The way the Bush administration operates is to work in secret and without oversight. That’s simply not how it works, and not what the founders intended (if we wanted a king, we would have created a monarchy). The administration’s refrain is always “trust us”. The problem is that too many administrations of both Republican and Democratic politicians said “trust us” when they were up to really bad things, be that Vietnam escalation, Watergate, Iran Contra, whatever.
That’s also why the founders invented the first amendment, and while they may have not followed the spirit of the law, we’ve come to see the press (and I define press broadly, from Fox and the NY Times to bloggers and opinion journals) as yet another method of keeping government in check. The branches should provide oversight of each other, but the press should provide oversight of it all so that we citizens have a more complete view of what the heck exactly is going on.
Now as has been detailed by folks like Eric Boehlert (and as I see every day at work), the press since 2000 has gone from craptastic to craptacular. But on occasion they do some honest to goodness investigation. And that’s where conservatives chime in because it may make their beloved leader look slightly less forthcoming than he (and the conservative press) portrays himself to be. A few weeks ago National Review’s Stephen Spruiell made the specious claim that conservative press critics aren’t against the press printing certain stories – just how they presented them, but as his caterwauling about the Times here shows, they simply want stenographers (the wingnuts on Jeff Goldstein’s site are endorsing shooting reporters). In the conservative fantasy, a reporter gets wind of a story, asks the administration about the story, it is denied and the next day the headline reads “Administration Has Problem Of Terrorism Firmly Under Control, No Secret Programs With Ethical Questions In Progress”. If we wanted that kind of press we should have just handed the keys to Stalin after WWII.
See, Oliver here’s the thing, the program was classified. That means it is a secret Covert ops or programs tend to have little oversite.The less involved the better. Because its a secret we would not want leaked to our enemies, or the nyt
By the way the “founders” did not “invent” the first amendment idiot
Either your post is very fortuitous or very indirect.
Forget about fantasy…my conservative nightmare is this headline: “Government runs out of dots to connect, terrorist attack successful”.
Don’t even have to follow the link…I loved that skit!
the wingnuts on Jeff Goldstein s site are endorsing shooting reporters
There you go again. Not one person said, “We should shoot reporters” just for the hell of it as you imply. The comments were made in the context of the person being convicted first of TREASON.
And guess what Ollie? People used to be shot for treason!
The question: What good comes of the NY Times revealing classified information that we utilize in helping to win the war on terror? What happens if it’s revealed that this bank information is what helped foil the terror plot that was being hatched in Florida?
It has nothing to do with making Bush look bad because guess what? There will be another Democratic president at some point and his administration is going need access to the same tools and tactics. And if the NY Times and other news organizations are taking information that was revealed to them illegally and printing it for all the world to see, then what are you going to do when we’re hit by terrorists who were able to slip through the cracks because they knew what we were doing to track them?
This isn’t like the NSA spying program where the legalities of it are open to debate. This is a perfectly legal program. I cannot believe you’re defending the press on this one.
No, conservatives want reporters to stop actively rooting for the other side. The press has become a SNL parody of itself.
“If the MSM operated like this during WW II, we d all be speaking German now.”
If Roosevelt had made the strategic blunder that Bush has, we’d all be dead.
The best part is that these loose – lipped reporters will go to jail rather than betray a source.
Betray their country? Sure, why not?
I really needed to know exactly how the government was working to catch terrorists, so I could get that wonderful feeling that now they know it, too.
Thanks, guys!
If the MSM operated like this during WW II, we’d all be speaking German now.
How many pictures of FDR’s wheelchar are there, again?
It’s not just the commenters at Eschaton: it’s Atrios himself.
TomY…
Wait, give me time to come up with a Clinton barb, so we can get this discussion of the NYT story moving forward in a constructive manner.
“Like what? Invading the country that didn t attack us? ”
Which country would that be Farris, the one who declared war on us? Are you being stupid on purpose?
France declared war on us?
More fun with Proquest (again retyped by me). Here’s an article from 1943 in which a Republican candidate for President criticizes Roosevelt for eploiting the war to advance his own domestic political agenda. Is he a traitor? You be the judge:
No, Scratch, Libya, remember?
“If the MSM operated like this during WW II, we d all be speaking German now.”
