I think.
I have, however, consistently hypothesized that there are at least facets of the NSA program that are uncons utional. The arguable uncons utionality of those parts of the program would seem, according to your own admissions, to give the NYT a perfect right to report on a potentially illegal program.
My post simply posited that if you think it's somehow unjustifiable to report that program under those cir stances, you've created a Catch-22 in which information embargoes are favored over free reporting. That strikes me as being an hetical to the First Amendment.
That's where your premise fails.
It's not perfectly legal to report on national secrets. There's a law against it.
The New York Times did worse. They reported secrets they merely thought might be abused -- without providing any proof that they were.
In an earlier post, I agreed that the government had no authority to exercise prior restraint on the media; however, the media had no authority to violate the law either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions