My initial reaction to the uproar over the NY Times breaking the story was to only pay partial attention to the issue– after all, certain wings of the blogosphere are angry about something every 2-3 days anyway, and the right wing is always eager to attack the NY Times (I like Glenn Reynolds, and he, more than anyone else other than me, made this blog successful with his repeated links. Having said that, I don’t think the Instapundit has ever gone more than a few days without linking to a bunch of people frothing about how the MSM in general and the NY Times in particular suck, hate America, and are ‘on the other side.’).
In short, I wasn’t really that interested. As far as I am concerned, collectively, the right wing of the blogosphere is the ‘boy who called traitor.’ Not a week goes by when I hear that so and so should be ostracized because they are a treasonous rat, they are a commie symp, whatever. I am jaded, and the pile-ons are old. So I cheered when Bill Keller wrote a snotty rejoinder. I don’t take many of the people mad at the NY Times seriously anymore, so I figured, why should the NY Times?
In addition to those feelings, I have also watched the same wing of the blogosphere defend away any and every excess committed by this administration. “Just a few bad apples” is a term that is forever soiled, and whenever I hear it from here on out I will instantly suspect something worse than it appears is going on. This gang has also seemed rather blase about individual liberty and individual rights, and simultaneously cheered almost every intrusion by the government into my personal matters, phone records, etc., because, you know, THE TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL US ALL.
Add it all up, and sum in my own personal revulsion towards the nanny state and big government, my deep personal distrust for this administration, and I initially really had no problem with the Times breaking the story. I still am not very sure where I stand on the issue, but as I read some of the more level-headed members of the right, I think perhaps maybe this time their might be some room for thinking the Times did something wrong:
But there is a significant difference between information being “out there,” as in “available in a single bureaucratically worded paragraph in an obscure U.N. report,” and between being “out there,” as in splashed all over the front pages of the New York Times and Los Angeles Times.
But ultimately, the key issue isn’t whether I knew about Swift, or whether Roger L. Simon knew about Swift, or even whether you knew about Swift. The question is whether the terrorists knew about Swift.
And we don’t have to speculate about this. The undeniable fact is that they didn’t all know.
I hate to keep getting back to the facts, but sometimes it seems necessary. So, let’s reprise. The program’s most salient success was the capture of Hambali, the mastermind of the deadly 2002 Bali bombing. Counterterrorism Blog says the Swift information was “out there” in an obscure U.N. report in December 2002. So Hambali must have been captured before then, right?
Nope. Hambali was arrested on August 12, 2003.
But surely the program’s successes end there, correct?
Again, back to the pesky facts. The Wall Street Journal article (no link available) tells us another success story resulting from the program:
People familiar with the program said, for example, that it yielded useful information on the bombings last July 7 in London.
Last July 7? As in July 7, 2005?
I still don’t know where I stand on all this, because for me, at least, the facts of the case are buried deep underneath layers of hubris, outrage, and sheer political opportunism. While the snide-o-sphere may think this is an instance of right-wing overreach, I am less sure about that today than I was just a few days ago. While this administration and her lapdogs have used the war on terror to basically do whatever the hell they want for five years, and in many cases have greatly overstated threats in order to get their way, it is a truth that there are terrorists who do want to kill us, and the government does have an obligation to use whatever legal means necessary to protect the citizenry. Whether or not this program was legal and whether or not this damaged our attempts to defend ourselves remains to be seen, and I am unsure how I feel about all this.
Blue Neponset
I am sick and tired of hearing the “traitor” refrain from the WH, Republicans, and Righty bloggers. I am officially throwing the guantlet down. If the NYT did something illegal that endangered Americans then the Republican run Department of Justice should prosecute them to the full extent of the law. If the DOJ does not choose to prosecute then they are the ones endangering American lives because the NYT and its ilk will continue to publicize secret programs that protect Americans.
Hat tip to the The Carpetbagger Report for the gauntlet throwing suggestion.
Rob
If the NYT violated a law, I haven’t heard which one yet.
Blue Neponset
Greg Sargent at The American Prospect is the genesis of the shut up about the NYT endangering Americans or prosecute them for it.
Doug
Liberty means we have to live with some risks. We can’t go pissing our pants over every two-bit radical who wishes our country ill. My guess is that, if a particular would-be terrorist isn’t bright enough to work under the assumption that financial records are being monitored, then that particular would-be terrorist won’t be terribly effective at bringing down the Great Satan.
chopper
But there is a significant difference between information being “out there,” as in “available in a single bureaucratically worded paragraph in an obscure U.N. report,” and between being “out there,” as in splashed all over the front pages of the New York Times and Los Angeles Times.
it was public before, it was public after. so what’s wrong with putting up a story about information that’s already out there? it’s not like it was secret or something.
seriously, this is what the right has devolved to? demanding the NYT’s head on a platter because they wrote a story about already public information? cripes. boy who cried ‘treason’ indeed.
jg
I’m not. I don’t think the terrorist threat is as scary as the administration is making it out to be. I think its in their best interests to keep us thinking we’re under constant attack. I don’t think we need all these new gov’t tools to protect us. I think its dubious that we’re being told the gov’t needs these tools to defeat terrorism yet these are the same people who wanted these tools back in the 70’s when we weren’t under terrorist threat.
Nice post BTW. Although it was obvious from the start a huge ‘but’ was going to be dropped on us at some point.
jg
Are we to assume that the mastermind terrorist organizations that are after us are run by idiots like Dr evil? Then couildn’t assimilate the information previously. It wasn’t until the NYT wrote an article that the terrorists woke up to us looking at money trails? Even if they never heard the term SWIFT until the NYT article they still knew we were trying to track the money right?
neil
So what if some ‘damage was done’ to US intelligence capabilities? One thing immediately springs to mind: the people who have made their career about damaging US intelligence capabilities, and those who cheered them on, are the ones pointing fingers here. I don’t doubt that this is why they’re doing it, either, because this sort of hypocritical attack is their go-to move and has been for six long years.
Sojourner
Until the congress grows a pair and decides to provide proper oversight over this rogue administration, then the MSM had bloody well do it.
The Bushies are pissed because someone (*gasp*) had the nerve to challenge what they’re doing. Well guess what? Someone (*gasp*) had better do it if we want to retain even a semblance of the former glory and honor of this once-great country.
Steve
Let’s look at it this way. First, we hear a lot about how this story exposed classified information. Specifically, what information in the story was classified?
I don’t know the answer to this. Certainly, more people know about this program today than knew about it from reading the UN website, or whatever, but if most of the story could have been written from publicly available sources, or from sources at SWIFT, perhaps, then why all the commotion?
More importantly, we keep hearing how extraordinary secrecy is required because “we’re at war,” but no one is claiming this story jeopardizes the war in Iraq. Rather, if the issue is the broader War on Terror, I think we all recognize that that is a decades-long conflict like the Cold War. We can’t remain on a “wartime footing” forever, where we suspend traditional American values like the right to have a general idea what our government is doing. We can’t spend the next 50 years flying off the handle every time the press does its job as we’ve always understood it; especially in this Internet age where information has a way of getting out even if the New York Times takes a pass on it.
Kevin Drum makes a nice point today:
I think John is correct that this program raises more difficult and complex issues than the other things we’ve found out about, like the warrantless wiretapping program that was pretty clearly illegal and, in my view, deserved to be exposed for that reason. Reducing things down to a simplistic statement like “anyone who prints anything related to national security is a traitor” simply isn’t reasonable. America isn’t a dictatorship where the government keeps all information bottled up for your own good, and this isn’t a short-term conflict where we can afford to set aside out basic notions of liberty for the duration. The issue deserves a more mature look than that.
srv
I think the Saudi princes funding this war are quite well adept at how banks work. Swift is just one of many arcane extensions of agreements gov’ts have forced on banks (particularly those that played by different rules, like the Caymans, Vanatau, etc). While the details aren’t discussed, I’ve seen plenty off CNN stories about “Foreign Banks agree to new reporting requirements”. AQ knows what that means.
And for the naive, Swiss (any major foreign) banks and banking networks are subject to aggressive ‘national technical means’. AQ knows that too.
It’s all pretty ridiculous, because we probably have a very good idea who the sugar daddies of terrorism are, but it’s a secret. Can’t let the public know. Otherwise, they’d know what a joke is being played on them.
Jim Allen
And therein lies the rub. As long as this kind of activity is kept hidden from the citizenry and, more importantly, Congressional oversight, we have no way of determining what is legal and what is not.
There are ways of going about getting this kind of information that are legal and can still be kept secret. There is absolutely no need for a government, any government, to ignore laws and step on Constitutionally defined rights when there are prescribed methods to obtain the needed information. These laws and limitations are set up to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, and with good reason. No government, and particularly no one branch of government, should be allowed to gather massive amounts of information without just cause and due process.
If we need to scrap the Constitution and the laws of this country to “defend ourselves”, there ain’t much left to protect.
Andrew
Boy, I sure am persuaded by comments like this one over at Patterico:
As much as I’d like to think that it’s the work of DougJ, we know there are millions who think like this.
But what’s really cute is how Par R cribbed this post almost word for word from Patterico.
Unless Par R is Patterico, which would explain a lot.
LITBMueller
But, John, isn’t it interesting that, after a program is exposed, such as the NSA program, that the administration (or its supporters) have a quick reply: “yeah, but we caught this guy because of the program.” But, there is no proof of the claim. Take this one for example:
Problem is, Hambali was WELL known prior to the Bali bombings. And, like UBL himself, he was a product of the Afghanistan Mujahideen, which we supported. Also note that Patterico has the wrong date for the arrest of Hambali – he was arrested on 2/24/06, according to CNN. At the time, “Hambali was sought by at least a half-dozen countries in the region for his suspected involvement in several bombings in various countries.”
Patterico also fails to mention that the tracing of Hambali’s financial transactions was only one part of how Hambali got caught – and probably not the most important part. From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Be VERY suspicious when the “yeah, but this program caught this guy” excuse comes up so quickly…
Pb
I don’t think it really matters whether or not the terrorists specifically knew about “SWIFT”–it’s a red herring. They knew we were tracking international banking transfers, and if they didn’t, they should have, because the administration has been talking about it since September of 2001–and that’s virtually the same thing.
Nutcutter
AFAIK no actual secret or classified information was revealed in the story. Until such a specific allegation is made, I consider the story to be Hot Air in the finest BJ tradition.
If the government wants to be able to just decide, by fiat, what stories can and cannot be published, which is apparently what they are asserting here, then the law needs to be changed to permit full censorship and editorial preemption by the government.
Until that law is in place, I don’t care what the government says, we have a free press and we need to know that we can exercise it. If “damage was done” then the fault lies withe government’s inability to do its job alongside a free press and manage its affairs accordingly.
It’s the same issue as the NSA thing. If the president feels that the FISA restrictions are too tight, then his responsibility to is to see that the law is changed, not to ignore the law. If the president thinks that he can’t function alongside a free press, then let him go forth and ask that we get rid of the free press, legally.
But this twilight zone in which reality is whatever George Bush says it is, is not acceptable.
For that reason I totally disagree with the premise of the original post to this thread.
Do we have a free press or not? If yes, end of story. If not, then change the law to reflect that, or else STFU.
Andrew
I really hope that the administration prosecutes the NY Times on this one. Of course, they won’t. They are completely unserious about such calls for legal remedy.
The trial would lead to so many disclosures of administration malfeasance, dishonesty, incompetence, and lies about this episode alone that it could bring down the Whitehouse.
No, Cheney et al. are quite happy that his happened — it’s great political ammo, as others have pointed out — and would never want to prosecute this, or any other leaks, for that matter. You’ll never see anything worse than administrative remedies from these clowns.
Steve
Wait, wait, you mean Par is a plagiarist, just like our other conservative friend Darrell? Let’s look at this more closely.
Here’s Par in yesterday’s thread:
And here’s Patterico, in the post linked by John above:
Note the obvious changing of a word here, a word there, just to make it something other than a cut-and-paste job. What a tool.
AemJeff
If it turns out that the Times (why doesn’t the Journal’s name come up more often in this discussion?) was wrong on this, blame the administration. Thats’s, obviously, good rhetoric, but it also has the advantage of being true.
If we, collectively, had been given the impression (by their actions) that the Bushies habitually hide what they’re doing, and avoid proper channels for doing it; if it didn’t seem quite so likely that they take the law unto themselves as a matter of course; then, the Times and most of the sane media probably would be giving them the benefit of the doubt. As it is I think it’s probably fair not to assume that they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Blaming the Times for acting perfectly rationally, even if it was a mistake in this case (and I’m not willing to grant that, there are too many ambiguities), is the looking at this issue the wrong way around.