Below you will find an excerpt from a New York Times article circle 1942 that I retyped from Proquest (Search the NY Times website for the headline to find it in their pay archives). Anything in it sound familiar? The point being that we have these kinds of discussions as a nation before, in public, during war time. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is the shrill idiocy of the contemporary right wing.
Robber…
You conservatives seem to intentionally miss the point that authorities have access to all this information legally.
As far as I know they obtained it legally. Do you have information to the contrary?
…it is that they are looking at information without merit.
They have already described a couple specific cases where this program helped snag terrorists.
In general, you seem to look at this from the point of view of a criminal investigation, which I respect. But it’s actually different, because we are hoping to (and actually have, apparently) DETECT criminal activity. If we were building a case against a known person, then getting information with warrants, etc., would be no problem. But looking for certain types of activity without any specific knowledge of wrongdoing IS valuable, and in this case IS legal. I think it’s very similar to a radar speed trap…lots and lots of innocent people drive by, and who cares about them. But when the light blinks on that radar gun, then we can start the legal procedures checklist.
First for Scratch,
We invaded France because the country was under German control. We maintain the country boundaries because from out perspective it was an unlawful occupation. If you want to get all technical about it we didn’t invade France we invaded the [at the time] large country of Germany which we had declared war on and had declared war against us. So your comment is intentionally retarded.
Second,
Not a single fucking person is saying that police, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc, etc _shouldn’t_ be allowed to look at financial records, phone records, or hell even the content of phone calls. Everyone is more than happy to allow the authorities access to this information. The _point_ that all you conservatives miss is that we want justified cause/oversight for looking into these files.
I mean what the hell is your limit? If George W. Bush himself wanted access to my house because he suspected me of links to terrorism I’d be more than happy to escort him around to prove my innocence, however, it is my option. He needs to ask politely or prove to a judge that there is merit to override my rights.
The problem here isn’t that the government is looking into banking shit [in fact federal law forces large banks to monitor their own transactions for suspicious activity] it is that they are looking at information without merit. If they suspect links get a warrant for the information or whatever the legal document is.
You conservatives seem to intentionally miss the point that authorities have access to all this information legally. It is flatly un-American to say the government has the right to all information all the time because maybe, possibly, sometimes, they could prevent terrorism.
Scratch, my question is how the stories help the terrorists avoid detection. Do you think they had no idea their banking transactions might be monitored before they saw it in the New York Times?
With the new financial tracking story, the right wing seems be using its well-worn incoherent argument of “Journalists are endangering national security by exposing secrets — and it’s not news because everyone already knew about it.” Still no explanation of exactly how the supposed endangerment is occurring.
KC…
Still no explanation of exactly how the supposed endangerment is occurring.
It’s simple: stories like this help the people we are looking for avoid detection. Do you not see how that threatens our security?
Robber…
And yet the program has yielded results.
Again, it’s not the possibility of monitoring, it’s the specifics of the monitoring that is valuable to those trying to operate undetected. In today’s world it is possible to monitor virtually any communication…and yet people have to select one way or another unless they do everything face to face. I say, make their choice difficult and uninformed.
Your information about the hotmail account is very interesting…I had not heard that. They were very crafty indeed. But you are wrong about the information being transmitted…it was in fact transmitted in the form of a web page. The only thing they saved themselves was multiple copies of the message on various email servers…choosing to rely instead on the security of the Hotmail server owned and operated by Microsoft. I wonder how they would have communicated if they were told that Microsoft was allowing government access to the Hotmail servers under a secret program that relied on dodgy “emergency powers?” Or what if certain ISP’s, but not others, were allowing access to web traffic to government agencies?
I think every conservative in the country knows that we can’t win the war by doing the same things we’ve been doing. I think a sizeable portion of them think we can’t win the war at all, but won’t admit it because it would, once again, demonstrate that the liberals have been correct about this fiasco on every point. So they throw their hands up and chant comforting slogans “stay the course” and “we can’t cut and run.” But the moral result of this choice is their tacit support of the continuing needless death of our soldiers for a cause they will soon publicly admit is lost. Cracks are forming. As soon as the GOP propaganda machine settles upon on a suitable liberal scapegoat for our national defeat, the dam will break.
But history will remember who lost Iraq. And liberals will not let you forget, because in the war on terror, we cannot afford to make the kind of strategic mistakes that George W. Bush has subjected us to.
Coulter on Cavuoto:
The point being that we have these kinds of discussions as a nation before, in public, during war time.
