Should the Press be charged for treason?

greatcalgarian · Jun 26, 2006

Bush blasts 'terror funds' report

Tens of thousands of transactions were scrutinised

The US president has accused US newspapers of hampering the "war on terror" by publishing details of a secret scheme to track money transfers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5119394.stm
Some right-wing politicians have even called for the New York Times' editors to be charged with treason.

Mr Bush's attack was echoed by his deputy, Dick Cheney, who said the New York Times had twice disclosed secret programmes in defiance of the advice of administration officials.

So most of the time the press followed the 'advice of administration officials', and why is it this time the NT Times is not listening? I wonder?

angellous_evangellous · Jun 27, 2006

greatcalgarian said:
Bush blasts 'terror funds' report

Tens of thousands of transactions were scrutinised

The US president has accused US newspapers of hampering the "war on terror" by publishing details of a secret scheme to track money transfers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5119394.stm
Some right-wing politicians have even called for the New York Times' editors to be charged with treason.

So most of the time the press followed the 'advice of administration officials', and why is it this time the NT Times is not listening? I wonder?

If the Times finds out about secret plans that amounts to treason, then then idiot who told them is the villan. It was likely someone in their own administration that told the paper and the reporters will more likely be more faithful to protect their source than the traitor who leaked the info...

Lashing out at a paper like this looks like smoke and mirrors.

niceguy · Jun 27, 2006

I am of the opinon that a media that calls themself a "newspaper" should be charged for treason if they fall for government pressure and don't bring out the news...

Lindsey-Loo · Jun 27, 2006

Some will do anything, include endanger all of our lives, to make George Bush look bad. Here's what I think:

The New York Times editor should have two options:

a) They tell which government employee leaked the information, and go to jail for 10 years.
b) They don't tell who leaked the info, and go to jail for 50 years.

Since the idiot who has told the terrorists how we're tracking their bank transactions probably doesn't want to spend the rest of their life in jail, they'll tell who leaked it. Then, we need to take that government employee and have them shot by a firing squad, which is the way we would treat any spy.

This kind of behavior is unexcusable. I mean, our government was doing nothing wrong. So why would you want to tell the terrorists how we're tracking them? Do you think the terrorists are going to continue to make bank transactions in such a way that we could track them now? NO! Because thanks to a bunch of liberals, they know all about the program!

And what really gets me, is that these same people are the ones screaming "Oooooooooh, we have to stop the fighting, world peace, world peace..." yet they're exposing government programs to the world (including the very people we're fighting), prolonging the war on terror. Seriously, how stupid is that?

BUDDY · Jun 27, 2006

greatcalgarian said:
Bush blasts 'terror funds' report

Tens of thousands of transactions were scrutinised

The US president has accused US newspapers of hampering the "war on terror" by publishing details of a secret scheme to track money transfers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5119394.stm
Some right-wing politicians have even called for the New York Times' editors to be charged with treason.

So most of the time the press followed the 'advice of administration officials', and why is it this time the NT Times is not listening? I wonder?

Your use of the word 'scheme' says a lot. To reveal classified information is treasonous. That goes for the newspaper and the person who leaked it the newspaper. I hope that both the reporter and the one who gave up the information are thrown in jail for a long, long time. The fact that anyone would defend this makes me sick personally. The reasons are endless as to why the revealing of this endangers people, both military and civilian, but I think that someone who is over there said it best.

Lt. Tom Cotton writes this morning from Baghdad with a word for the New York Times:

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,

Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

kevmicsmi · Jun 27, 2006

BUDDY said:
Your use of the word 'scheme' says a lot. To reveal classified information is treasonous. That goes for the newspaper and the person who leaked it the newspaper. I hope that both the reporter and the one who gave up the information are thrown in jail for a long, long time. The fact that anyone would defend this makes me sick personally. The reasons are endless as to why the revealing of this endangers people, both military and civilian, but I think that someone who is over there said it best.

Lt. Tom Cotton writes this morning from Baghdad with a word for the New York Times:
Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,

Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

Wow, this post says it all:clap . Sometimes I wonder if certain journalists/editors living in America consider themselves Americans first, or journalists first .

greatcalgarian · Jun 27, 2006

So there should not be anything under the banner of "freedom of press" when it comes to treason, or national security matter?

I seems to get the different picture, when other government (for example Chinese Government, or any government unfriendly with US, or in other words, those that are not "with us") prosecute or close down the press for leaking national security and committing treason, and the same voice here is crying "undemocratic", "dictatorial", "death to the communist", etc etc?

Mathematician · Jun 27, 2006

The government needs to stop rambling on about the press having a "patriotic duty". No newspaper nor radio ad nor even television show should have to silence what it finds out during times of war. I for one am glad this leaked, just another reason for me to loathe this intrusionist administration.

If the press turns a blind eye to what the government does, we're going to lose a war over here. We're going to lose OUR rights. The media is the best tool for keeping the government in line.