Nutcutter
Well, to do that, they have to allege that a law has been broken. To my knowledge, no law has been broken. Had they been on a footing that would have permitted a legal challenge to publication of the story, their responsibility would have been to go to court to stop the paper from publishing before publication, not to sit on their hands and wait for publication and then claim that a law was broken.
I think their actions speak for themselves. They knew that their recourse was to browbeat the Times in the court of public opinion, but that no actual law was being broken.
As I said above, either you have a free press or you don’t. If a story can be legally published, nobody but the publisher gets to make the call unless we are going to invoke some new “wartime” power for the president to have final editorial approval for every story in every newspaper and on every tv channel.
Who wants to be the first to assert that the president should have that authority?
AemJeff
Oops,
should have been:
me
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication
yeah SWIFT is a real big secret.
and it s alresdy been in the news a few times in the past.
Jill
The terrorists already knew we were doing this. I remember Bush crowing about the money trails right after 9/11. The WH, plainly and simply, wants to keep the program in the dark in order to avoid any checks on the program whatsoever.
John S.
Steve-
Thanks for those finds. Now I can be sure not to waste my time having an ‘exchange of ideas’ with two people whose ‘thoughts’ are clearly not their own.
Nutcutter
Good for them. Let them want it, and try to achieve it. But using the power of their offices to stir up phony calls for charges of treason is exactly the kind of thing that causes me to say, I will not grant this government that kind of power. I will not give them the benefit of any doubt. They have forfeited the right to ask for that kind of forbearance from the people. They obviously don’t care about anything except their own power at this point.
I am much more concerned about the threat to America represented by George Bush and his cronies than I am about the threat from a bunch of crazy ragheads on a suicide mission. Terrorists can hurt and kill, but they can’t destroy America. George Bush, on the other hand, clearly can.
Pb
Steve,
Wait… so you’re saying that Par R is actually Darrell’s old ex-speechwriter, Ben Domenech?
Zerthimon
If this was already public information, then why was John Murtha opposed to publishing it?
That said, I don’t think the virtriol being levelled at the Times is warranted. I understand the concern the Times had, and why they felt they needed to publish it. But I also understand the concern administration officials had.
For some reason it seems both sides are having a hard time grasping both of these concerns. I applaud John for doing so.
Nutcutter
Par and Lucca are spoofs. Darrell is almost certainly not a spoof.
Don’t compare them to each other, they are quite different things.
Darrell
The obvious problem with the NY Times piece was that it mentioned SPECIFIC cases in which the terrorists were caught with this secret program. This specificity allows the terrorists to backtrack over money transfers to and from those individuals to better examine what may have triggered red flags from the US.. so that they can avoid them in future.
THAT is what makes the NY Times and the leftists who defend them such scum.
Lee
I am sure someone will have a different memory of this….
After 9-11 and the implementation of the PATRIOT Act didn’t the Administration make accouncements that they were going to monitor financial transactions? Getting worldwide cooperation on the tracking.
Haven’t there been news stories already about how jewelry stores (and new car sellers) are having to track transactions.
Nutcutter
Already asked and answered on these pages. But to make it easy for the morons to follow along ….
1. Murtha has no authority in the matter, his opinion is just an opinion.
2. Neither Murtha nor any other government official alleged then, or now, that any law has been broken.
3. Unless there’s a legal challenge, the decision is nobody’s to make except the publisher. If there’s a free press, that’s the end of the question, and the story.
4. If there is a legal challenge, the officials’ responsibility would have been to make it before publication, not after. Otherwise, how are they arguing that they are “protecting” us against terrorists?
This is a pissing contest, plain and simple, and the NYT will win it if history is any judge.
Angry Engineer
Damn, that sums up my thoughts perfectly.
Look – even if the NYT broke a law and gave the terrorists some sort of pre-emptive Get Out Of Jail Free card, I’d still stand far less risk of getting killed in a terrorist act than I would from a slip-and-fall in my own bathroom. But since the NYT isn’t running regular front-page stories about how we’re trying to win the war on slippery tile, I don’t know if they can be blamed for that fact.
If any of this shit was about saving lifes or keeping the public safe, then we’d surely be going after different problems; it’d be interesting to see what the Iraq war budget would do if applied to cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. And if we’re looking to defend liberty, passing a bunch of laws that crib the freedom of speech and privacy certainly aren’t working as intended. On the other hand, if one wants to aggregate government power in a very un-conservative manner, then I’d say things are going just about as planned.
Davebo
Obviously we are dealing with schizophrenic terrorists here.
On the one hand, they’re to dumb to figure out that if, as Bush has explained to us for years, we are tracking international financial transactions, that SWIFT, the single largest secure messaging system for banks in the world, might be involved.
But on the other hand, now that they have been made aware of this fact, they are deviously clever enough to determine routings for transactions that will avoid SWIFT and other cooperating financial institutions.
Darrell
Yes they did.. and ironically the NY Times in 2001 right after 9/11 was specifically requesting that the Bush administration more closely monitor those financial transactions. It’s f*cking unbelievable.
Nutcutter
You’re the scum. A free press is much more essential to our freedom than some specific story about a raghead and his bank transaction. And if the government doesn’t know how to handle that problem, then their bad.
We’re not going to allow the scummy likes of you to decide how free our press is going to be. Don’t even think it.
Lee
thanks Jill I thought I was the only person who remembered that.
Nutcutter
Yes, you are fucking unbelievable. Keep your clammy little queer-baiting hands off of my free press, motherfucker.
Got it?
Par R
I totally agree with this comment, a very accurate reflection of at least half of the comments posted on these various threads by the moonbats who pick up their daily talking points from Kos, atrios, Greenwald, etc.
Lee
Here is the link to the President being a traitor, warning the terrorists we are going to monitor their transactions.
HERE
Steve
Kinda odd that this is the “obvious” problem and yet this is the first I have ever seen of this argument. So many people have attacked the NYT story without mentioning the “obvious” problem. Kinda funny how that works.
What strikes me is that this sort of information is much more likely to be leaked by those who support the program and want to boast about its successes than by those who want to see it shut down. This strikes me as an exceptionally weak argument, and I’d like to see some evidence that the administration tried to talk the NYT out of printing specific names for this reason before I buy into it.
Davebo
Couldn’t all these problems be avoided in the future if Keller simply checked with Kos first before running a story?
Nutcutter
You’ll need cites to back that up, Spoofucker. In my case, I always attribute, even when I don’t directly quote. And when I do that, I state that I am paraphrasing, so as not to mislead anyone into thinking I am directly quoting. Staying on the level is easy to do. That’s why my email address is in plain sight. And I have never read Greenwald, to my knowledge. I am not even sure who he is.
So, what is your email address, again?
Steve
Look at this guy, who doesn’t even bother to defend the fact that he cut and pasted his entire argument from a righty blog. When there’s no defense, I guess, don’t bother trying to offer one.
Darrell
Unlike the NY Times article which mentioned specific cases, naming names which were caught using this program, I didn’t read any such specifics in Bush’s announcements. Do you see the difference? Or do you dishonestly choose to ignore it?
Jim Allen
Please watch this to see what journalism should be about. Yeah, it’s “The Daily Show”, but it’s Helen Thomas and she knows what the hell she’s talking about.
Nutcutter
The difference is that it’s the Times, and not Bush, who get to decide whether to publish the story. Bush will not be granted that power, no matter how loudly scum like you try to pimp for it, unless the law and/or the Constitution are changed. If Bush really wants that, he can ask for it. Apparently, though, he thinks Gay Marriage is more important than protecting us from terrorists.
And so do you, if your posting history is any judge.
searp
It doesn’t enter into the legal calculus, but I’d say the program could not be that effective. Money laundering techniques work in the present environment, reporting and all. Billions and billions of drug money is laundered every year.
I could see it helping to connect dots at some level, but I don’t see a program of this type providing a significant amount of operational intelligence. I guess what I am saying is that this program would not provide the clue that would result in a rollup of a terrorist cell, but it may provide strategic intelligence about the funding of terrorism – large transfers into numbered accounts, etc.
Jill
Checks and balances, checks and balances…this administration is trying to avoid any and all oversight and they will lie about “national security” concerns in order to keep GWB in the role of king and not President.
Pb
Darrell,
Please cite that ‘specific‘ information that the New York Times named and Bush didn’t, that you found so damaging due to its secrecy–I didn’t see it, and I haven’t seen anyone else mention it, and neither did Glenn Greenwald, or The Boston Globe, or “Bush’s own former high-level terrorism official”. So I’m sure they’d like to know too.
Lee
Yeah I see the difference, the President said he was coming after all of them.
The NYT said we were only able to capture 2.
HUGE difference. Sorry it did not work out the way yoiu wanted it to.
It sounds like even then the program had little to do with their capture (see an above post…or are you just choosing to ignore it? :)
searp
On the legal calculus: all this blather about prosecuting the Times is just that, blather. Never in a million years. Posturing for the election, like most of the stuff out of DC until November.
Nutcutter
On Saturday June 3, as the NYT SWIFT story was being vetted and George Bush pondered the horror of revealing its secrets to the world, he chose to make a speech on his weekly radio address explaining why an amendment to the Constitution was necessary to protect us from Gay Marriage.
On the following Monday, he made similar appeal to the nation on tv.
This is the man who now says with a straight face that publication of the NYT story was “disgraceful.”
While he was busy pandering to the idiotic bigots in his right wing base, this supposed “damage” was about to be done to the country, and apparently Bush was too busy to try to stop it.
This lying little alocholic prick should be tried for treason.
I call upon Attorney General Gonzalez … Chop chop! Get the subpoenas and the indictments going.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
And that’s the point – we can no longer tell when the White House is deadly serious and when the White House is exaggerating to score political points or make a power grab. The adminstration who cried wolf.
You’re absolutely right, John. But is the administration living up to that obligation? No, it isn’t.
We have been told America faces a peril on par with the Axis powers. Naziism equated to Islamofascism, and such. Following 9-11, I could buy that.
But, if that parallel is true, why is the White House fighting the war in such a half-assed fashion? Where’s the draft? Why is the economy still on a peacetime setting?
American citizens have been told the GWoT won’t cost them any money (“go out and shop,” plus massive tax cuts) and won’t cost them in blood (save for the poor bastards who enlisted). But we were never informed this war could cost us our rights (pick one – right to a trial, illegal search and seizure) and our nation’s dignity (torture is a stain that won’t fade for decades).
That’s all I’ve got to say about that.
Jim Allen
Mr. Cole, given these responses, do you wish to revise or expand on your comments?
Pb
Well, you wouldn’t want to *tip off the terrorists* or anything…
Yes, but The Right started stripping *that* away a long time ago.
Don
If this administration hadn’t fought against using due process and having any oversight outside their own at every step on every other program I would actually have some sympathy for their statements here. Would there probably be some small advantage in not making a big stink about this program? Sure, I’ll accept that.
You can’t bypass FISA, eschew getting even marginally specific warrants (vs the very weak and general ones they used in this program, based on the reporting) and hide all your activities from everyone INCLUDING closed congressional committee meetings and then say “you should have just trusted us.” These programs get revealed now BECAUSE nobody believes you can be trusted to work w/o oversight, folks.
Any rightie who’d tie down their jerking knee and take their blood-pressure meds long enough to read the article and see how much of it was devoted to the lack of constraints, process, oversights and warrants would see clearly that the reason they went ahead and broke this story was because it was clear this was another possibly-illegal program with no checks. THAT was the story. Reporting on the details did the Bush camp a favor by making the case for it being worth doing.
Rusty Shackleford
from Froomkin
Access the column for links to the trade show and magazine.
me
swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=6149
there you go if you had any illusions this already wasn t going on pre-bush.
The Other Steve
Did the NY Times need to publish the article? No, there’s nothing going wrong here, there’s no need to question or oversight. Obviously bringing attention to something isn’t helpful in an ongoing investigation.
Did the NY Times do anything criminal in publishing the article? No. There’s no secret here, obviously. We all knew this was going on, and quite clearly from the SWIFT and FASF websites, money laundering and other illegal activities are monitored failry closely. The comments made by other administration officials over the past several years draw the obvious conclusions.
Are the Republicans overreaching and sounding shrill? Obviously, yes.
Do the Republicans have any credibility here? No, as we’ve seen time and time again, they are extremely willing to politicize state secrets. The Bush Administration gave up the names of suspects being monitored by the British back in 2004 because they wanted to be seen as “doing something”. So accusing the NY Times of drawing attention to something that we all pretty much knew about isn’t at all the same as giving out the names of people being investigated.
All these calls of treason and what not are pretty pathetic, and quite obviously POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, as is everything the Republicans do.
