Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Stop the Leaks

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Calabrio

Stop the Leaks
By The National Review Online Editors

Every passing week, it becomes more apparent that disgruntled leftists in the intelligence community and antiwar crusaders in the mainstream media, annealed in their disdain for the Bush administration, are undermining our ability to win the War on Terror. Their latest body blow to the war effort is the exposure, principally by the New York Times, of the Treasury Department’s top-secret program to monitor terror funding.

President Bush, who said on Monday morning that the exposure “does great harm to the United States of America,” must demand that the New York Times pay a price for its costly, arrogant defiance. The administration should withdraw the newspaper’s White House press credentials because this privilege has been so egregiously abused, and an aggressive investigation should be undertaken to identify and prosecute, at a minimum, the government officials who have leaked national-defense information.

The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) was initiated soon after the 9/11 attacks. It ingeniously focuses on the hub of interlocking systems that facilitate global money transfers. The steward of that hub, centered in Brussels, is the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or “SWIFT.” SWIFT is an organization of the world’s financial giants, including the national banks of Belgium, England, and Japan, the European Central Bank, and the U.S. Federal Reserve. SWIFT, however, is not a bank. It’s a clearinghouse that manages message traffic pursuant to international transfers of funds.

Intelligence about those communications implicates no legally recognized privacy interests. To begin with, they are predominantly foreign, and international. To the extent the U.S. Constitution might be thought to apply, the Supreme Court held nearly 30 years ago that records in the hands of third parties — including financial records maintained by banks — are not private, and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, to the extent Congress later supplemented privacy protections by statute, those laws regulated disclosures by financial institutions. SWIFT is not a financial institution.

Despite this legal daylight, the Bush administration has gone out of its way to defer to privacy concerns. Assuming that American law applied, it obtained SWIFT information by administrative subpoena. It carefully narrowed its scrutiny to those transacting with suspected terrorists. It concurred with its international partners that the resulting intelligence should be used only for counterterrorism and security purposes—not for prosecutions of ordinary crimes (even though such prosecutions would be legal under American law). And it agreed to subject the TFTP to independent auditing to ensure that the effort was trained on terrorists.

By all accounts, the program has been a ringing success. The administration maintains that the TFTP has been central to mapping terror cells and their tentacles, and to shutting off their funding spigot. It has resulted in at least one major domestic prosecution for providing material support to al Qaeda. It has also led to the apprehension of one of the jihad’s most insulated and ruthless operatives, Jemaah Islamiya’s Riduan Isamuddin, who is tied to the 2002 Bali bombing.

But as has happened with other crucial counterterrorism tools — such as the NSA’s program to monitor the enemy’s international communications, which the New York Times exposed, and the CIA’s arrangements for our allies to detain high-level Qaeda operatives, which the Washington Post compromised — the TFTP’s existence was disclosed to the Times and other newspapers by anonymous government officials, in violation of their legal obligation to maintain secrecy. The Bush administration pleaded with the newspapers not to publish what they had learned. But these requests, rooted in the national-security interests of the United States, were rebuffed. The Times, along with the Los Angeles Times (which also rejected a government request not to publish) and the Wall Street Journal, ran stories exposing the program. Yes, the public was being protected. Yes, terrorists trying to kill Americans were being brought to heel. Yes, it appears the program is legal. And yes, it appears the Bush administration made various accommodations out of respect for international opinion and privacy concerns. Despite all that, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller concluded that “the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.”

It is a matter of interest mainly to al Qaeda. The terrorists will now adapt. They will find new ways of transferring funds, and precious lines of intelligence will be lost. Murderers will get the resources they need to carry out their grisly business. As for the real public interest, it lies primarily in safety — and what the Times has ensured is that the public today is less safe.

Success in defeating the terrorists at war with us is dependent on good intelligence. Without obtaining it and keeping it secret, the government can’t even find the dots, much less connect them. If the compromising of our national-security secrets continues, terrorists will thrive and Americans will die. It has to be stopped.

The New York Times is a recidivist offender in what has become a relentless effort to undermine the intelligence-gathering without which a war against embedded terrorists cannot be won. And it is an unrepentant offender. In a letter published over the weekend, Keller once again defended the newspaper’s editorial decision to run its TFTP story. Without any trace of perceiving the danger inherent in public officials’ compromising of national-security information (a matter that the Times frothed over when it came to the comparative trifle of Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee), Keller indicated that the Times would continue revealing such matters whenever it unilaterally decided that doing so was in the public interest.