Did you notice anything in that article about how that censorship worked?
The only difference, as far as I can tell, is the shrill idiocy of the contemporary right wing.
The only difference between your usual prolix, nasty, irrelevant posts and this one is…
None.
“Achmed?”
“Yes Khalid?”
“Did you see the New York Times report on how the infidels are tracking our money?”
“Yes Khalid. I sent a courier with a note to the financier, and he wrote back and assured me that he will route the transfers through a firm in the Bahamas and have the money laundered.”
“That is good Achmed.”
“It is easy. The infidel newspapers do all the hard work. All I have to do is sit here and write out notes.”
“Achmed?”
“Yes Khalid?”
“How come you just don’t call the financier?”
“Oh – that! Because the New York Times revealed that the infidels were monitoring our phone calls.”
“Damn those infidels!”
“Thank Allah for the New York Times Khalid. Without them we’d have no secrets that weren’t known to the infidels.”
“Praise Allah for the New York Times.”
“Indeed, praise Allah for the New York Times.”
I’m not in denial: Your arcane posts were, as usual, off point. Censorship was public knowledge. Its actual process, and the analysis required to make it a useful tool, were not.
Everybody that’s been in a bank, or watched a crime show, knows that bank transactions are being monitored.
But reminding terrorists that this is so, and providing them with details, is not — dare I say it? — a good thing.
Scratch: here’s another summary of conservative vs. liberal thought:
Conservatives want soldiers to die in the service of a noble cause that has no hope of prevailing.
Liberals think it is better that the troops not die for a lost cause.
KC…
Do you think they had no idea their banking transactions might be monitored before they saw it in the New York Times?
Might be monitored, yes. Are definitely being monitored, no.
And it’s not just “banking transactions”…it is specifically those transactions that involve SWIFT.
Let me turn the question around: Do you think the terrorists would have selected a means of transferring money without going through SWIFT before knowing for certain that those specific transactions were monitored? Do you think they might make that effort now? Will such an effort help them avoid detection?
TomY…
I know you don’t believe that.
Midderpridge made a simple statement: the more pressing issue is the possibility of government abuse of power, over the possibility of attack. From what I have seen time and again on this site and others, many liberals would agree with him/her [sorry midder!], and may conservatives would disagree.
Scared little puppies.
The more pressing danger is more severe than not connecting the dots. Its the unchecked expanding of the government’s ability to count dots.
yea federal laws, IN THE U.S.!
The only people the 9/11 hijackers had to defeat were the folks working the gate at United…thats the point…we need to do better.
Scratch,
[i]As far as I know they obtained it legally. Do you have information to the contrary?[/i]
Well the NY Times article says “The program is grounded in part on the president’s emergency economic powers … highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.”
Although obviously this isn’t proof that the program isn’t legal but there are concerns. The current administration seems to think that anything is justified under his “emergency powers” in a time of war. I am dubious of this claim because it is not what the Framers had in mind at all. I think if there is any question to its legal standing the Administration needs to prove it unquestionably to the people.
Scratch,
“Might be monitored, yes. Are definitely being monitored, no.”
The 9-11 hijackers were smarter enough to defeat the United States Government and I doubt the truly sophisticated terrorist threats are stupid enough to think their money isn’t being watched.
Do you know how the 9-11 guys communicated via e-mail? They shared a single hotmail account and then wrote [b]drafts[/b] to each other. No e-mail was ever sent between computers. They just all shared the same account and looked at the same drafts. That way there was nothing being transmitted to be scanned. Your telling me people this smart wouldn’t be smart enough to know that maybe the government is looking at banking statements when the mob, drug dealers, and anyone who watches movies knows that? Hell as I mentioned earlier there are federal laws that banks report any suspicious banking to the feds to stop drug money and/or mob money.
Midderpridge…
It’s fair to say that you have summarized the difference between conservative and liberal thought with your concise post. I believe the more pressing danger is the people who want to kill innocent Americans and others, as has happened in the recent past…you are more concerned about a government worker possibly noticing the funds you have transferred abroad.
Frank, the depth of your denial is stunning.
You win, frameone. Go away.
“Its actual process, and the analysis required to make it a useful tool, were not.”