You don’t sound moderate or reasonable by giving them any credibility.
Rusty Shackleford
What’s f*cking unbelievable is your persistent stupidity. You’re like the Energizer Bunny of Stupid.
The Other Steve
Gotta agree. Darrell, could you please in future posts engage your brain instead of just repeating the party lines you get in your email?
Thank you
Krista
Nicely, nicely put. It beautifully illustrates how absurd some of the right-wing arguments are.
mrmobi
I know this is quoted upstream, but I wanted to re-iterate this “moderate” view from the blog John linked to.
Fair enough. So where are the indictments? If they really are ready to eliminate, for the first time in our history, the right to a free press, what law has been broken?
What about the “dozen or so” folks who spoke to the Times. They are probably all Democrats, right? If laws have been broken, shouldn’t they be tried and put away for an indeterminate period of time at an undisclosed location? Can we torture them? Please? I have a really nice power drill.
Sorry, having a Stephen Colbert moment. There won’t be any charges because this is just the on-going Rove misdirection. Lying, cheating and stealing has worked for him in the past, and it will probably work again, although I think people are beginning to open their eyes and see that this is the most partisan, secretive and vindictive administration in memory, if not ever.
Oh, I wanted to say I’ve been getting most of my moonbat talking points from the David Sirota book “Hostile Takeover.” It’s a meticulously documented dismemberment of all things Darrell & GOP4Me. I highly recommend it.
t. jasper parnell
Hey,
Not only do I have silly name but I am a prophet:
Nutcutter
The damage done?
That’s from Amazon, a review of Ron Suskind’s “One Percent Doctrine” now on sale at bookstores everywhere.
The damage done? The damage done is to this country by an incompetant and pig-headed government. God bless the book and magazine and newspaper publishers who are working to shine the light of day on these miscreants.
Darrell
I know that kind of comment undoubtedly receives unthinking applause and backslapping at DKos.. but don’t you think you’re being just a wee bit moonbatty to make the assertion that the Bush admin has fought against due process and oversight ‘at every step’? Especially since every one of the NSA programs lefties so vocally oppose, does in fact have oversight
Vladi G
I’ll remember this the next time people tell me that outing Valerie Plame was no big deal because she may have been seen driving to Langley.
Hmm, aside from being a hypocrite, Patterico is apparently also a fucking moron. How exactly is evidence that this program was used to catch terrorists unquestionable proof that they didn’t know anyone was tracking financial transactions, or that such a program existed? Guess that means that anyone ever busted thanks to a wiretap didn’t know that law enforcement occasionally uses wiretaps. Similarly, it’s an unquestionable fact that people caught for speeding are unaware of the existence of radar guns. OOPS!! I spilled the beans!!
Nutcutter
Do you think this thread is about something a “wee bit moonbatty?”
It’s about bashing freedom of the press, you fucking idiot.
By a government that has forfeited the right to be taken seriously on the subject. Long ago.
Jim Allen
And LarryDarrell&Darrell has also forfeited that right. A mind is a terrible thing to waste; even worse is not having one of your own to begin with. It’s sad, really.
Perry Como
Mr. Cole, what would your suggestion be to prevent this from happening again? If the story did indeed damage our national security, what exactly should the government do about it?
Darrell
Problem is, “freedom of the press” to you whackjobs = revealing national security secrets whenever a news editor feels like it. I hope more mainstream Americans become aware of exactly how f*cked up so many of you on the left truly are. Please make sure to scream your opinions at anyone and everyone you happen to meet.
Perry Como
Go take care of that whole $8.5 trillion debt and the largest increase of federal government since FDR then maybe someone will take your opinions seriously, Darrell (and Par R and Mac Buckets and the rest of the administration apologistas).
Steve
Here is what Tom Kean actually had to say about his conversations with the NYT. I can’t wait for his reasonable and evenhanded statements to be used as “support” for extremist positions, which is inevitable.
Darrell
How typical of you jackasses to change the subject when you have no facts and no argument.
Jim Allen
More mush from LarryDarrell&Darrell. By the way, you’re getting Cheeto crumbs all over your underwear.
Perry Como
Change what argument? You’re a nannystatist that loves big government. That’s been my argument all along. Your calls for government intervention into the free press is just another example of how much you love state power.
Jim Allen
The comedic stylings of LarryDarrell&Darrell! For all your wingnutty needs!
Richard Bottoms
Dear president dickhead, stop breaking the law and trashing out freedoms to wage your war.
Darrell
Interesting to see those on the left so willing to lower the bar when it comes to our national security (politics before country?). So an “effective and legal” program to catch terrorists was forced to end because the NYT chose to reveal details about it.. But because it cannot be definitively shown that the termination of the effective program directly put lives at risk.. then it’s ok, no big deal.
Steve
Tom Kean is a lefty now? Ok, whatever.
Darrell
I’m not aware of any dispute that the national security program under discussion was legal. But if makes you leftists feel like you’re speaking ‘truth to power’ to scream it, then I say scream louder.. because not enough Americans are hearing your message..
Jim Allen
Here’s a more lucid presentation of LarryDarrell&Darrell:
Keep ’em coming, Captain Cheetos!
Jim Allen
I wonder if LarryDarrell&Darrell has a tape of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” playing while he types, or if he only hears it in his head?
Darrell
No, but the prospect.org writer who wrote the article is a lefty who appears to have no problem in the wrecking of an ‘effective’ national security program to catch terrorists in the interest of furthering his politics.
Nutcutter
As determined by what, Darrell? What determines what is a “national security secret?” Which laws pertain and which were broken?
Show these, or STFU.
Steve
Haha, what the fuck? You didn’t even READ the New York Times story, and you’re bloviating about it like this?
Rusty Shackleford
Forced to end? Are you saying that Bush & Co. have discontinued the surveillance program?
It’s like you’re developmentally disabled (if I’ve offended any developmentally disabled folks by comparing them to Darrell, all apologies).
By the way, found Darrell’s homepage.
Darrell
According to the article Steve posted, yes it was ended as a result.
Nutcutter
Which is why Kean is fit to govern, and Bush and Cheney are not.
I don’t agree with Kean that the decision was wrong, at all. But that’s his opinion. However, he is smart enough to also know that the most important thing to protect here is freedom and process, not a veil of secrecy coveted by a bunch of tin-eared lunatics who care about nothing but their own power.
Freedom of the press is more important than monitoring SWIFT, it’s more important than George Bush, a guy who apparently thinks Gay Marriage is the issue that trumps terrorist financial monitoring AND freedom of the press.
Perry Como
I agree. Not enough Americans are hearing my message.
You and your ilk embrace big government ideals and are funding the massive increase of the Federal government size and power by incurring a Federal debt that my grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying off. You believe that the Federal government can solve all of our ills and you are passing the cost of your beliefs off to further generations. You hold the lives of Americans in contempt and you loathe the freedoms that the Constitution protects.
How’s that for “truth to power”, nannystate apologist?
t. jasper parnell
The presses’ purpose is to inform the citizen of what the government does so that citizens can decide if they want this government to continue. The mind boggles that Mr. Cole might consider giving citizens sufficient information to make an informed decision some how or another wrong. The mind boggles that individuals suggest that the press ought not perform its function. Look, each time the NYT or other news outlet provides some information on the GWOTAOEAOORN they provide citizens with the information to continue to support this or that government or this or that tactic. Should it be the case that lies are disseminated, SWIFT monitoring never occurred, all wire taps had legitimate warrants and oversight, no one waterboarder etc, that is another matter. But so far none of the reports have been shown to be false. For myself alone, I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq, torture and find the notion of an all mighty executive an affront to the Consitution.
Rusty Shackleford
If the program was “effective and legal” why would the publication end said program?
Darrell
Not even Keller says the program was illegal.. he said he chose to report details on the secret program because the information would be of “public interest”, not because of illegalities.. from everything I’ve read.
Nutcutter
Darrell believes that the huge debt is acceptable as long as it is not Gay.
Steve
Real simple. Did you read the NYT story, or not? Because I don’t see any way on God’s green earth someone could read the NYT story and say, as you did:
Jim Allen
Or Mexican.
Darrell
Oh sweet irony. the very jackass who calls me ‘developmentally disabled’, can’t answer a question every other dumbass knows the answer to. Because details of the LEGAL program were revealed, it’s not at all unreasonable that the effectiveness of the legal program could be compromised. Is that clear enough for you, stupid ass?
t. jasper parnell
Mr. Cole there are other voices than the faux-patrician countering Patterco (or is it Par R?).
Not that I think Greenwald is God himself, but he does make sense
You may need to scroll down.
chopper
Problem is, “freedom of the press” to you whackjobs = revealing national security secrets whenever a news editor feels like it.
since when was the information secret?
Punchy
Very, very possible the PoTD.
Jim Allen
I’m detecting a theme here. Or perhaps “obsession” would be more appropriate.
t. jasper parnell
Sorry but the notion that program has ended would reguire thinking that there is another manner of sending money round the world. Granted, it is clear (NPR Morning Edition, Today) that some of the terrorists are now funded through drug traffic and “local crimes” and not that AQ is now decentralized (all this happened before the quasi-legal and effective) program exposure. If the Admin gives up what they and you claim to be a legal monitoring system because its exposure might have scared AQ and its allies into the carrier pigeon money transfer system they are dumber than I thought, I think they are pretty damn dumb.
Steve
You’d know why Kean says the program has now been ended… if you had read the NYT article in the first place. Which you didn’t, did you?
Rusty Shackleford
National Review article here:
The article does not clearly state that the program has been ended, Kean suggests it might have been ended.
Kean tells National Review Online that the New York Times’s decision to expose the terrorist finance effort — Kean called Times executive editor Bill Keller in an attempt to persuade him not to publish — has done terrible damage to the program. “I think it’s over,” Kean says. “Terrorists read the newspapers. Once the program became known, then obviously the terrorists were not going to use these methods any more.”
And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Darrell
The prospect.org link which Steve blockquoted above offers some truly revealing insights as to what scumbags so many on the left truly are. According to prospect.org article., the details of a govt. program to catch terrorists was published by the NYT causing the “effective and legal” program to end. No big deal, according to the leftist whackjobs, because it can’t be definitively shown that ending that program ‘cost American lives’. I think most people outside of the whackjob left would agree that is f*cked up.
t. jasper parnell
Most people outside the “left” would agree that a lack of evidence means an assertion is invalid? So only the “left” thinks that evidence ought govern policy? Hurrayh the “left.”
Steve
You’ll search in vain, of course, for any statement at prospect.org that it woudl be “no big deal” to end an effective and legal counterterrorism program. There’s a wide gulf, that extremists like Darrell will never acknowledge, between saying “it’s no big deal” and advocating that the New York Times should be prosecuted for treason.
Note that he still hasn’t answered whether or not he actually read the NYT article. I kinda of suspect he’s feverishly skimming through it trying to figure out what I’m getting at.
t. jasper parnell
Also, if Kean is revealing that the “legal and effective program” has ended, isn’t he making it possible for the terrorist to continue to use international wire transfers? If so, isn’t he aiding and abetting the terrorists? My goodness.
Rusty Shackleford
So, what you’re saying is that now that the program has been revealed no terrorist will ever attempt to make another international wire transfer?
You’re astonishingly stupid.
I want confirmation that the program has been discontinued. Kean suggesting that “he thinks” it’s over is insufficient.
The Other Steve
Interesting how my take on the issue is in line with Tom Kean. That it didn’t need to be reported, but it certainly wasn’t illegal and didn’t hurt security efforts.
Similarly the over the top rhetoric of the Republican party which is clearly intended to fire up their whackjob base, is also serving to turn off independent moderates.
Keep this up, and the 2006 election season is going to be a Democratic sweep as people grow increasingly tired of the politics as usual of the Republicans.
So from that point of view, I would like to thank Darrell and his whackjob buddies Hastert, Cheney and Bush.
Jim Allen
And another pattern emerges!
Hey, LarryDarrell&Darrell, see if you can post a comment without using the word “left” (or any variant thereof), just for fun! Maybe you can try to eliminate “ass” and “whack”, too, since it makes you seem kind of creepy, you know?
I’m willing to bet that LarryDarrell&Darrell is a true “rightie” — in every way.
t. jasper parnell
But if the program’s demise is confirmed than the terrorist can use international wire transfers with impunity so confirmation, or asking for it, is tantamount to giving the terrorits information necessary to increase their effectiveness. Its a new war a war that requires its own “double secret” operations on all fronts. The American people must not, indeed cannot, know of the success or failure of a tactic because then the terrorists would know. Rinse and repeat.
