The New York Times

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 26 2006, 08:45 AM) [snapback]276821[/snapback]</div>

It was vital that they did reveal it. See my post on this topic in the Bank Data thread.
http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=2...t=&#entry276579

 

I'm one of those people who feel that, left to themselves to decide what to tell the people, governments will tell us nothing.

Fortunately, I've watched enough TV over the years to not be surprized by tracking terrorists through a money trail.

What I am surprized about is, that Bush thinks it was enough of a secret method of dealing with crooks that nobody should point out it was going on.

So we have phone taps and bank taps. Geeze, maybe nobody should tell terrorists that sometimes the car behind them is actually following them.

Oh, crap, too late, they know...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Jun 26 2006, 11:58 AM) [snapback]276851[/snapback]</div>

I'm surprised this is considered "secret" as well. Any self-respecting terrorist would assume the government is watching for certain types of money transfers. Buried halfway down on page 8 of my local paper today was the announcement that Congress is getting ready to pass a bill to let Bush to legally watch international communications without court approval. After the big brouhaha over the government buying phone records (which are apparently available to the general public as well, since one lobbyist had earlier bought the phone records of a senator to show what was available), I would think this would get more attention.

Most conspiracy fans would assume international communications were already monitored (ie. the secret "Echelon" project I think it was called, with Australia), but to formally give the president these powers with very little public discussion is rather disturbing. Every day we are becoming more and more of a police state, and anybody who argues against it is called a criminal with something to hide or anti-American. What about our Bill of Rights? Does that still exist? What about the right of a free press?

 

I think most of us are not convinced that we ARE at war. What does it take to make the public and the media actually act as if the USA is at war and to act/react accordingly?

It has become apparent to me that the preeminent purpose of the media in general is NOT to inform the public, but to manipulate opinion. There has been an excessive amount of blending of editorializing and news-reporting to the extent that I can no longer easily discern opinion from fact in a so-called news report.

Ever since Woodward and Bernstein, I think every journo secretly wishes to bring down the sitting government, and to hell with the consequences to the country if only they can get that Pulitzer!

I don't know if there is sufficient proof of wrongdoing to prosecute the NY Times and others who apparently broke this and other 'sensative' stories, but it worth looking at. If there is 'no foul', then another 'proof' of The First Amendment has been made; if there is, then it can be prosecuted as a regular 'crime', and all the handwringers can whine louder (you know they will).

 

Thank goodness for papers like the Times and Washington Post. Of course, "watchdog" papers have teams of attorneys to advise them in cases like this whether they might REALLY be endangering "national security" by going public with a story the administration in power wants kept quiet.

The Times is feeling beleagured, catching hell from those on the left (and some on the right!) after sitting on the NSA story for a year in honoring Bush's request. Turns out they should have gone public with it immediately. So they're a little skittish now about being used as cover for Bush's lies and misrepresentations.

The only traitor here in terms of our real national interests is, and has been since 2003, George W. Bush.

 

My opinion is that the media are the only ones keeping the administration honest at this point. If it weren't for them, we would be farther down the secretive road to fascism and our Constitutional rights would be further eroded. I really don't give a *&#^$)* what is convenient for this White House. They need to learn to play by the rules like every previous administration. If our President cannot protect, defend and uphold the Constitution (I believe he SWORE AN OATH to that effect) , if he cannot do his job within the law, then he needs to RESIGN and let someone else with the moral integrity do the job.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 26 2006, 09:01 AM) [snapback]276828[/snapback]</div>

This'll be quick because I've got a busy morning:
First, this latest revelation of bank data being tapped is further indication that Bush & Co. are secretly monitoring everything they can lay their hands on. That they claim this lastest bit of domestic spying is only limited to international bank transactions is about as trustworthy as all their other claims that secret domestic spying programs were limited, only to be later exposed as having vastly wider scope.