My biggest fear about the War against Terror is that we're going to forget what makes us free. Soon enough we're going to give up all our liberties for safety. Don't question the military during war, it is not the patriotic way. Don't tattle on your president, don't question your government, don't burn the flag...

kevmicsmi · Jun 27, 2006

greatcalgarian said:
So there should not be anything under the banner of "freedom of press" when it comes to treason, or national security matter?

I seems to get the different picture, when other government (for example Chinese Government, or any government unfriendly with US, or in other words, those that are not "with us") prosecute or close down the press for leaking national security and committing treason, and the same voice here is crying "undemocratic", "dictatorial", "death to the communist", etc etc?

no, I call undemocratic jailing or shutting down news services for political positions taken, never for a press violating national security. Like it or not, there is a good argument to be made that the NY Times has violated certain laws by releasing top secret information.

greatcalgarian · Jun 28, 2006

kevmicsmi said:
no, I call undemocratic jailing or shutting down news services for political positions taken, never for a press violating national security. Like it or not, there is a good argument to be made that the NY Times has violated certain laws by releasing top secret information.

So are those reporter trialed and jailed in China for spying for another country, but US is pressurising their release claiming they are democratic fighters

kevmicsmi · Jun 28, 2006

greatcalgarian said:
So are those reporter trialed and jailed in China for spying for another country, but US is pressurising their release claiming they are democratic fighters

so are they charged with spying, or have you already convicted them of spying because China says so?

BUDDY · Jun 28, 2006

greatcalgarian said:
So there should not be anything under the banner of "freedom of press" when it comes to treason, or national security matter?

I seems to get the different picture, when other government (for example Chinese Government, or any government unfriendly with US, or in other words, those that are not "with us") prosecute or close down the press for leaking national security and committing treason, and the same voice here is crying "undemocratic", "dictatorial", "death to the communist", etc etc?

The banner of freedom of the press should be protected and valued, but journalists should also act like responsible adults and think about the effects of their reporting prior to putting it in print. That's responsible journalism. This program was doing an outstanding job of tracking down terror suspects and persuing them. It was not intrusive upon American citizens and did not violate anyones right to privacy. If you read the article, you will not that in order to obtain the financial information, law enforcement had to obtain warrants, and even have the information sent to an auditor, prior to review by investigators. The information that was obtained was not real time information either. It was transactitory information, days, weeks, or months old, that was obtained from finacial institutions from all over the world, and used to find out how and who terrorists are get there funding from.

I would say that the basic difference between the case you bring up in China, and this case, is not in the right to freedom of speech of press, but in the citizen's right to a fair trial, by a jury of peers, prior to being thrown in a prison. And yes, I would say that in undemocratic. Why would you disagree?

BUDDY · Jun 28, 2006

niceguy said:
I am of the opinon that a media that calls themself a "newspaper" should be charged for treason if they fall for government pressure and don't bring out the news...

No matter how many lives are put in danger? That is irresponsible.

BUDDY · Jun 28, 2006

GeneCosta said:
The government needs to stop rambling on about the press having a "patriotic duty". No newspaper nor radio ad nor even television show should have to silence what it finds out during times of war. I for one am glad this leaked, just another reason for me to loathe this intrusionist administration.

Personally, I think that everyone has a responsibility to those who put themselves in harms way, not to openly release information which put lives in danger, and stops law enforcement from tracking down terrorists. To think that the first responsibility is to tell you anything and everything that you want to know, is quite selfish on your part. As I said in aprevious post, the governement is not intruding upon you or your right to privacy, although I think that is the picture that the Times was attempting to paint. In order to get the information, warrants had to be obtained, which is perfectly in line with the law. It is not as if someone is waching you at the ATM, to see how much you are taking out of your account.

GeneCosta said:
If the press turns a blind eye to what the government does, we're going to lose a war over here. We're going to lose OUR rights. The media is the best tool for keeping the government in line.

The best tool for keeping the local, state and federal government in line, is an involved citizenry that goes out and finds the information for themselves. Not a biased media that can put there own spin on things and force feed you whatever they want you to know.

GeneCosta said:
My biggest fear about the War against Terror is that we're going to forget what makes us free. Soon enough we're going to give up all our liberties for safety. Don't question the military during war, it is not the patriotic way. Don't tattle on your president, don't question your government, don't burn the flag...

Yeah, those are all basic human rights that are clearly outlined in the Bill of Rights too, huh? Plus, we have lost so many rights in this country that we used to have. Funny though, I can't seem to figure out which rights those are that we have suddenyl lost. Freakin out and panicing does nothing for your argument by the way.