Darrell
That’s bullshit and you know it Steve. Anyone can re-read the article for themselves to see that prospect.org was obviously unconcerned at the ending of the ‘effective’ program. What they are most concerned with, as their words make clear, is the political cover which was so emphasized in having Kean admit that he couldn’t demonstrate how the ending of that program ‘cost American lives’. That political cover is what’s important to them, not the ending of an effective legal program to catch terrorists. Fucking scumbags
The Other Steve
Darrel… Your over the top shrill rhetoric is really making you appear to be a whackjob.
You might want to tone it down a bit.
Steve
I’ll answer the question in hopes that someone might actually want to know the answer.
The NYT reports:
Why would disclosure result in termination of the program? I don’t have a crystal ball, but the most logical answer is that SWIFT was a very reluctant participant in this program, that they wanted to get out years ago, and that public disclosure of the program would be the last straw for them.
Bill Keller, in his CNN interview, openly acknowledges that this was the primary argument the administration made against publication – that SWIFT would terminate the program if it were disclosed. Keller, who presumably knows what’s in his paper’s own reporting, didn’t think it was very likely they would back out. From my own reading of the story, I’m not sure why he would be so confident.
Certainly, if the program has in fact been ended – and I guess I’m not 100% clear on that from the Kean stories – then I guess Keller’s judgment on this point was pretty wrong. Mind you, as others have said, it seems to me that it would be a pretty big national security leak in and of itself to openly announce that the program has been ended. After all, even if there is no program, why would we want to give the terrorists the all-clear signal?
The Other Steve
Good point. Now that the program has ended(well according to Whackjob Darrell), the terrorists are free to wire transfer money like never before.
That does appear to be what Darrell is claiming.
Steve
Right, the unconcern practically drips from the computer screen… if you’re an extremist with somewhat nutty preconceptions about how “lefties” think, I guess. For the rest of us, it kinda just looks like reporting of what Kean said.
Darrell
There have been ‘secret’ national security programs in place since the founding of our country. Not every national security tactic and program should be published in the NY Times.. THAT is what you aholes don’t get
Steve
By the way, I’ve now asked Darrell three times if he actually read the NYT article, and he hasn’t responded. At what point can we conclude that he’s been babbling on for all this time about how the article revealed critical state secrets, yadda yadda, without actually having read it?
The Other Steve
Oh, I’m sorry.
Were we supposed to take your over the top shrillness seriously? Here all this time I thought you were pandering for political gain.
About the only purpose this rhetoric serves is to try to undermine the credibility of the Times. But when push comes to shove, and us midwestern reasonable individuals are listening to you shouting at the top of your lungs that the Times ought to be bombed, and the Times simply reporting on something we always assumed was happening.
It’s your credibility which is being undermined.
Seriously, Darrell, you sound like a whackjob. Tone it down.
Darrell
Steve goes pedantic as usual, obsessing like a loon. It’s like watching 3rd graders argue over who’s been to Disneyland the most times
t. jasper parnell
Who said there haven’t been? Who said they should? What is wrong with this one? As the initial article made clear at least one case of abuse occurred, legal experts disagree on its legality, the information contained within the article was already widely circulated, and so on. For myself, and not for the “left,” I prefer to know what this or any government is doing, particularly when what it is doing involves collecting information on its citizens. Sorry, but I just do not trust any government’s ability to police itself nor do I trust the co-equal branches to properly exercise their oversight function absent an informed citizenry demanding that they do so. Granted, democracy is messy but I love it none the less. Like smores only with fewer calories.
Darrell
Other Steve, by any rational measure, you are not a ‘rational’ midwesterner. What’s interesting, is that so many of you extremists see yourselves as reasonable and normal…hilarious, coming from members of the self proclaimed ‘reality based’ community
Steve
In other words, you didn’t read the New York Times story that we’ve all been talking about for the last two days. Okay. Sorry to dwell on such a “pedantic” and obviously irrelevant point, but I’m just saying, you might not make quite as many ignorant statements if you had read it.
Mac Buckets
So everybody, including the terrorists, knew the details of the SWIFT program from some vague, obscure quotes in the past. Right?
But I’m sure terrorists are more informed about classified anti-terror efforts than the co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission. And I’m sure the terrorists won’t catch on now, just because the Times, followed by the LAT, CNN, WSJ, BBC, Al Jazeera, and every other media outlet have now outed the program, right?
This SWIFT program probably wasn’t too successful, since the terrorists must’ve known about it, right? Besides, it’s just another example of Herr Bush trampling on our freedoms and keeping us in imaginary shackles in an effort to control our thoughts and your woman’s uterus!
But think of the good that the Times’ exposing this program did! Like, you know, it, uhhhhhh, well… it, uhhhhhhh, slyly implied to the nuttiest nuts on the lunatic fringes that “Evil Darth Bush has his hands in your checking account!!!!” And I guess that’s more valuable to the New York Times than protecting state secrets, I guess.
jg
Any chance that was the theme because they were answering the charge from wingnuts that the NYT is endangering american lives by printing this story?
t. jasper parnell
So Darrell,
Did you read the article? Is it pedantic to read what it is you are commenting on? Or did you refrain from reading in case you are caught by AQ and its contents spill out in the course of their nefarious interogation?
Steve
Incidentally, Greg Sargent makes clear in comments at the prospect.org site that it’s not clear from the Kean interview whether the program has, in fact, physically been terminated.
Darrell
What “ignorant” statements have I made which would in any way indicate I hadn’t read the NYT story jackass?
Rusty Shackleford
Remember when Republicans used to think this way? Those were the good ole days.
Now we’re stuck with an amalgam of Neocons, mouth breathers, Jesus freaks and “corporatists.” Yikes.
Where have you gone, Billy Buckley? The GOP turns its lonely eyes to you…
t. jasper parnell
Mac B,
Did you read the various “blogograms” and other related materials that show, pretty conclusively, that all the information was in wide circulation? Does the fact that Kean et al did not know suggest anything to you? Is it your position that information available in a variety of places, for example in presidential speeches, is off limits to the press?
Rusty Shackleford
This is too easy. ALL OF THEM
Perry Como
Which ones should and who decides? What remedy should the government seek against the NY Times? Treason charges? How much government control is too much for you? At $8.5 trillion and counting I have yet to see you call for smaller government for anything other than gun control (an issue I agree with you).
The Other Steve
Sorry, Darrell, but that’s what I am.
The reason you don’t understand it, is because you’ve gone so far off into the Kiss-Bush-Ass whackjob world that you’ve lost touch with mainstream America.
Steve
Well, maybe the statement that I quoted in my 2:54 pm post when I first asked if you had read it.
There’s no possible way you could read the article and believe that the program is indisputably legal.
By the way, it arguably would go better for you if you would just up and admit that you didn’t read the article. I’m not sure continuing to dodge the question is going to do more than just prolong the issue at this point.
Richard 23
Slightly off topic, but there is a newly released English translation of an al Qaeda strategy book out that might be of interest. The book “The Management of Savagery” by Abu Bakr Naji translated by William McCants is available on the website for the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point.
Apparently we fell right into their trap:
Thankfully, due to Bush’s bumbling there hasn’t been the need for another terrorist attack in the US since 911.
Sounds like a pretty good strategy that Bush has fallen for hook line and sinker. No wonder bin Laden released the pre-election endorsement of George W Bush. Bush is destroying the country over here so al Qaeda doesn’t have to!
Darrell
Enlightened leftist newspaper editors should be able to decide.. Duh!
Jill
“I know that kind of comment undoubtedly receives unthinking applause and backslapping at DKos.. but don’t you think you’re being just a wee bit moonbatty to make the assertion that the Bush admin has fought against due process and oversight ‘at every step’? Especially since every one of the NSA programs lefties so vocally oppose, does in fact have oversight.”
Oversight? If you call TELLING a few senators and congresspeople oversight.
Darrell
Steve, you’ve made the accusations, repeating them like an obsessed 8 year old, so why dont’ you show us where in the NYT article, it so ‘obviously’ makes the case that this program is illegal?
t. jasper parnell
Darrell
No clearly the president ought decide. He is, after all, the decider and what does a decider decide? Decisions. And once those decisions have been, by the decider, decided, what remains to be done? Implementation of the decisions decided by the decider, of course, and who ought implement the decider’s decisions? Why those he decides ought, and who ought know of the decisions the decider decided and the implementers he has decided to carry out his decisive decisions? Why those he decides ought, it is his role as decider to decide and having decided to decide yet again until the all the decisions that could be decided are authorititively decided by the decider and implemented by the implementers and the the secret sharers (author name = 10 pts) share decisive decisions, you see?
Perry Como
Nice dodge. Now answer the question. Should the government get to decide what stories the press prints?
The Other Steve
Richard 23 – Hmm, I think Al Qaeda did have the upper hand in 2004 in terms of PR. I’m not certain they do today, as evidenced by some polling of the region. The tactics Zarqawi used of targeting civilians in Iraq kind of pissed off their base of support.
Where we go from here is a different question.
I think the book is probably right that Bush was drawn into Bin Laden’s Briar Patch. But I’m not certain about bin Laden’s claims with regards to draining the states economically. As long as we can prevent the Bush administration from escalating this war further, I think that our economy can absorb the costs.
That being said, we obviously would be in a better position without the war in Iraq. Better yet, we’d be in a better position by investing the same dollar amounts spent on war into improving our technology such that we can abandon the middle east to it’s own shithole. That would resort in the moderate arabs forced into a position of either abandoning the fundamentalists or losing their livelihoods. Right now they can play both sides of the game, and keeping the region in chaos helps inflate prices.
The Other Steve
Have you read the article yet?
Darrell
What are you suggesting Jill, that every national security program and tactic be vetted through the pages of the NY Times? That there is no national security program which can be checked ‘only’ by the Senate and Congress?
Please elaborate so that more people can see how whacked so many of you on the left truly are.
Darrell
Any indications that this program was illegal, and therefore deserving of publication in the NY Times? Were the appropriate committees of Congress briefed? Were there violations of safeguards reported? Well then, you loons certainly have a ‘solid’ point, don’t you?
t. jasper parnell
Darrell Says:
Steve, you’ve made the accusations, repeating them like an obsessed 8 year old, so why dont’ you show us where in the NYT article, it so ‘obviously’ makes the case that this program is illegal?
Darrell, although not a decisive ruling, no decider I, there is a world of difference between Steve’s “indisputably” and your “obviously” The article made clear that some legal experts saw it as having at least questionable legality others thought it was illegal. See, the word indisputably, as I understand it, means without dispute, which is to say, all deciders who saw the issue under discussion agreed that it was legal, which is not the case, thus the program’s “legal” status is disputable, until — of course — a decider weighs in . For myself, I would prefer the decider to be a judge but then again I am overly enamored of the Constitution, checks and balances, and the like. Smores the pity.
Steve
Why don’t you just read the article and then let us know if you’re still confused about the existence of a dispute. Who knows, you might learn something.
Darrell
Of course not.. and if the NYT decides they want to print a ‘scoop’ which outs CIA operatives in Eastern Europe or US troop weapons stashes in the middle east, they are fully within their 1st amendment rights in doing so. [/leftist idiot]
Richard 23
Darrell, have you read the NYT article yet?
t. jasper parnell
Block quotes tanked, sorry.
Darrell, absent the disclosure of the program and absent discussion of its ins and outs how can we decide if it is legit or non-legit? Why the decider has decided and, whatismore, attests to its decisive effects on the those he has decided hate our freedom.
Darrell
I knew you couldn’t answer the question.
The Other Steve
Actually I suspect Darrell thinks the media should be owned by the government. Kind of like how it is in most Communist countries.
Darrell
Can there be any honest doubt that leftists tend to be sheep-like followers? How many sightings of “Decider” and “Dear leader” in the comments today?
The Other Steve
Have you read the article yet?
Steve
And I am the one acting like an 8 year old? Wow. Why don’t you double dog dare me?
The Other Steve
Baaaaaaa!
How many times have people asked if you’ve read the article yet?
I’ll be honest. I have not.
Jill
“What are you suggesting Jill, that every national security program and tactic be vetted through the pages of the NY Times? That there is no national security program which can be checked ‘only’ by the Senate and Congress?”
Oversight is having closed door sessions with the appropriate committees and allowing those committees to actually talk to their aides about the programs being monitored.
The whole point about the NYT story is that this is once again a case of the WH stretching its imperial muscles.
Richard 23
A new bin Laden tape is reportedly coming out very soon which will acknowledge the death of big Z. Just heard this on the radio.
Darrell
No?
The Other Steve
I triple dog dare you!