They were reading people’s mail Frank. What kind of top secret fucking analysis tools did they need to do that? A letter opener? From the article:
“The arrival of military planes and oil supplies at Alaskan points, the movements of convoys, disclosures of locations of bases for fighting aircraft and reports on the condition of planes, plans of air fields in Alaska and even the number, types and disposition of troops in that territory had been put into mails and discovered through censorship. Some communications, Mr. Biddle added, contained boasts of avoiding censorship.”
Now whether that shit was in code or not hardly matters once it was known that the government was READING PEOPLE’S MAIL! Now ask yourself, Frank, what do you really know about the procedures of any of the previously disclosed NSA programs or this most recently disclosed program? In this most recent case we know that the US was looking into a massive financial database. That’s about it. Show me the exact passage in today’s NEw York Times article that rises to the level of exposing “Its actual process, and the analysis required to make it a useful tool…” Can you?
Now you suggested that historically, the NY Times would never have reported so publicly on government espionage efforts. Not only were you dead fucking wrong, but it’s patently obvious that Congress was discussing the EXACT SAME ISSUES with the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL during WWII in PUBLIC as they are today.
Idiot.
I think a sizeable portion of them think we can t win the war at all, but won t admit it because it would, once again, demonstrate that the liberals have been correct about this fiasco on every point.
As evidenced by?
Frank, I’ll go away when you stop making ridiculously ignorant statements such as this: “If the MSM operated like this during WW II, we d all be speaking German now.”
I’ll go away when you stop making statements like this:
After that, I didn’t care what you said.
So you have proved only one thing: that you are obnoxious.
What good comes of the NY Times revealing classified information that we utilize in helping to win the war on terror?
What good comes from Bush authorizing, or at least being in on, leaking classified information for political purposes?
What happens if it s revealed that this bank information is what helped foil the terror plot that was being hatched in Florida?
Have you read the indictment? If not, I strongly suggest you do because the actual details are not as spectacular as the MSM is portraying. For one thing, there was no “plot” and it appears as no real money had changed hands.
If the “al Queda representative” mentioned in the indictment is really affiliated with al Queda (i.e. our enemy) why didn’t they go after them also?
frame, the playground’s getting pretty empty, because no one wants to play with you.
When you were a kid (if you ever were a kid), did you get a lot of U’s in “Works well with others”?
Classic. Frank, why would I want to “work well” with someone who operates in utter, conscious ignorance of the facts?
“After that, I didn t care what you said.”
I figured. You seem to have a hard time accepting reality.
Frank, It is not that I disagree with you. It is that you DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS. And yet you insist on repeating mushbrained right wing slogans like, “If the MSM operated like this during WW II, we d all be speaking German now,” which are, if you examine the historical record, PATENTLY UNTRUE AND DECEPTIVE. Why? Because in this case, as was clearly demonstrated above, the New York Times was reporing on government intelligence activities during WWII without anyone calling it, or any of the people who were openly discussing these procedures before Congress, including J. Edgar Hoover, traitors.
This nation has had these kinds of discussions before in its history, we have wrestled with the balance between civil liberties and security. We have debated publicly what powers the President and Congress should have and what checks should be in place. We had these discussions DURING WAR TIME. Indeed, we had them in public, in the pages of the New York Times during WWII. And are we speaking German now? NO.
What other response is to be expected from someone who values treating people he disagrees with like crap, over making some valid point?
That playground is going to be empty soon.
Yes, but you see, Frank compared to you a child on a playground, frameone, and that trumps all your “research” and “information.”
“I m glad to see you still have that sparkling wit that prevents liberals from laughing at anything but the misfortunes of conservatives.”
Oh now it was all just a joke funny, funny ha, ha.
Idiot.
OK, frameone, we’re not speaking German now. I’m glad to see you still have that sparkling wit that prevents liberals from laughing at anything but the misfortunes of conservatives.
TomY and z-adura, you’re both jerks who have the incredible gall to think you’re smarter than someone.
John Leo said last year, “Liberals claim intellectual superiority over conservatives, and conservatives claim moral superiority over liberals.”
Only on this blog do liberals claim intellectual and moral superiority over everyone.
Their humility could fit in a teacup, with room left over for a liberal cortex — which they are never inclined to use.
Frameone, you are doing God’s work. I gave up on trying to talk sensibly with dead-enders like Frank and drpedo many weeks ago. I am glad somebody still has the fight in them.
frameone, for someone who claims all sorts of pretense to genius, your insults are definitely unimaginative and lame.