Mathematician · Jun 28, 2006

To think that the first responsibility is to tell you anything and everything that you want to know, is quite selfish on your part. As I said in aprevious post, the governement is not intruding upon you or your right to privacy, although I think that is the picture that the Times was attempting to paint. In order to get the information, warrants had to be obtained, which is perfectly in line with the law. It is not as if someone is waching you at the ATM, to see how much you are taking out of your account.

Actually, because of the Bank Secrecy Act, warrants don't have to be given, and they weren't. ( http://www.privacilla.org/government/banksecrecyact.html). However, the person must be notified afterwards. Allegedly, the government is not doing this.

Is there any proof that people will die from this? Do you honestly think terrorists wouldn't know the government is checking their bank records? This just confirms the suspicion.

The best tool for keeping the local, state and federal government in line, is an involved citizenry that goes out and finds the information for themselves. Not a biased media that can put there own spin on things and force feed you whatever they want you to know.

The Times's editorial section is liberal. That has nothing to do with its reporting.

How would citizens get hold of this information?

BUDDY · Jun 28, 2006

GeneCosta said:
Actually, because of the Bank Secrecy Act, warrants don't have to be given, and they weren't. http://www.privacilla.org/government/banksecrecyact.html). However, the person must be notified afterwards. Allegedly, the government is not doing this.

The Treasury Department does not need a warrant to look at financial records, however the Justice Department does and acording to White House press secretary Tony Snow, they did in these instances. Warrants have to be issued in order for law enforcement to look at the financial records of an American citizen.

GeneCosta said:
Is there any proof that people will die from this?

Common sense tells me that the funding of terrorism, going unchecked, leads to more terrorist activity, which leads to more deaths.

GeneCosta said:
Do you honestly think terrorists wouldn't know the government is checking their bank records? This just confirms the suspicion.

I think that anyone stupid enough to strap a bomb to there chest and detonate it in a crowded market place, is quite possibly stupid enough to not know we are watching where the money is coming from.

GeneCosta said:
The Times's editorial section is liberal. That has nothing to do with its reporting.

From my poin of view, the two might not be directly linked, but I think there is liberal spin and opinion on both side. However, I will concede your point.

GeneCosta said:
How would citizens get hold of this information?

Freedom of Information Act, National Archives, Library of Congress, Call your Congressman or Senator's office, and there are many places on line that you can go to, print off the proper forms, and get copies of information that you are looking for.

greatcalgarian · Jun 28, 2006

kevmicsmi said:
so are they charged with spying, or have you already convicted them of spying because China says so?

They were charged in court, and found guilty. However, US government claimed that the court is not a court

greatcalgarian · Jun 28, 2006

BUDDY said:
The banner of freedom of the press should be protected and valued, but journalists should also act like responsible adults and think about the effects of their reporting prior to putting it in print. That's responsible journalism. This program was doing an outstanding job of tracking down terror suspects and persuing them. It was not intrusive upon American citizens and did not violate anyones right to privacy. If you read the article, you will not that in order to obtain the financial information, law enforcement had to obtain warrants, and even have the information sent to an auditor, prior to review by investigators. The information that was obtained was not real time information either. It was transactitory information, days, weeks, or months old, that was obtained from finacial institutions from all over the world, and used to find out how and who terrorists are get there funding from.

I would say that the basic difference between the case you bring up in China, and this case, is not in the right to freedom of speech of press, but in the citizen's right to a fair trial, by a jury of peers, prior to being thrown in a prison. And yes, I would say that in undemocratic. Why would you disagree?

Same situation. In China, there is also the jurisdicial system. I believe they have three judges, but not the jury system practice in US. A person can be arrested when the security officer has a reason to do so, and the person arrested will be charged in court. Under abnormal situation, a person may be detained for a period of time without being charged. This is the same like when a national emergency situation is declared, for example, currently those detained in Cuba.

So basically, there is not much different between the practice of China and US. Both, by definition, is democractic practice.

kevmicsmi · Jun 28, 2006

greatcalgarian said:
They were charged in court, and found guilty. However, US government claimed that the court is not a court

If you had to go to court, would you rather go to the USA courts, or the Chinese courts?

kevmicsmi · Jun 28, 2006

greatcalgarian said:
Same situation. In China, there is also the jurisdicial system. I believe they have three judges, but not the jury system practice in US. A person can be arrested when the security officer has a reason to do so, and the person arrested will be charged in court. Under abnormal situation, a person may be detained for a period of time without being charged. This is the same like when a national emergency situation is declared, for example, currently those detained in Cuba.

So basically, there is not much different between the practice of China and US. Both, by definition, is democractic practice.

What do they consider an abnormal situation? Are the people in Guantanamo American citizens? No, they are alleged illegal combatants in a war against our country. Why should we afford them US citizen rights?

Should the Press be charged for treason?

Well-Known Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Active Member

Steel Magnolia

User of Aspercreme

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Reason, and reason again

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

User of Aspercreme

User of Aspercreme

User of Aspercreme

Reason, and reason again

User of Aspercreme

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member