Second, you and many others on the right approve of all this secret gov't monitoring of US citizens, regardless of scope, arguing that it's harmless if you've got nothing to hide. That such domestic spying is being conducted in EXACTLY the manner that the Kremlin and the Nazis conducted domestic spying doesn't bother you. That the US gov't is becoming overtly fascist doesn't bother you, apparently because it flies the US flag, and any action, atrocity or otherwise, is OK so long as it's clothed with the US flag.

Hence, my scenario, designed to demonstrate that those who think they've got nothing to hide could have unsuspected skeletons in their closet BECAUSE the gov't is becoming increasingly fascist.

If you're still not clear on the concept let me know & I'll elaborate further.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 26 2006, 02:12 PM) [snapback]276909[/snapback]</div>

How about the one where no US Citizen will be used to monitor US Citizens?

If it makes a difference who gets hired to implement shady things, then by all means lets get somebody like the Canadians to do it. No US hands will get dirty that way.

If it makes no difference, and crap we shouldn't be doing at all shouldn't be done by anyone, then telling people it's going on is important.

Making "We're at war!" excuses may eventually come back to haunt people...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 26 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]276930[/snapback]</div>

They were thinking of that Pulitzer for bringing down a sitting president...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 26 2006, 02:53 PM) [snapback]276930[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps that it was crap we shouldn't be doing? I'm assuming that somewhere outside the US, people have an expectation of privacy. That's probably going by the wayside.

I see a slippery slope here, where if US hands aren't involved in spying outside the US, it'll be "OK" for non-US hands to spy on US citizens considered suspect. All perfectly justified by The War...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 26 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]276930[/snapback]</div>

It's the widespread naive belief in this kind of claim by the gov't, especially THIS gov't, that makes selling the Brooklyn Bridge an enterprise that'll never go bankrupt.

If the Bush administration declared this afternoon that grass is green and the sky is blue, I'd look out the window at my lawn and the sky to see for myself, so empty is their credibility.

If Bush says no US citizens were involved, you can safely bet your life's savings that US citizens were not just involved but more than likely accounted for the bulk of the traffic.


Somewhere else in this thread you asked was there ANY national security action I'd warrant should be kept secret. My answer: No. And that answer applies regardless of party or indivudual in office: I'd say the same for Lincoln, Churchill, FDR, JFK, Ghandi or Jesus Christ. The human personality is too fallible, even with the best intentions, to trust unchecked, in particular when the stakes are whole nations, cultures, and the very viability of the biosphere.

If the public at large must truly be kept in the dark, (and occasions where such secrecy was genuinely justified have historically been exceedingly rare), then an independent and impartial oversight body must be kept apprised, to preserve accountability and prevent corruption. Keeping congress informed, especially THIS congress, is insufficient because congress is neither independent nor impartial.

Someone with good intentions would make an effort to erect such an oversight body, to help prevent mistakes out of ignorance or unconscious prejudice. Someone with questionable intentions would act as Bush does: keep everyone as misinformed and uninformed as possible.


So, explain this to me -

Why do you trust someone who has repeatedly and systematically lied to you, and keeps you in the dark about everything about him and his operation? If you encountered such a personality in your personal life, wouldn't you find such treatment intolerably insulting? The Bush administration has been widely documented as the most secretive in history, and its lies are legion. Every time it opens its mouth I'm affronted by how it patronizes me and insults my intelligence. I wouldn't trust it to tell me the correct time, let alone operate a gov't. Why do you find its claims believable?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Explain this to me. Please use one syllable words simple to understand.

What legally recognized government of what legally recognized country did this country declare war against?

(Oh, and what airportkid said. In spades.)

 

One of the favorite saws of the bushies is that if they reveal their little secrets then the terrorists will know their doublesecret plans. Of course, it cuts both ways. That is, openess and honesty may give the terrorists the lowdown on what's going on but all Americans will know what's going on, too. We can't help fight this country's enemies when we don't know what the heck is going on.