Steve
How the fuck do they know this stuff? Does bin Laden release a trailer?
t. jasper parnell
I decided to use decider because I liked the sound of post. Nothing “sheep like” about it; I actually thought it was funny, but then again I am often wrong. And, by the way, I am not the “left” nor yet a “liberal.”
Darrell
Any evidence that didn’t happen with this program? No? Well then, we can certainly see your point.
Perry Como
Still dodging. Should the government get to decide what stories the press prints?
Please elaborate so that more people can see how whacked so many of you on the authoritarian right truly are.
Perry Como
To the Darrells of the Right, if you don’t implicitly trust the government then you are a raving moonbat. The Right has always embraced massive deficits. The Right has always loved massive increases in government power. Welcome to Republican America where we pass off our big government costs to future generations.
CaseyL
Is Darrell’s the same bloke who accepts as a matter of faith that gay boy scout leaders are all lookin’ to get some underge nookie?
Pb
Woo. Darrell couldn’t answer my question either. I guess he really hasn’t read the article.
John S.
Another yet another thread Darrelled beyond recognition…
By that I mean a substantial number of the posts are either by Darrell himself, or they are refutations of his stupidity and outright lies.
Honestly, I have never seen someone quite so desperate for attention.
Punchy
OT–who knew that the Anti-Christ had such nice front-junk?
Steve
I mean, if he’d just read the NYT story, at least he’d understand that there’s a dispute as to whether the program is legal.
He already knows that he’d agree with whoever says it’s legal, which is fine, but at least he wouldn’t go around looking stupid by saying he’s not aware of any dispute.
Darrell
Funny, because you usually take decidedly leftist positions from what I’ve read. Not saying this is you in particular, but leftists do tend to be more dishonest about their political beliefs, proclaiming themselves to be ‘moderates’ or ‘former Republican’, or ‘reality based’, rather than own up to being a liberal. No doubt in a few of those cases they really are moderates or former Repubs. Do consider the possibility that you could be so far left, that anything in the center looks “far right” to you?
Darrell
Please cite
John S.
Any evidence that you don’t fuck goats?
Proving negatives are fun!
Jill
“Any evidence that didn’t happen with this program?”
Any evidence it did happen? Because there is plenty of evidence that all the WH has been doing is only TELLING the committee leaders and party leaders who in turn have not been able to question the WH nor confer with aides about other secret programs.
Isn’t Bush your big,strong guy who always “stays the course”? Why would he change now and start having some actual oversight?
You cannot publish
So you are considering the position that if I publish the SWIFT website swift.com/ or magazine swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=41563 or the SWIFT CEO blurb in CIO Magazine swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=43598 then I have broken the law? How you figure that?
t. jasper parnell
Darrell, Darrell, Darrell,
From Ancient Purple on the earlier thread
John S.
Have you considered the possibility that you could be so far to the right, that the center looks “far left” to you?
Darrell
Kudos to t.jasper parnell for actually citing facts to support an argument. Point taken
t. jasper parnell
Darrel,
It could be that I am so far left that anything in the center looks coo coo crazy to me. Then again, it might be that I have a wide array of “beliefs.” Some might be “right” some might be “left” some might be right in the center. I like to think of myself as a centrist,because my happiness is central to everything I do.
The Other Steve
It’s getting pretty pathetic. I’ve even heard George Will and William F. Buckley Jr. called leftists by you guys.
Steve
It’s in about a dozen different places throughout the NYT story. Do you actually need my help in finding the NYT story?
The reason why I haven’t gone through and pulled out chapter and verse in block quote form is because I think it’s pretty weak of you to not even bother reading the story, come prancing in with a statement like “I’m not aware of any dispute that the national security program under discussion was legal,” and then expect me to do the work to show you there’s a dispute. The reason why you’re unaware of a dispute is that you apparently haven’t done anything to inform yourself other than read righty blogs (but remember, it’s liberals who are the sheep!)
John S.
A small feat Darrell has yet to be able to manage.
t. jasper parnell
center should have had scare quotes too.
Jill
“Kudos to t.jasper parnell for actually citing facts to support an argument. Point taken”
Thus the need for oversight, since there is none. Maybe no one would have leaked to the reporters if they knew that members of congress were in on the program.
The Other Steve
Darrell isn’t right-wing, he’s in the Bush-wing. That is anything Bush does is good, any criticism is bad.
Richard 23
Haha. Apparently from chatter on certain Islamic extremist websites. I expect you’re right about it being a trailer. I expected a tape closer to the election. If the summary of “The Management of Savagery” is accurate, al Qaeda would prefer the current morons stay in charge. Therefore the jackalope, tanuki or racoon-dog tactic of releasing a tape before the election to keep the bedwetters in line.
Darrell
Steve, I read the story, and I saw no real dispute over the program’s legality, just baseless speculation over the ‘potential for abuse’ and similar nonsense. If you’ve got more to back up your pedantic accusations, then show it
t. jasper parnell
Another cited fact
Darrell
There you go again Jill, showing your ‘reality based’ colors. We don’t know that there was “no oversight” now do we? We certainly have no evidence of abuse on this program, only the “potential” for abuse. Ever hear of the Senate select committee on intelligence?
Steve
On a separate note, allow me to point out that briefing Congress isn’t exactly “oversight” in this context, because even if some members of Congress know that a program exists, they have no way of knowing whether abuses are occurring in individual cases.
Why do we have, for example, a warrant requirement? Why don’t we just have the police tell Congress “hey, we have this program where we search the houses of suspected criminals”? Because the idea is that a judge should review each individual case, to determine whether that particular search is justified. That’s why ignoring the warrant requirements of FISA doesn’t become ok just because you tell Congress “hey, we have this program that doesn’t follow FISA.” The overall goals of the program may sound fine but there’s no way of catching abuses, or of assuring the public that no abuses have occurred, without oversight of individual cases.
That said, it’s not an open and shut case that there was no oversight of the SWIFT program. The program went through several different iterations, apparently, and it seems like there was some sort of independent review board that looked at each request, although details are sketchy. Of course, all this is laid out pretty well in the infamous article.
t. jasper parnell
Via Greenwald: Founding Fathers and the Free Press
Perry Como
My favorite thing about discussions like this is that the people that criticize the NY Times refuse to be pinned down on the government control of the press angle. It’s the inevitable conclusion of their criticism, but you can see the cognitive dissonance about what is clearly an authoritarian view.
Jill
“I am dying to know who these Members of Congress and legal authorities “from both sides of the aisle” were. According to the Chicago Tribune, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee wasn’t informed of the program until after the Administration was told the NYT was going to publish the story.”
Darrell, the above quote is about the lack of oversight!!!!!! Once again..
“…the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee wasn’t informed of the program until after the Administration was told the NYT was going to publish the story.”
Steve
Ok, I guess you’ve forced me to waste my time now.
You cannot possibly read this article and conclude that there is no room for dispute as to the legality of the program.
Darrell
Yes, and those programs have safeguards and processes. Are they guaranteed to work? Nothing is. There is the potential for abuse and injustice in just about every progam, including those injustices which occur even in cases where judges have approved warrants.
t. jasper parnell
The abuse question would seem to be a difficult one:
Perhaps properly undertaken oversight, checks and balances would resolve the issue. Inquiring minds want to know.
Perry Como
Yeah, but the Founding Fathers were raving moonbats. Given the choice of a free press or government, that Liberal Leftist Jefferson would choose the free press. I hope he screams louder so everyone can see how extreme he is!
Steve
Another bold statement from Darrell, who claims to have read the story now, right?
Jill
And hiring Booz-Allen doesn’t count as oversight, Darrell. (pre-emptive argument)
Perry Como
So we might as well remove all oversight because abuse will occur anyway. Trust the government! They’re here to help!
John S.
Gosh, Darrell sure hates people who are pedantic.
I guess that is because Darrell prefers to ignore pesky things such as details and any form of reasoning that even smacks of scholastic learnin’.
t. jasper parnell
Its “disputable” legality, however, would seem to be well established:
From the above
D. Mason
I haven’t read the article, I admit it up front, but I’m still going to chime in. I personally don’t care how super secret the program was, freedom of the press is essential to liberty. If a newspaper prints a story that really endangers people, their readers will be able to see it. The endangered subscribers will punish the newspaper accordingly(free market anyone?), but the government should never have the power to do so.
If anyone who supports some type of government oversight on newpapers could please explain their position I would love to read it. Who should decide what qualifies for government oversight? Who should decide when an article is too revealing to be printed? Who should decide when a newspaper has broken the (as yet unwritten) code? Who should be the person to decide what happens to organisations who print an inappropriate article? These are serious questions and if your belief is that some restriction should be placed on the press an answer would be nice.
John S.
You can if you’re Darrell and you read the article having already made up your mind that the NYT is a traitor and everthing Bush does is to protect us.
Darrell
Steve, nothing in your list suggests there was serious doubt to the legality of the program, just “potential for abuse” and other vague suggestions. Regarding your selective quotation of Swift Executives being “Worried about potential legal liability”, you omit this more definitive quote in the same article:
I fully stand by my claim that there was no real dispute over the program’s legality, only vague suggestions.. as your ‘evidence’ aptly demonstrates
t. jasper parnell
It would also seem that Kean and the 9/11 commission knew, along with Alan Greenspan, about the potential problems apparantly Atlas Shrugged:
Briefing, of course, is not oversight.
Darrell
D.Mason, does “freedom of the press” mean freedom to write stories outing covert CIA agents overseas? How about ‘scoops’ on our troop movements in Afghanistan?
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
The quote by which you stand comes from SWIFT, of course it is madness to suggest that SWIFT, represented as “worried” about the programs legality and reach, might make a dubious claim. Moonbatty, left-leaning madness in spades.
Darrell
Steve had dishonestly asserted that it was so patently “obvious” to “anyone who had read the NYT article” that there were real disputes over the programs legality. I guess allegations of “potential for abuse” qualifies as illegal program in the reality based community
jg
yes they are free to do that. Its common sense that stops them. But your two examples above aren’t what happened in this case right?
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
Any examples of that kind of behavior.
I do not know who this guy was but he makes good sense
Didn’t his wife make cupcakes?
t. jasper parnell
This is inaccurate. Steve said that its legality was not “indisputable,” which — as I explained earlier — means something rather different than obvious. Obviously.
Darrell
Well, the NY Times did once again, write an article giving details on a LEGAL and effective program to catch terrorists.
Perry Como
So should the government decide what the press gets to print? Easy question.
t. jasper parnell
And again, the program’s legality is disputed; one could, without descent into pedentry, make the case that one man’s “inappropriate” is another woman’s “abuse.” Deciding which view is correct requires the event seeing the light of day, no?
Darrell
It’s important not to pull quotes out of your ass when the verbatim words are so easy to verify. Steve’s initial comment when I said there was no real dispute to the legality of the program:
Please refrain from lying your ass off about what Steve actually said, ok?
t. jasper parnell
No, no they didn’t. They wrote an even-handed account of a program whose legality is open to debate.
Darrell
In some cases yes, in other cases no. Have you heard of libel laws dumbass?
t. jasper parnell
I really dislike being called a liar
Darrell
But you were lying when you said my characterization of Steve’s comments was “inaccurate”. I think the verbatim quote of Steve’s initial reaction stands on it’s own
Perry Como
So you are in favor of government controlled media only part of the time. Part-authoritarian I guess.
That occurs after the fact. What you seem to be suggesting is that the media should run their stories through some sort of government censor office. The government ultimately gets to decide what is released and what is not. Another shot of vodka, comrade?
Jill
I can’t wait for President X, democrat from Y, to start deciding what the press can report! How about you, Darrell?
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
Steve said it was disputable, which is the point I raised, I did not comment on his accusation that you had not read the article. Where is the lie?
Libel, by the way, does not go to what can be reported only that reports have to be accurate.
Jill
“Libel, by the way, does not go to what can be reported only that reports have to be accurate.”
Good thing BushCo. aren’t members of the press!
Pb
Darrell,
Yeah, because that’s so hard to find otherwise. Why, you’d have to read the President’s executive orders, or the UN task force reports, or the research institution summaries, or the… well, first you’d just have to read.
Richard 23
Not trying to help out Darrell here, but didn’t Geraldo Rivera of Fox News reveal troop locations?
Why, yes.
Darrell
This is what constitutes ‘deep thinking’ on the left
t. jasper parnell
Fun though this is, I have to go have yet more fun, like all good centrists fun makes me happy. I will just point out that the “argument” has again descended to accusations of lying. Even if I was wrong, which I dispute, I never made a claim of Darrell’s having “lied.” It is, oddly enough, possible to wrong with lying. Inaccurate means what it means, in the same way disputable and obvious mean what they mean. Being wrong does not require mendacity or evil intent. It simply requires being wrong. You, Darrell, erred in using the term obvious in your representation of Steve’s characterization of the legality of the program under consideration.