The president should match this morning’s tough talk with concrete action. Publications such as the Times, which act irresponsibly when given access to secrets on which national security depends, should have their access to government reduced. Their press credentials should be withdrawn. Reporting is surely a right, but press credentials are a privilege. This kind of conduct ought not be rewarded with privileged access.

Moreover, the Justice Department must be more aggressive than it has been in investigating national-security leaks. While prosecution of the press for publishing information helpful to the enemy in wartime would be controversial, pursuit of the government officials who leak it is not. At the very least, members of the media who report such information must be made to understand that the government will no longer regard them as immune from questioning when it investigates the leakers. They should be compelled to reveal their sources, on pain of contempt.

* * *
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...QzZmUwZjJhZjI=

Posted by: fordtechguru

keller is one of these guys who has no pride, lets the neighbors dog

in his yard for fear of confrontation, and bitches behind closed doors to his wife about how he feels.... until he gets to work where he can get back at his f-uped life by selling out his country and the men sent to represent it... before he knows all the details....looooser...... heartfelt thank you to all servicemen and women in this site for believing in our country and doing what was asked of you, without knowing all the details....we stand proud...

Posted by: fossten

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

New York Times Article Aids and Abets Terrorism

David Limbaugh
Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Would the New York Times pubish our nuclear launch codes if it acquired access to them because it "may be ... a matter of public interest"?

The Bush administration pleaded with the New York Times not to publish its story revealing the existence of a secret government program to track the financial transactions of international terrorists.

The program, headed by the CIA and overseen by the Treasury Department, is known as the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" (TFTP) and was begun shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Under it, government officials trace the international financial transactions of those with suspected ties to al-Qaida by examing data – only after obtaining an administrative subpoena – of the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

SWIFT is not a financial institution but a Belgian cooperative owned by more than 2,200 organizations that oversees the routing of funds between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The CIA, under the TFTP, examines mainly wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Under the program, for example, the CIA could track funds from a personal bank account of a suspected terrorist in Jordan to a mosque in Philadelphia.

It does not examine most routine financial transactions confined to the United States. The government uses the data for terrorism investigations only, not such things as tax fraud or drug trafficking investigations.

According to legal experts, TFTP is not remotely illegal. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the right to privacy does not extend to protect information in the hands of third parties, such as SWIFT, involving financial transactions. Nor do the provisions of the 1978 Right to Financial Privacy Act apply, because SWIFT is not a financial institution.

TFTP has been a very successful tool in the war on terror and has been an important part of the administration's promise, shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a financial component among its "weapons" to fight terrorists. TFTP led to the capture of the al-Qaida operative known as "Hambali," who is believed to have planned the bombing of a Bali resort in 2002. It also led to the prosecution and conviction of Uzair Paracha, a Brooklyn man, on terrorism-related charges, for laundering $200,000 through a Karachi bank to assist an al-Qaida terrorist in Pakistan.

The Times admitted that administration officials asked it not to disclose the existence of TFTP and even "enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value." (The White House had briefed officials from both parties on the program.) The government warned that disclosing the program would alert terrorists to its existence and severely compromise it. But the Times, in its omniscience and omnipotence, wasn't impressed and published the article anyway.

The paper's exective editor, Bill Keller, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial date, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

So what might be a matter of public interest is sufficient to outweigh what will certainly be a detriment to the public interest? Under Keller's definition, would any classified information coming into the press's hands ever be off-limits from public disclosure no matter how damaging to the national interest or dangerous to American lives?

If the mainstream media truly have this attitude toward the publication of highly classified government secrets, we have no choice but to tighten existing laws – assuming they're not sufficiently tight now – to criminalize such disclosures by the press. The First Amendment is not absolute. Everyone is well aware of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' admonition in Schenck v. United States that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."

Well, this is a case where the Times has done worse than yelling "fire." It has given al-Qaida a book of matches with ignition fuel. It is no exaggeration to say that under the false pretense that the public is entitled to this information, the Times has aided and abetted our terrorist enemies in the war on terror. Its actions in exposing this program might very well result in the loss of American lives through attacks that could have been prevented had the existence of the program not been disclosed to the enemy. If so, blood will be on the Times' vainglorious hands.

Posted by: MAC1

Clearly, there was absolutely no public interest served by the New York Times publishing classified information. Suffice it to say, it’s clear the New York Times is a liberal newspaper with a liberal agenda whose main goal is to damage the Bush administration at all costs even if it means sacrificing national security and the health, safety and welfare of the American people. What a disgrace!

The person who wrote the story and the editor who allowed it to be published should be prosecuted for treason.

