“A Good Program…to Make Us Safer…Is Over.”

[ejames19]

It is well known that reporters do not publish troop movements during times of war. They do this because if they did publish troop movements it would likely lead to deaths of American troops. So to say it is all freedom of the press and they can print whatever they want really doesn't take into consideration the reality of the issue.

Yes, the press do need to be held accountable for what they print. Troop movements are kept secret that's why they are not in the press, bringing us back to key word SECRET. Unfortunately there probably is someone who would print troop movements if they acquired the info, idiots everywhere. Bush is not the one to blame in this, some idiot(s) just wanted to fatten their wallet in exchange for a little secret info and this is the person(s) that should be sought out, going after the NYT is to easy but maybe the NYT could 'assist' with helping find the individual committing treason.

[914GT]

Originally posted by ejames19
Selling papers first and foremost is their only concern and it worked.

It's sure not being reflected in their stock price. I read that the NYT is now about the third in sales in NYC now.

[Nathans_Dad]

Of course troop movements are not kept secret. In today's age of embedded reporters the reporters can figure out pretty well where they are and where they are heading yet they do not report those movements.

Recall back to the invasion of Iraq. Every time you had an embedded reporter on camera he would say something to the effect that he was not going to talk about where he was or where they were going. It wasn't because he didn't know, it was because he has an obligation as an American citizen to not say.

[ejames19]

How many papers have they sold in the past week since this report was published? That's all I meant, but many companies have great profits while their stock decline within the same year, proves nothing.

[ejames19]

Nathan's Dad I agree with you, many reporters travel with the President as well on almost all his journey's, the point is someone failed within the group to uphold their confidence of secrecy. I highly doubt reporters are told by the Captains they are embedded with what the "Plan" is and where they are going, they are strung along, could not report back to any paper quick enough to print or put on internet by the time the troop movement had ended. I know I'm nit pickin but hey......

[Nathans_Dad]

I understand you are nitpicking, so am I.

The nitpicking is the point though. We agree that the leakers of information should be investigated, found and prosecuted. Where we seem to differ is in the idea that the reporter that gets leaked info also has a responsibility. This is actually a well known principle of journalism (if you can say journalists even have principles) and any good journalist will tell you that yes, they do have a responsiblity to withhold information given to them if it damages national security or would endanger lives.

If a reporter found out the location of a person in the witness protection program they would not report that either, since it may endanger that person's life.

My position is that by disclosing the specifics of the SWIFT program the NYT has significantly hampered the ability of the US government to prosecute the war on terror, specifically by making it more difficult to deny them financing. The link between that and endangering American citizens is not as direct as the witness protection program example, but it certainly is there.

Would 9/11 have happened if the terrorists didn't have the money to fly into the US, rent apartments, take the pilots courses, buy the plane tickets, etc? Would it have happened if we had been able to track the terrorists down through their funding sources with a program like SWIFT?

The head of the 9/11 commission thinks that the publication of this material was tantamount to treason and I tend to think he forms his opinion from an informed standpoint.

[914GT]

Originally posted by ejames19
How many papers have they sold in the past week since this report was published? That's all I meant, but many companies have great profits while their stock decline within the same year, proves nothing.

But not the NYT. Their profits have been in a steep slide every quarter. A lot of this can be blamed on the 'dinosaur' media's inability to compete with the new media. But a lot of people are just fed-up with the lies and distortions and have quit buying it.

[ejames19]

Nathans Dad Very True. I heard a clip on the news briefly the the NYT had spoken with the gov't prior to printing the report, if so what did they talk about and why then did the NYT go ahead with printing if the info is so vitale to National Security?

[Nathans_Dad]

Yes, the government specifically asked them NOT to print the material in the interests of national security. They did anyway. What did you want them to do, take out the NYT with a cruise missile prior to publication??

Hey...I may be on to something there...

[ejames19]

Ha Ha......

[Rodeo]

I re-read the story. There is NOTHING in it that even remotely helps anyone move money illegally or in secret. The Times reported the program, reported that it sifted through many thousands of banking transactions, and reported that virtually every major bank and brokerage house in the world participates in the SWIFT program (which is not a government program, but a private program).

The entire article can be summed up as "the US is looking at international banking records to spot terrorists, and many people have concerns about the program's legality."

Only terrorists that were too dumb to know this before the Times story were arguably helped by its publication. "Gee, I guess if I wire money from Pakistan to Brooklyn, the US government might find out."

I'm glad it was published, just like I'm glad the "classified" warrantless wiretap story was published and the "classified" secret torture prison story was published.

The Bush administration is not concerned about terrorists knowing these things, they are concerned about the American people disapproving of their chosen tactics to fight this never-ending "war."

[Moneyguy1]

Questions: References to the Head of the 911 Commission....

What are his political affiliations? That is; does he have an axe to grind?

Have we heard anything from anyone else with actual credentials as to the deleterious effect of not having this program?

And, if the program has been "outed", and we tell the world we are no longer doing it, might not the bad guys think it safe to use the banking system, allowing us an opportunity to sandbag them?

All I have seen points to political posturing, plain and simple. Without verifiable data and only opinion, the effectiveness of the program and the effects of its "loss" are unknown, and emotion rules.

Brilliant political ploy.

[Rodeo]

I think Chairman Keane is a stand-up guy, and that he did a good job as the head of the 9/11 Commission. He is a Republican, but he has not been political on this issue. Indeed, he gave the Bush administration failing grades on almost every aspect of preparedness, maybe a year ago. No one noticed.

If he choses to speak out on this issue, I'll listen carefully. But Byron York's piece is full of conclusions from a steadfastly pro-Bush columnist.

I find nothing in the story that could have possibly helped terrorists.

[Eric P]

Moneyguy, then why publish the story? What is the point/gain for the NYT (especially as a major story). If it is such a good and easy polical ploy, why did the NYT publish it?

[Moneyguy1]

Politicial affiliation, to me, runs a distant second to the ability to think for one's self and not buy into the party mantra. If Keane can pass that test, he would be a stand-up guy.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Indeed, he gave the Bush administration failing grades on almost every aspect of preparedness, maybe a year ago. No one noticed.

The 9-11 investigation was a joke from its very conception. It was full of moderate Republicans and hard left political hacks like Jamie Goerlick and that other leftist partisan hack. Jamie Goerlick failed to recuse herself, or step down, as she was providing cover for the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger were not recalled after obstructing the investigation by stealing top secret documents...The 9-11 Commission was a sham, it failed to point the finger where it belonged, obviously the Clinton Administration.

[Mulhollanddose]

[Rodeo]

go away

[Mulhollanddose]

Nu uh..you are.

[Moneyguy1]

Eric:

The political ploy is on the part of the administration. Ask yourself: Anyone talking about illegal aliens lately? Any of the really important domestic issues being discussed?

Deflection, man...deflection...

Brilliant!!