I tell you something else, were we standing face to face you would not level such a unwarranted and baseless charge. Not because I am big and scarey, I am rather the opposite, but because bluster aside, I suspect that you are as descent as the next man, and as the next man here is me I decide that you must be at least as much.
D. Mason
Yes, it does. You shouldn’t hastily assume that an irresponsible journalist could gather such information. Such disclosures do happen and they are unfortunate, but they also get dealt with swiftly. Take the example of Geraldo Rivera, he revealed some sensative information on air and the negative publicity was huge and he got a demotion of sorts, being pulled as FOX News’Iraq field reporter. Geraldo went for the dangerous scoop and was punished(but not by the government) because he acted in poor judgement. You can bet that punishment came on the heels of some nasty phone calls and emails. All over some dusty scrawlings. Imagine if people felt they had truly been endangered. If he had truly put people in danger, as the NYT is accused of having done, the outrage would have been overwhelming. Ratings would have sagged. Sponsors would have bolted and the bottom line would have taken a hit. Geraldo would have likely been fired and the station would not soon forget what kind of punishment comes from that kind of lapse in judgement.
The end result of such disclosures is that the “enemy” adjusts their tactics and we have to adjust ours, worst case scenario some people die due to poor judgement. If so many people didn’t die every day because of Bush’s poor judgement I might be able to get a little more worked up over the whole thing. The fact is that I don’t believe anyone is going to be harmed from what the NYT published. I think terrorists will still use SWIFT to transfer money, knowing the risks as they always have and trying to beat the people who they have always know were watching as they have always done.
Andrew
There’s an especially stupid (and probably fake) mini-meme running through right wing sites right now about a soldier writing from Iraq about how the NY Times is putting his troops at risk because they’ve revealed a method for terrorist financing. In short, the NY Times is helping terrorists fund IEDs in Iraq.
Yep. Sounds reasonable. I’m sure Islamist militias are routing cash electronically through Brussels versus, say, carrying it over the porous, lightly defended border from cash rich Iran to their proxy fighters in Iraq.
Jesus, the right is stupid.
Pb
Well, even that is deeper than anything you’ve come up with so far in this thread, so…
Jill
Yes Darrell, in your world of black is white and up is down, sarcasm is ‘deep thinking’.
t. jasper parnell
darn it all: wrong without lying.
Perry Como
Then it will be a bad thing and we’ll see Limbaugh wringing his hands about how our freedoms are being taken away from us. It’s all political theatre that has grave consquences for the ideals of this nation. Unfortunately the “Right” has become so enamoured with government power that no violation is too great, no price is too high, that they can’t eviscerate Constitutional ideals in order to create an authoritarian United States.
The “Right” will vehemently deny that they are cryptofascists, but words are only words. The implicit trust they show in government and in the President, along with their deference to everything they do, proves that the “Right” really wants the government to control all aspects of our lives and shun any sort of accountability from that government.
Even in this thread you can see members of the “Right” mocking anyone that disagrees with their authoritarian view point. If Jefferson or Franklin were to awake from a long slumber and peek their heads out today, they would be labelled traitors and terrorist sympathizers by the “Right”.
The precedents being set by this “conservative” government will be used by future administrations to justify all kinds of malfeasance. Just don’t expect members of the “Right” to own up to their role in those future abuses. As has been illustrated in the past 5 years, accountability always lies somewhere else.
Darrell
tjp, when I claimed there was no real dispute to the program’s legality, and Steve’s first reaction was “Haha, what the fuck? You didn’t even READ the New York Times story, and you’re bloviating about it like this?”, no, sorry, there was no “erring” in what Steve was saying. Again, Steve’s words were not vague, they were crystal clear. Why, if you’re not dishonest, do you assert otherwise?
Nutcutter
I prpose an experiment that will be educational.
Someone take on the task of asking Darrell to state, in one or two simple declarative sentences, exactly what his position is in regard to the subject of this thread. Then if he needs to expland slightly on it, fine, he can expand … similar to my first post to this thread.
I suggest that Darrell has no actual position, or that if he has one, he will not be willing to describe it in a succinct and umambiguous manner.
Which means, of course, that his entire presence here is nothing more than a harangue.
Nutcutter
Since Darrell never actually states a position that can be used as a reference point in arguing with him, he needs no definition of things like “up” and “down.”
I suggest that this privilege be taken away from him. Why should he be allowed to post and spam a thread, without declaring himself? What is he doing here, without having made that declaration?
Hint: It’s a troll.
Darrell
As I’ve stated repeated, I pray you lefties will scream this type of thing at the top of your lungs. I want average Americans to see up close how you whackjobs really think, how extremist you truly are. Go ahead and more vocally express your true feelings.. you’ll be screaming truth to power
Perry Como
I would say that applies to most of us. These are blog comments ffs. The only practical use is to refine arguments that can used in other forums that actually have some effect on reality.
Darrell
Re-read my very first post on this thread. I state it clearly.
t. jasper parnell
“tjp, when I claimed there was no real dispute to the program’s legality, and Steve’s first reaction was “Haha, what the fuck? You didn’t even READ the New York Times story, and you’re bloviating about it like this?”, no, sorry, there was no “erring” in what Steve was saying. Again, Steve’s words were not vague, they were crystal clear. Why, if you’re not dishonest, do you assert otherwise?”
Darrell, the reason for that is, as I showed in quotes from the article above, is that the article made clear that the program’s legality was in dispute, which is to say experts on the law weighed in on either side. This means that the article shows, you know, the disputability of the programs legality which means that it was, you know, disputable.
And again the fact that we disagree (although I would like to call for an outside expert for a ruling) it is possible to disagree without being dishonest. I have sought to show you why insisting that Steve said its was obvoiusly illegal is a inaccurate representation of his characterization of the article’s factual content. I confess, I begin to wonder at and about your decency.
chriskoz
Darrel, you are a liar. What you actually said in your 2:50 pm post was…
When shown evidence that some DO dispute it (The article quite clearly shows that some question it’s legality) you change to some cop out about any “Real” dispute. And you want to paint Steve as the dishonest one? Truely sad.
It’s important not to dishonestly claim your statements were something there were not…
BTW- I suppose you have evidence to demonstrate that these disputes are not “Real”. Cuz, currently it looks like you got nothing.
Darrell
The article most definitely did not “make clear” the program’s legality was in dispute, it only offered vague suggestions of “potential for abuse” and similar nonsense. But we can agree to disagree on how clear the article was.
What there is no honest dispute over, and what you’re obsessing over, is whether or not my characterization of Steve’s response as one which indicates that it was extremely obvious to ‘anyone who read the NYT article’ that the legality was seriously disputed. Steve’s response again for the record is this:
Yet you dishonestly assert that I had taken mischaracterized him, when his words are plain to see.
Richard 23
Yes you have posted it repeated. Which is your M.O. So why not shut up about it? Your position is as clear as it is empty.
Perry Como
I’ve already admitted that I’m extreme in my views. I’m extremely distrustful of government. You trust that government will do the right thing.
I tend to align myself with the likes of Paine and Jefferson, two people that you would call whackjobs if they were around today. Their views were extreme in their time and, unfortunately, are once again extreme today.
The fact that my views are extreme in your mind is not a measure of how wrong they are. Quite the opposite, it’s a measure of how far your own views diverge from the ideals this nation was founded on.
So go ahead and label me however you’d like. I’ll proudly stand up and shout that I believe in less government power and more liberty for the people. I’ll proudly stand up and shout that we shouldn’t trust the government because government is a necessary evil created by men that needs to be watched at every moment, lest it strip us of our unalienable rights.
I’d much rather be an extremist with those views than a craven apologist for statist policies, like you.
Richard 23
BTW Darrell, I’m not telling you to shut up. Before you get all offended. Just please stop repeating yourself. Your comments constitute a ton of crap as it is.
Perry Como
“Moderation in temper is awlays a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice”
Be extreme and be proud fellow moonbats!
Nutcutter
This one?
So your assertion here, your reason for posting to this thread, is that in your opinion, the mention of specific cases gives terrorists information that they will use to defeat the program?
And on the basis of this remarkable leap, you declare all those who disagree with you to be “scum?”
Do you have any proof of any actual injury to anything or anyone here? And can you argue that permitting our Potemkin government to continue to operate whatever it wants to do behind a self-justified veil of secrecy is not more dangerous to this country than whatever harm you are imagining?
The issue here is that GWB is more of a danger to this country than NYT. That’s a rational argument whether you agree with it or not. Is it your position that anyone who doesn’t think that is “scum” but that anyone who genuflects to the government and defends whatever it does is …. what? …. angelic and non-scumlike?
What the fuck are you actually arguing here, Darrell?
Darrell
I don’t see why so many are taking umbrage at the treason accusations. Is it really such a stretch to feel it’s treasonous to intentionally publish classified information on a ‘legal and effective’ national security program during wartime? Incredible that so many of you ‘patriotic’ lefties are actually spinning this as a freedom of press issue. You need to run with that one
Andrew
Perry, maybe we could just swap Darrell and Mac for Jefferson and Paine.
Of course, Darrell would spend all of his time telling George Washington why the King should be able to do whatever he likes, and Mac would suggest that they imprison Ben Franklin for being objectively pro-France.
Perry Como
You know, the irony of the whole, “should the press be free to give away troop movements” just struck me. If we are fielding troops, the troops are ostensibly there to protect the right of the press to reveal their movements. Freedom is a messy thing, fraught with peril for those unwilling to abide by its principles.
t. jasper parnell
Darrell:
Me from earlier:
Nutcutter
Whenever you speak, it’s necessary to consider the source. So I reconfigured your question slightly.
As for treason, let’s say this: Is it an American virtue to try to silence the press with cries of “treason” when it publishes perfectly legal material that the government has, and has not asked for, any legal basis for quashing?
Which is the greater threat to America? A few unmonitored financial transactions, or a press that is cowed by an arrogant and power-struck government that wants to conduct its business in secret and use the excuse of “war” to get away with it?
You answer that question any way you like, I gave my answer already and mine is the right answer.
Darrell
That’s nice, except that Fischer is unaware of the details of this classified program and clearly unqualified to comment on the legality of it one way or another.. except that he has books to sell. Again, the article offered nothing but vague suggestions and similar bullshit.
Perry Como
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” — ‘patriotic’ lefty Thomas Jefferson
t. jasper parnell
Steve said:
There’s no possible way you could read the article and believe that the program is indisputably legal.
Darrell said:
Steve, you’ve made the accusations, repeating them like an obsessed 8 year old, so why dont’ you show us where in the NYT article, it so ‘obviously’ makes the case that this program is illegal?
t. jasper parnell said:
This is inaccurate. Steve said that its legality was not “indisputable
Darrell said:
It’s important not to pull quotes out of your ass when the verbatim words are so easy to verify. Steve’s initial comment when I said there was no real dispute to the legality of the program:
Haha, what the fuck? You didn’t even READ the New York Times story, and you’re bloviating about it like this?
Please refrain from lying your ass off about what Steve actually said, ok?
June 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I ask all honest folks, left, right, center or other. Did I lie? Darrell inserted obvious when dispute was the issue. Calling attention to this inaccuracy does not, to me in any event, rise to the level of lying. But then again I take that kind of a claim seriously.
Nutcutter
Let that be the legacy of this thread.
Our liberty does not depend on the US Government shutting down the press whenever it wants to.
John S.
As opposed to me, Darrell, who knows every detail of every secret government program and is clearly qualified to comment on the legality of it one way or another.
My source is my intestinal lining, because with my head shoved so far up my own ass this is the only real channel of communication left open to me.
Darrell
From Protein wisdom, Wayback time machine 1944:
Perry Como
I just had a splendid idea. We should paraphrase various passages from the works of the founding fathers and present them as our own (right, Senator?). I’ll bet $10 Darrell and his ilk would gladly smear those words as the extreme views of the moonbat left if they don’t recognize the original source (not that the Darrells of the Right could actually recognize the liberty loving words of the founding fathers).
Perry Como
I’m quoting Paine and Jefferson and your retort comes from Bukkake Logic. :yawn:
t. jasper parnell
Jeff Goldstein must agree with the Founding Fathers, for he like them are adherents of “classic liberalism.”
Pb
Darrell,
You stated your position, and I asked you to back it up, because it sounded like a load of crap. And while you haven’t got around to backing it up just yet in your last few (umpteen-zillion) posts, it’s definitely smelling a lot worse…
Perry Como
The same way the Republicans believe in “small government.”
Perry Como
Lefty moonbat Rick Moran
So Darrell, who has the extreme views again?
t. jasper parnell
Another success from Greenwald’s comments.