Posted by: MonsterMark

I want to hear all the liberals whine how Bush is looking at their bank accounts.

That is why the NYT ran the story. Just another gotcha attempt by the losers on the Left.

F'n pieces of crap at the New York Times.

A whole hell of a lot of foreign countries are going to be less forthright in their communications with us because they know our drive-by-media and many within our own government cannot be trusted.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

A whole hell of a lot of foreign countries are going to be less forthright in their communications with us because they know our drive-by-media and many within our own government cannot be trusted.

This is true. The Bush administration needs to identify the enemies within our midst and then study Lincoln’s and Washington’s strategies of dealing with traitors. If the New York Times would have disclosed Union secrets during the Civil War, Lincoln would have put the writer and editor in jail. Washington, on the other hand, would have shot them on site. While I’m not advocating shooting anyone, at least without first a trial and guilty verdict, but clearly the Bush administration needs to take action that will put traitors on notice.

Posted by: fossten

Revoke their press credentials.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC1

The person who wrote the story and the editor who allowed it to be published should be prosecuted for treason.

As typical, the RWWs knee-jerk reaction to something like this is to fire at anything that moves and ask questions later, rather than strategically selecting THE CORRECT target:

Quote:

Publications such as the Times, which act irresponsibly when given access to secrets on which national security depends, should have their access to government reduced.

WFT is the PRESS/MSM doing with access to TOP SECRET info??? If all these programs that are being "exposed" by the NYT/MSM are "classified", I highly doubt NYT/MSM employees and reporters actually have access to this info FIRST HAND. That means there are government employees with TOP SECRET classified clearances that are leaking this to the press. How is shooting the messenger going to stop this if you have "spys" on the inside of the government's halls with access to this? Seems to me that what the governement agencies responsible for controlling access to this info need to do is audit their OWN EMPLOYEES for the leaks, that is going to be the ONLY way to put a "Stop to the Leaks".

Shoot the messenger (NYT) and 5 more will line up with their hands out. Plug the leaker and then you have a chance at stopping the leaks.

But I have the feeling that somehow you'll find a way to blame this on Clinton.

Posted by: MonsterMark

For Left winger consumption....

Go do a search on the New York Times...

You find an editorial dated Sept 24, 2001 entitled FINANCES OF TERROR.

Read the article. There is no way I will pay to cut and paste it here. Wouldn't give the NYT the sweat of my you-know-what.

I know it will make those of you on the Right vomit and those of you on the Left will just yawn.

I want a Democrat in the White House and I want this country to be severely attacked. i know it sounds bad but that is what it is going to take to get 50% of the people in this country to finally get their heads out of their asses.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I want a Democrat in the White House and I want this country to be severely attacked. i know it sounds bad but that is what it is going to take to get 50% of the people in this country to finally get their heads out of their asses.

Hmmm, sounds like an in-house conspiracy to seize total control through fear...

Posted by: Calabrio

The New York Times

September 24, 2001 Monday Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 30 LENGTH: 545 words HEADLINE: Finances of Terror

Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. [snip] Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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.

[snip]

If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.

Posted by: Calabrio

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 institutions 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 "shell 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: 97silverlsc

Bush Confused About Leaks
By Larry C. Johnson
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062806J.shtml

Wednesday 28 June 2006

Bull

alert! After watching George Bush and Dick Cheney weep and wail over the "damage" done by the New York Times for reporting that financial data is being dumped into the CIA as part of an effort to find terrorist networks, I kept waiting for Darryl Hannah to pop up and say, "Live, from New York, it's Saturday Night." Does George have Alzheimer's Disease? Has he forgotten that he used to love the New York Times? The only thing funnier is that most of the mainstream media is reporting the antics of these clowns as straight up news.

I guess Bush and Cheney decided that leaks to the New York Times were no longer kosher when their go to girl, Judith Miller, got canned. Of course, Judy wasn't the only member of the now "traitorous" New York Times to benefit from White House largesse. Doug Jehl published a piece on August 2, 2004, that exposed an Al Qaeda informant:

The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials.

The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages.

A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information. But the official said "documentary evidence" found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday.

The White House also used the New York Times to spread lies about the state of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Remember the September 8, 2002, piece by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller? They reported that:

More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.

In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.

The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months.

And who can forget that Vice President Cheney instructed his chief of staff, the intrepid Scooter Libby, to leak misleading portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times's Judith Miller. NPR's David Greene reported that:

Former vice presidential aide Lewis Libby, indicted for leaking a CIA agent's identity, has testified that any classified information he may have leaked to a reporter was authorized by President Bush through the vice president. The claim is included in court documents released Thursday.