Darrell
Pb, my position as stated in my very first post is that the NYTimes published details of a classified program in which they named names, which the terrorists could then use to backtrack and investigate money transfers to and from those individuals to try and avoid triggering red flags in the future. What about that statement needs to be “backed up” twit?
t. jasper parnell
Hey,
It seems that the Senate once did catch bad guys without super double secret non-oversigth, disputably legal actions. (originally mentioned in the comments on Greenwald)
Nutcutter
According to Roger Cressy, former NSC official and now terrorism consultant to MSNBC, there was “no classified material” and “no state secrets” revealed in the NYT story.
That’s as of about ten minutes ago, in a live interview.
Nutcutter
According to MSNBC within the last hour, George Bush has been talking about and touting the SWIFT financial tracking program in public speeches going bacl to 2001.
MSNBC aired ten — ten — clips of Bush talking about this program during the span of time between November 2001 and today.
Without doubt, the most prolific publicizer of this program has been none other than Liar In Chief, George Bush.
t. jasper parnell
Hey,
From John Kerry and Co in 1992:
1. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE UNITED STATES DEVELOP A MORE AGGRESSIVE AND COORDINATED APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CRIME, AND TO MOVE FURTHER AGAINST FOREIGN PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIAL LAWS THAT PROTECT CRIMINALS.
3. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND STATE DEPARTMENT UPGRADE THE TRACKING OF FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND ACTIVITIES, AND THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING SUCH INSTITUTIONS.
4. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE CONGRESS CONSIDER WHETHER ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE CIA’S ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION.
11. TURF WARS CONTINUE TO SEVERELY DAMAGE THE ABILITY OF LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO DO THEIR JOB. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMITTEE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHOSE JOB IT IS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT OF, PREVENT, AND RESPOND TO FAILURES OF COOPERATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Now granted he didn’t say they ought do all this by “an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation.” But still.
Perry Como
Which clearly shows why we need to curtail the freedom of the press.
I hope one day these “Righty” fools will wake up and realize they are being played.
Nutcutter
According to an MSNBC broadcast within the last hour, the NYT decision to go against the Bush administration’s advice to publish the Swift story was based in part on their experience with the NSA story, wrt which the Times was pressured for a year not to publish and assured that all necessary and proper oversight was in place in the NSA wirtap operations ….. only to find out that they had been lied to and that the oversight was not there at all.
Like I said earlier, this government has forfeited the right to hide behind its own tailor-made veil of secrecy.
Richard 23
Send George W Bush to Gitmo! Traitor. Wait, he’s not a liberal?
t. jasper parnell
and yet this
“The withholding of documents and witnesses from U.S. investigators by the Government of Abu Dhabi threatens vital U.S. foreign policy, anti-narcotics and money laundering, and law enforcement interests, and should not be tolerated” Isn’t Abu Dhabi part of the United Arab Emrates? Wasn’t there some kind of deal or attempt at a deal between a state-owned business and America over something or another, ports? Maybe?
Perry Como
Racist.
t. jasper parnell
Yes it was ports:
“Dubai Ports World recently acquired the British-based firm that currently directs commercial operations at those ports, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation. The takeover by Dubai Ports World means that it will be in charge of those operations.
“I don’t understand why it’s OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we’ve already determined security is not an issue,” Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One after Frist urged the administration to block the deal.”
If the decider decides that there is no reason to worry about security when Dubai is invovled, well then. The decision is decisive.
Nutcutter
All of it, since you pulled it out of your ass, as ususal.
There was no “classified information” and there has been no actual damage to anything shown so far.
Darrell
The program was classified. That fact is not under dispute idiot. How harmful the revealed info may be is a matter of speculation.
t. jasper parnell
The facts, however, might — as my Grandma would say – be agin ya GWB.
Nutcutter
Nope. Not according to MSNBC. If it was classified, why was Bush talking about it all the time for the last five years?
t. jasper parnell
Can someone remind me, who was president in 1991? Who was the prime minister of England? How did they self identify?
Nutcutter
“No secrets” and “nothing classified” revealed in the NYT story. Roger Cressy.
Sorry Darrell, I am going to go with Mr. Cressey’s analysis over yours at this point until you come up with something more convincing.
r4d20
Republishing information that was already public can draw more attention to it and deter the sloppier terrorists from using those channels.
But does it even come close to “treason”? IF so, what is the limit to republishing? How many times can we reprint the same info before it becomes treason?
There is no sense of proportion in all this. I dont know the motivation, but this has EVERYTHING to do with the NYT and nothing to do with an actual appraisal of the effect of the story.
t. jasper parnell
Evidence please.
Nutcutter
So why would George Bush be on tape ten different times talking about the program?
Perry Como
Nutcutter Says:
Because Bush making political speeches about the program is a-okay, but a newspaper reporting on that program is treason. Don’t be mistaken, this is really a fight about the free press. A test balloon of sorts. Although the press abuses its power at times, our nation owes alot to the press for its success in promoting debate and human interests over secrecy and oppression.
t. jasper parnell Says:
I don’t have enough tin foil on me to discuss BCCI.
Darrell
How do you lefties feel about illegal immigration?
Richard 23
Well, Darrell is fun and all, but if you want to have a good snigger, check out the meltdown over on Scrutator.
A new poster has f-ing quit:
Give her your congratulations on discovering the obvious!
Pb
Darrell
Uh-huh.
What I cited in *my* post, *ages* ago–specifically, *what* did The New York Times say that was at all new?
Oh fuck off. Look asshole, don’t you fucking post here again until you actually have two facts to rub together, and a goddamned citation that might even vaguely *imply* that you’re at all familiar with the source material. You’re a fucking disgrace to your cause, whatever the fuck *that* might be.
Nutcutter
Speculation? Earlier in this thread you pimped it as fact.
Darrell
Yes, the NY Times was being a noble defender of our civil liberties in publishing that story.
t. jasper parnell
By evidence I mean the actual documents not citations to people like Robertson insisting on investigating the “leakers”
Richard 23
Fortunately Senator Darrell is here to argue against civil liberties and freedom of the press! Woohoo!
Nutcutter
Whatever. They weren’t pulling the stuff out of their ass which is what you’ve been doing here all day.
t. jasper parnell
“A right not exercised is identical with a nonexistent right”
Darrell
No, I’m just sitting back and laughing at you jackasses who claim the NY Times can, under ‘freedom of the press’, publish any details it wants about classified national security programs during wartime.. I want you jerkoffs to run with that one, and run it hard
t. jasper parnell
Scrutator is not real, is it?
Zerthimon
Two possible reasons why publishing the NYT article may have hurt the program.
1. It may put pressure on SWIFT, who joined the program reluctantly to begin with, to give up the program as it becomes more financially and legally risky. As we see here
2. It is very possible that terrorists did not know that banking transactions went through SWIFT. And may alter their financial transactions accordingly. As the chairman of the 9/11 commission states.
Of course if the program was against European law that would also be a justification for publishing the article. So it cuts both ways
The question I have though is whether it’s possible for terrorists to adjust their financial transactions so that it doesn’t go through SWIFT?
Pb
t. jasper parnell,
It has to be realer than Darrell. That is, unless he posts there or something.
Zerthimon
Damn. Links didn’t work for some reason
nytimes.com/2006/06/27/world/27cnd-secure.html?ex=1309060800&en=5a89c5108098a0c0&ei=5090&#…
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/06/_kean_on_swift.html
John S.
As real as Darrell is honest.
t. jasper parnell
So the truth of the matter doesn’t interest you? You think somehow or another that there is partisan gain in this? man do you misunderestimate the American people. Remeber a 4% shift meant a different deal. Not everyone who loves America loves an all mighty president.
Tin foil hat indeed, the whole BCCI does make the mind wander.
Zerthimon
Crap. Broke the tables. Sorry about that. Here’s a shorter link
tinyurl.com/z9s3f
Krista
Oh my god, that is absolutely hilarious…what a sad-ass bunch they are over there. I bet they are real, actually — it’s not like we haven’t heard more extreme views from people we KNOW are real (ahem…mAnn Coulter…)
Nutcutter
Actually, in this case, it can, and did. And this phony hyped bullshit we are seeing now will soon go the way of the Terri Schiavo campaign. Once you redneck nose-pickers tire of it and see that it is accomplishing nothing, you’ll move on to something else.
t. jasper parnell
As difficult as it is to credit he might actuall be consistently wrong without being intentionally dishonest, but then again maybe not.
Nutcutter
Well, except for Lysistrata. At least she has some real class, even though I might disagree with her politics.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Darrell
How honest of you to put words in my mouth like that.
yawn
Nutcutter
Your stated position on this thread was based on crap you made up. Half of the “facts” you stated early, you later referred to as “speculation.”
How would you like your work today to be characterized, Darrell? Just another day of bullshit from Darrell the Decider?
I’m looking forward to your listing the “classified” information contained in the NYT story. You’ll have quite a scoop, apparently. Maybe you can get yourself on Hardball?
Krista
Feh. They’re all just different flavours of loonytoons, if you ask me.
t. jasper parnell
Hey Darrell,
A question is an opportunity for an answer not an attempt to put words in your mouth.
Jeesum.
Richard 23
Who put what in whose mouth? As nutcutter said, Lysistrata is decent, kinda like what that ppGaz guy once said about Don Surber being an honest righty or something. Not that I agree with either one most of the time, but at least they don’t call ‘traitor’ every five minutes. Kinda like the senator. Lol!
mAnn Coulter. Heh. Don’t let the Adam’s apple and big package fool ya!
Darrell
You’re kidding yourself if you think the lefties in BJ comments are any better. See ‘nutcutter’, ‘Pb’, and ‘John S’ for examples
t. jasper parnell
For example
So the truth of the matter doesn’t interest you?
A question about, you know, the truth of matter mattering to, as it were, you.
t. jasper parnell
Who said anything about anyone being better?
Darrell
Similarly, so how often do you beat your wife? A question about, you know…
Krista
Darrell, have you actually been over there? One of them suggested, in all seriousness, that everybody who voted for Kerry should be sent to Gitmo. Yes, we’re all completely nutbar over here…every last one of us. But some of those people strike me as the kind who hang out in their basements with walls full of newspaper clippings, looking for hidden messages.
Darrell
that was actually pretty damn funny.
Krista
Why thank you, kind sir.
/curtseys
Nutcutter
Indeed. I’m sorry, did you find those “classified information” passages in the NYT story yet?
Idiot.
Darrell
Hey, and no more wisecracks about those who furiously post on websites from their mom’s basement.
Zerthimon had a good post a little earlier, but I guess the thread is too far gone, or too tired to address his question.
t. jasper parnell
Don’t have a wife, so the answer is never. If I did have a wife the answer would be never.
What you meant to say was “When did you stop beating your wife?” That is the unfair kind of question, if the answer is limited to yes or no.
So does the truth of the matter matter to you?
t. jasper parnell
Of course it is. In fact, six two and even, much of their money probably does circulate outside any regulated banking system.
Nutcutter
Zerthimon writes an essay which is basically grounded in what you yourself referred to as “speculation” … the matter of “damage” done by the NYT story.
There’s no evidence of any damage that I know of. There hasn’t even been a coherent assertion of same by the government assholes who are crying “disgrace.” I can’t find that there’d be any more damage than would be caused by having George Bush out there talking about the program for five years whenever the mood struck him.
It’s a bunch of bullshit, and you know it.
Nutcutter
Quite so. If Darrell and his whinemonkeys would step away from their keyboards and check some of the actual reporting going on out there on this story today, he’d find out that there is an entire underworld money transport system in place just for the purpose of circumventing the official channels and laundering ill gotten money. Not exactly news, apparently, to those who follow such things.
Why look! The US Government will tell you all about it!
Yeah, big FUCKING secret.
t. jasper parnell
David Aufhauser this morning on NPR discussed the various ways the terrorists moved money around. it was actually interesting. He was unhappy with the disclosure but also made the point that the money comes from crime, kinda like the Spanish Anarchists in the thirties.
jg
Of course it is. In fact, six two and even, much of their money probably does circulate outside any regulated banking system.
So if the terrorists don’t use the official channels so much then who’s international monetary traffic is actually being observed? Everyone else?
jg
Second try:
So if the terrorists don’t use the official channels so much then who’s international monetary traffic is actually being observed? Everyone else?
t. jasper parnell
jg,
Presumably the larger the money transfer the more cumbersome it becomes to move it physically or to make use of some undergroung, un or lightly regulated method of moving the money impracticable.
So the larger ones would show up. Also, it makes sense that at some point the terrorists, like all criminal masterminds, are forced to use systems that can, might, or will lead to their detection.
Nutcutter
No offense, TJP, but I’m not aware that NYT made any particular “disclosure” here. In order for something to be disclosed, it would have to have been previously undisclosed. As near as I can tell, this program has been ballyhooed more than Survivor Borneo. By none other than George The Lying Sonofabitch Bush himself.
If anyone is “damaging” the program now, it’s the fucking Republicans who are talking about it 24 x 7 on every imaginable venue.
t. jasper parnell
Also, money laundering, and not just the kind nutcutter linked to, is a well established criminal art. The big deal in cracking this or that transfer would be in knowing who was actually sending the money to whom. I certaintly don’t know, but the BCCI stuff suggests that the forenic accounting required to make sense of the transactions is very complicated, which suggests that as a method of interdicting terrorists in the act wire transfers are of limited utility. But as means of reconstructing how something occured after the fact?
t. jasper parnell
Nutcutter,
The word may have been inapt. Clearly the information was in wide circulation prior to the NYT publication. However, my intent was to characterize how I recalled his utterance and I think I got it right. I agree, to repeat, that little was “disclosed.”
Nutcutter
Gotcha.
t. jasper parnell
jg,
but yes, given the nature of the information gathering, as described, everyone elses’ transactions would be there to be seen.
Andrew
That is the most impressive 6-way argument that I have ever seen someone have with themself.
Steve
Holy fuck. Darrell read the article, and continued to argue that there’s no dispute about whether the program is legal?
Why do you guys even bother. What an idiot.
Nutcutter
Fixed it for ya.
t. jasper parnell
Perhaps Darrell is an adherent of this style of argumentation
Richard 23
Fixed.
Pb
So, I just finished watching “Good Night, and Good Luck.”, and I have to say, it’s getting more and more timely and appropriate with every passing day, sad to say.
Oh, and…
Do we have any evidence of that? I mean, I know that he hasn’t come up with any evidence whatsoever, but what else is new…
Jill
“…there is an entire underworld money transport system in place just for the purpose of circumventing the official channels and laundering ill gotten money.”
Ever heard of Hawala? Look it up.
Jim Allen
Getting caught up on the overnight postings (and my, haven’t we been busy!). One thing that struck me throughout is that you folks are taking LarryDarrell&Darrell entirely too seriously. Responding to him, trying to convince him that he’s wrong, pointing out the obvious and expecting him to even consider it — you’re wasting your time.
LarryDarrell&Darrell is a Fool and an Asshat of the First Magnitude. He deserves nothing but ridicule and laughter, and nothing that he says should be treated as worthy of a response. He and his Cheeto-stained keyboard have produced nothing worth commenting on, or, indeed, even ackknowleging. His rantings should be treated as the sound of a jack hammer from two blocks away — a minor annoyance to be ignored.
No one goes to the circus and takes the clowns seriously. They are there to be laughed at.
Steve
What’s amazing is that I have totally played this issue straight down the middle – but to folks like Darrell on the far, far right, it doesn’t matter because we all look like raving moonbats from there. A reporter who called up Tom Kean and dutifully reported his statements is a “leftist scumbag” on Planet Darrell because he didn’t editorialize with a bunch of statements about how awful it was that this intelligence program may have ended.
There are a lot of things that can be debated regarding this story. John Cole’s thoughtful posts have touched on many of them. Look at the quote from Kean in my 2:32pm post – a reasonable, moderate response from someone who isn’t looking to play partisan gotcha.
But as always, the far right has the largest megaphone, and they’ve used it to set the terms of debate thus: Should the NYT be criminally prosecuted for running this story? That’s a no-brainer, obviously, if you’ve read the First Amendment. But because the extremist noisemakers choose to put the debate on those terms, that’s the idiotic discussion everyone ends up having.
So many people seem to have been brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk over the years. Where are all the other folks like John Cole who can say, “Hey, you guys want a different person to be hung for treason every week, I just acn’t take you seriously any more”? Out of all the righty bloggers, who is willing to call bullshit on this process? Only John Cole? Andrew Sullivan, who is a moonbat leftist to folks like Darrell anyway?
At some point we’re going to have to develop a collective ability to banish the extremists from normal debate if we want to have a regular society again.
Bruce Moomaw
Frankly, I’m puzzled at how Tom Kean can say simultaneously that the Times shouldn’t have exposed the Swift program because it “gave us a chance to disrupt terrorist plots”, and that “I would not go as far as to say [that the Times exposing it] put American lives at risk.” Is he saying that it only had a chance of disrupting terrorist plots that, er, wouldn’t actually have killed anybody?
Despite my liberalism and my belief that this nation owes the NYT a very large debt for exposing some of the Bush Administration’s other little secrets, I am totally unable to come up with an adequate excuse for the Times having exposed this particular program, and Kean’s weirdly self-contradictory statement hasn’t helped me do so.
Nutcutter
Yes, Jill, I meant to mention yesterday that Hawala was pointed to by Roger Cressy, MSNBC’s terrorism expert, as one of the alternative ways that terrorists and drug dealers move money and bypass the banking system. I just forgot it while being dazzled by the brilliance of Darrell.
This from Wikipedia:
Darrell
Uh, as I made clear earlier, what was so “scummy” about that reporter and his extremist fanclub members like Steve, was that the reporter CLEARLY was exclusively concerned with political cover for the left, rather than the ending of a national security program to catch terrorists as a result of the NYT article revealing details about it. Re-read the quotes upthread from the prospect.org author if there is even a shred of doubt about this interpretation.
Steve, were you the ‘Steve’ that left the fawning post on the prospect.org article about important and relevant that new information was?
Nutcutter
A politician saying two incompatible things at the same time?
Look, Kean is a nice enough guy and tries to be forthcoming a good deal of the time, but he’s still a politician.
Ancient Purple
Steve. Steve. Steve. Steve. Steve.
You should know by now that anything you say that isn’t lock-step with Darrell is considered “moonbatty” by him.
Even Barry Goldwater is considered a “lefty” by Darrell because Goldwater had no problems with gays in the military instead of having them strung up and beaten to death (a la Matthew Shephard) the way Darrell would like to have it.
Consider it a lesson learned, my friend.
Darrell
Kean said the program was both “effective and legal”. He also said the program will likely end because of the NYT article. That Kean doesn’t want to go out on a limb and claim “there is solid evidence that the ending of this program cost lives”, in no way means that the program wasn’t effective in helping catch terrorists, as there were at least 2 notable successes mentioned in the article including the Bali bombing ringleader. In other words, it was an effective program that had proven success. It’s a bad thing that it had to end.. but Kean can’t definitively link the ending of the program with “costing lives”. Make sense to you now?
t. jasper parnell
Lord Bryce (originator of the phrase “laboratories of democracy): Providence has under its special care, children, idiots and the United States of America” (quoted no cite, Hendrik Hertzberg, _The New Yorker_, 7/3/06, 24
Christopher Guest on Fred Willard: “Fred has the patent on characters who are comfortable in their stupidity” (quoted Tad Friend, Ibid., 27
So Providence is on Darrell’s side while Fred Willard steals his persona.
Darrell
Yeah, nothing ‘moonbatty’ at all about so many leftists here who assert that the NYT, under their “freedom of the press”, are fully justified in revealing any information they want on classified national security programs. Re-read this thread to see how many of your fellow whackjobs on the left advocate that position. If you folks think your positions are so normal and mainstream, and that mine are so ‘extreme’, then I say run with it.. scream to the world how you really feel and let average Americans judge for themselves.
Darrell
When you have no facts and no argument, this is what’s left.
t. jasper parnell
Also in the New Yorker:
“The Deepest Cut: HOw can someone live with half a brain?”
Apparantly all it takes is an operation called a hemispherictomy.
The Other Steve
That’s because Tom Kean is being reasonable about it.
Whereas you sound like a raving moonbat by trying to overplay this into some big political issue. I mean, seriously. I’ve warned you to turn it down. Calling people traitors for pointing out something obvious, and threatening to bomb the NY Times building is not what most people consider reasonable behavior.
Make sense to you now?
chopper
When you have no facts and no argument, this is what’s left
i guess that explains why you keep calling other people names. no facts, no argument.
Jim Allen
LarryDarrell&Darrell:
“But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.”
Steve
It’s a question of degree, not a question of theoretical logic. Kean thinks it was a good program, he’d like for it to continue, but like most normal people, he believes that an accusation such as “you’ve put American lives at risk” is an inflammatory charge that shouldn’t be leveled without actual evidence of a causal link.
As John Cole says in this post, everything is treason to the far right. Every time a Democrat opens his mouth, he’s “emboldening the terrorists” and “putting American lives at risk.” It’s nice to see that there are still a few sane, moderate Republicans who consciously steer away from that kind of talk.
t. jasper parnell
It might also be that Kean understands that the program is only one of many methods used to track down the terrorists and one, given the time lag between capture of information and its volume, that while helpful is not fundamental.
Nutcutter
There was no classified information revealed in the story.
How many times do you have to be told that?
If you can’t get the basic facts straight, then shut the fukc up.
t. jasper parnell
“Christina is a spectacular example of how ell children can do after a hemispherectomy, but she is no outlier . . . one, a college student, is on the dean’s list.” (40).
The mind, both halves, boggles.
Nutcutter
Freedom of the press, in quotes?
Do you think it’s an imaginary concept, Darrell?
It’s THE concept at work here, and it trumps all the other ones. Completely.
You and your lying nut friends are not going to take away freedom of the press, no matter how much you spam this thread.
Nutcutter
Indeed they are, one hundred percent. And if this program is supposed to such a big secret, why does MSNBC have ten clips of George Bush talking about it going back five years?
t. jasper parnell
“It’s Addington,’ [Colin Powell said. “He doesn’t care about the constitution.” Remarks attributed to Powell on hearing of the “secretly authorized National Security Agency’s . . . eavesdrop[ping] on American citizens.” (Jane Mayer, _The Hidden Power: The Legal Mind Behind the White HOuse’s war on terror_, ibid, 44.
t. jasper parnell
“Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, who voted for Bush in both Presidential elections, and who served as associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department, said that Addington and other Presidential legal advisers had ‘staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This President has made claims that are really quite Alarming. He’s said that there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it. to collect intelligence, open mail, to commit torture to use electronic surveillance. If you used the President’s reasonisn, you could shut down congress for leaking too much. His war powers allow him to declar3 anyone an illegal combatant. All the world’s a battlefield — accordit to this view, he could kill someone in Lafayette Park if he wants! It’s got the sense of Louix XIV: ‘I am the State.'” Ibid, 46
See, evidence, not everyone does like an all mighty president.
John S.
Fixed that.
Darrell
Other Steve, you wrote:
In direct response to my post where I wrote:
Tell us Steve, what about that post, in you mind needs to be “turned down”? Does all opposition to your positions, no matter how reasonable, have to equate with “raving moonbattery”? it seems clear by your response that is the case
Nutcutter
From the asshole who calls all who disagree with him “scum.”
Fuck you, Darrell. Go away, you’re an embarassment.
Darrell
Thank you for your thoughtful reply ‘Nutcutter’
Nutcutter
I have one and only one rule, dude. I respond in kind.
You want better, then put out better.
t. jasper parnell
This Fein guy must be some commie simp scumbag
John S.
Which is exactly why after Steve’s comment above, I have nothing but cheap shots and snark for Darrell. Anyone patently dishonest enough to directly plagiarize someone else’s material and try to pass it off as their own isn’t worth talking to in any other way.
Perry Como
How about we ask the people that founded this country? Oh, they’re extremists. Why do you hate our founding fathers, Darrell?
Nutcutter
Darrell has run away to another thread now.
Nutcutter
Yeah. Hard to do when you have a government that thrives on secrecy and ruling by fiat.
capelza
I’m probably talking to myself here..and don’t have the heart to read through hundreds of Darrell posts…
Did anyone mention Swift.com?
The Other Steve
Project much?
The Other Steve
Shhh! That’s a secret.
Darrell
The ever so patriotic left prepares for a July 4th celebration
Steve
Here’s an equally relevant link regarding the patriotism of Republicans.
Jim Allen
And LarryDarrell&Darrell the Asshat Clown can’t come up with anything more recent than May 23, 2005?
Nutcutter
Kevin Drum gets it right again, and references “The One Percent Doctrine” which I think is going to become a primer for refuting Bushco bullshit about the war on terror …. turns out that the SWIFT program has been moribund for quite a while, for the obvious reason … the terrorists started going around it ….
Every single word Darrell and the apologistocracy has said on this subject …….. BULLSHIT.
Perry Como
I called it. The White House Communications Director just said, “this should be a discussion about the free press.”