Libby told a grand jury that classified information he may have leaked to a New York Times reporter was authorized for use by President Bush, acting through Vice President Dick Cheney. Lewis is awaiting trial on charges that he lied to the grand jury, which was investigating the leak of the agent's identity to the media.

We should also remember that the New York Times was not the only friendly outlet for planting "news." White House officials turned to Time Magazine and the Chicago Sun Times in shopping information about Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer. For this White House, leaking classified information that damages national security is okay as long as it can be used to save the President's political reputation.

President Bush crying about "leaks" to the New York Times is like listening to former Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss complain about sexual promiscuity. Sorry George, we ain't buying your song and dance.

---------

Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and US State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Bush Confused About Leaks
By Larry C. Johnson
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062806J.shtml

Wednesday 28 June 2006

What is this article suppose to mean--I don't get it--It just seems like a bunch of rambling.

Posted by: Calabrio

12 DOWN: TOP SECRET WAR PLANS, 36 ACROSS: TREASON

June 28, 2006

When is The New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al-Qaida secret program?

In the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government anti-terrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times, last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the U.S.

In response, the Bush administration is sounding very cross — and doing nothing. Bush wouldn't want to get the press mad at him! Yeah, let's keep the media on our good side like they are now. Otherwise, they might do something crazy — like leak a classified government program monitoring terrorist financing.

National Review has boldly called for the revocation of the Times' White House press pass! If the Times starts publishing troop movements, National Review will go whole hog and demand that the paper's water cooler privileges be revoked. Then there's always the "nuclear option": disinviting Maureen Dowd from the next White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Meanwhile, the one congressman who has called for any sort of criminal investigation is being treated like a nut. Don't get me wrong: Congressman Peter King is nuttier than squirrel droppings — but he's right on this.

Unless, that is, the country has simply abolished the concept of treason. We've got a lot of liberals who hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy, so what are you going to do? Indict the entire editorial board of The New York Times? (Actually, that wouldn't be a bad place to start, now that I ask.)

Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots. She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.

Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger has just been named al-Qaida's "Employee of the Month" for the 12th straight month.

Before the Vietnam War, this country took treason seriously.

But now we're told newspapers have a right to commit treason because of "freedom of the press." Liberals invoke "freedom of the press" like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the First Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in The New York Times building.

Freedom of the press means the government generally cannot place a prior restraint on speech before publication.

But freedom of the press does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason — or for any other crime. The First Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from The New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page One story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans.

What if, instead of passing information from the government's secret nuclear program at Los Alamos directly to Soviet agents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had printed those same secrets in a newsletter? Would they have skated away scot-free instead of being tried for espionage and sent to the death chamber?

Ezra Pound, Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally") and Iva Toguri D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose") were all charged with treason for radio broadcasts intended to demoralize the troops during World War II. Their broadcasts were sort of like Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio — except Tokyo Rose was actually witty, and Axis Sally is said to have used a fact-checker.

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason for a single remark she made on air: "Orphans of the Pacific, you really are orphans now. How will you get home now that your ships are sunk?" For that statement alone, D'Aquino spent six years in prison and was fined $10,000 (more than $80,000 in today's dollars).

Axis Sally was convicted of treason for broadcasts from Germany and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Pound avoided a treason trial for his radio broadcasts by getting himself committed to an insane asylum instead (which I take it is Randi Rhodes' "Plan B" in the event that she ever acquires enough listeners to be charged with treason).

There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it.

The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000."

Thanks to The New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence — Al-Qaida." You just have to read The New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.

The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency — our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals — it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Posted by: fossten

No, no, you don't understand...these guys want to protect terrorists so they swear confidentiality whenever they interview them. It's too important that they be trusted by the enemy.

When it comes to protecting our side, however, that doesn't matter, because we're the real bad guys, prosecuting "Bush's war on terror."

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC1

What is this article suppose to mean--I don't get it--It just seems like a bunch of rambling.

In a nutshell, this SWIFT story "leak" is a stinking pile of

cooked up by the white house to "traitorize" the NYT and MSM in general:

1) "Monitoring terrorist's financial transfers" is NOT a new idea, it was deemed necessary by the white house AND the MSM shortly after 9/11.

2) This story/idea is NOT "secret" at all, for anyone to think Al-Quida never suspected that their money transfers were not being monitored until AFTER this most recent NYT story broke last week only exposes them as a total idiot.

3) Once again, the RWWs and talking heads are out to "traitorize" the MSM in a vain attempt to blow a smokescreen and divert attention from the real issues in this country. Once this GWOT falls flat on it's face, it'll already have set up a scape-goat: Must have been that "traitorous" NYT/MSM.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

In a nutshell, this SWIFT story "leak" is a stinking pile of

cooked up by the white house to "traitorize" the NYT and MSM in general:

1) "Monitoring terrorist's financial transfers" is NOT a new idea, it was deemed necessary by the white house AND the MSM shortly after 9/11.

2) This story/idea is NOT "secret" at all, for anyone to think Al-Quida never suspected that their money transfers were not being monitored until AFTER this most recent NYT story broke last week only exposes them as a total idiot.

3) Once again, the RWWs and talking heads are out to "traitorize" the MSM in a vain attempt to blow a smokescreen and divert attention from the real issues in this country. Once this GWOT falls flat on it's face, it'll already have set up a scape-goat: Must have been that "traitorous" NYT/MSM.

"And I would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those gosh darn kids!"

"Scooby-Dooby-Doo!"

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

In a nutshell, this SWIFT story "leak" is a stinking pile of

cooked up by the white house to "traitorize" the NYT and MSM in general:

1) "Monitoring terrorist's financial transfers" is NOT a new idea, it was deemed necessary by the white house AND the MSM shortly after 9/11.

2) This story/idea is NOT "secret" at all, for anyone to think Al-Quida never suspected that their money transfers were not being monitored until AFTER this most recent NYT story broke last week only exposes them as a total idiot.

And yet the Times article headline reads:
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror

3) Once again, the RWWs and talking heads are out to "traitorize" the MSM in a vain attempt to blow a smokescreen and divert attention from the real issues in this country. Once this GWOT falls flat on it's face, [look who wants us to lose!] it'll already have set up a scape-goat: Must have been that "traitorous" NYT/MSM. [Like they need any help from Bush.]

I knew it! It's all George Bush's fault!

One more unsubstantiated, evidence-free assertion by the Mighty Mouth.

Can't you think more than one train of thought per year?

It's amazing how steadfastly Johnny, the libs, and the rest of the traitors in the MSM circle the wagons around their last best hope for America's defeat. Wonder why they never circle the wagons around America?

Posted by: fossten

New Fox Poll Finds 60 Percent Believe N.Y. Times Helped Terrorists

Posted by Tim Graham on July 1, 2006 - 08:47.

In the Style section of Saturday's Washington Post, media reporter Howard Kurtz covered the slightly strange story of the Wall Street Journal editorial page criticizing the New York Times scoop on the SWIFT financial tracking system, when the Journal ran the story as well once the Times decided to publish. But the most interesting part of the story was the new poll:

In a Fox News poll released yesterday, 60 percent of those surveyed said the Times did more to help terrorist groups by publishing the information, while 27 percent said the story did more to help the public. Forty-three percent called what the newspapers did treason. Just over half said government employees were more to blame for leaking the classified information, 28 percent faulted the media for reporting it, and 17 percent said they were equally to blame.

Kurtz also reported that Donald Rumsfeld singled out the Times again:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continued the assault yesterday in an interview with ABC News Radio, saying, "The New York Times, when asked by the United States government, 'Please do not do that, it would cause the loss of American lives,' and they'd go right ahead and print it . . . it tells you a lot about the New York Times, and it certainly tells you a lot about the individual who did that."

Here's how Kurtz noted the quibbling between the Times and the Journal editorialists:

The Journal's conservative editorial page weighed in yesterday by arguing that what the two newspapers had done was very different:

"More than a few commentators have tried to link the Journal and Times at the hip. On the left, the motive is to help shield the Times from political criticism. On the right, the goal is to tar everyone in the 'mainstream media.' . . . We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters."

Later in the day, the Times' publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., returned fire in what has now escalated into a full-fledged battle between the two New York papers...Sulzberger, whom the editorial accuses of deliberately seeking to obstruct the war on terror, offered his own response.

"I know many of the reporters and editors at the Wall Street Journal and have greater faith in their journalistic excellence than does the editorial page of their own paper," Sulzberger said in a statement. "I, for one, do not believe they were unaware of the importance of what they were publishing nor oblivious to the impact such a story would have."

Please remember that Mr. Pinch Sulzberger is the same guy who almost laid prostrate in front of a graduating class at New Paltz a few weeks ago over his baby-boomer generation's failure to prevent "misbegotten wars" in foreign lands and beat his breast that supposedly "oil" drives our foreign policy. The hunger and thirst of the New York Times for anti-war stories far outweighs the tinny boilerplate about "journalistic excellence."