We’ve been over this before. I am at least smart enough to know I’m not an idiot. That means that you are not smart enough to realize it, which means I am smarter than you, which I’ve known for sometime, or just some sort of bizarre individual (equally likely).
I make a remark, which has come into the language over the years, to mean that it was a stupid, if not counterproductive thing for the press to do — now.
It bordered on traitorous, only because there’s no word for “I don’t really care if it affects the war effort negatively.”
So, what’s your response? You take the ProQuest Time Machine to 1943, leaving a trail that no one without off campus access can follow, and tell me “I don’t know the facts.” Well, of course, I don’t know those facts, and neither did you ’til you went poking around the college library, unless you’re going to tell me the Dec 12, 1943 issue of the NYT was in your hall closet.
Incidentally, in answer to your question
Is he a traitor? You be the judge
According to that article — no.
Did he mention the right to privacy?
No.
As to the other article, that seems to view the censorship favorably, and, as such, differs from the NYT’s attitude now considerably.
I’ll be honest with you. I’m not writing peer – reviewed journal articles. I have neither the time nor the desire to access ProQuest to make a short comment in a left wing blog.
As we used to say, (and don’t take this literally, Data, Mr. Spock, Frameone: “If you wanna fight, join the Marines!”
Oh yeah:
and yet it was you who was just plain wrong
So, you’re associating “correctness” with arrogance. Why am I not surprised?
e one)
idiot
hilarious
That should be
What’s your answer?
(Choose one)
idiot
hilarious
“Their humility could fit in a teacup, with room left over for a liberal cortex which they are never inclined to use.”
… and yet it was you who was just plain wrong.
TomY and z-adura, you re both jerks who have the incredible gall to think you re smarter than someone.
Well, it’s like I always say, “I’d rather be an intellectual elitest than a stupid prick.”
We ve been over this before. I am at least smart enough to know I m not an idiot.
I’m sure Dany Quayle thought of himself the exact same way.
So, what s your response? You take the ProQuest Time Machine to 1943, leaving a trail that no one without off campus access can follow, and tell me I don t know the facts. Well, of course, I don t know those facts, and neither did you til you went poking around the college library, unless you re going to tell me the Dec 12, 1943 issue of the NYT was in your hall closet.
Incidentally, in answer to your question
It’s called a public library.
I ll be honest with you. I m not writing peer – reviewed journal articles. I have neither the time nor the desire to access ProQuest to make a short comment in a left wing blog.
But you have the time and desire to access WordPress to make a long comment in a left wing blog.
Scratch —
You have not understood my concern.
You are worried about some people blowing up a building.
I am worried about the government taking that fear and using it to grab a bunch of powers it doesn’t need and could be abused.
For instance, grabbing all those phone records. The government then uses those records to find whistleblowers leaking embarrassing information about possibly illegal and abusive government programs. Torture, secret prisons… whatever.
Hypothetical, knowing what books people read from library or bookstore files, and putting anyone who read a Michael Moore book on a no-fly list. They already put some people who protest the war through the ringer when they want to fly.
It goes on and on.
Why does the government need my medical records, my banking records, my credit report, my phone records, my e-mail? Why should I make a list if I scuba dive? If I read a certain book. Why is the government infiltrating anti-war rallies with agents provacateur? At what point do I need to be more afraid of a gulag than a terrorist?
Oh and Frank, all it takes is 4 bucksto become a little less dumb.
“As to the other article, that seems to view the censorship favorably, and, as such, differs from the NYT s attitude now considerably.”
Idiot. The article does not view the censorship “favorably” as you put it. Did you even read it? Of couse you didn’t. The article reports on a Congressional hearing into the nature of the government’s censorship program after the Governor of Alaska raised concerns that the program may be infringing on the rights of US citizens. You’ll notice that at the Congressional inquiry members of the Roosevelt administration and the military came right and presented evidence of the program’s effectiveness and welcome the oversight role of the Congress in assuring that all safeguards were in place. From the article:
“Committee complaint that the Office of Censhorship, under the limits of existing censorship law, and therefore illegally, in passing upon communications between the continental United States and its possessions was met vigorously by the Attorney General s repeated assertions that the powers of the Commander in Chief made legislation unnecessary. Legislation was desriable, however, he held so that penalties for violations could be imposed by law.”
Stack this graph from 1942 against any from today’s New York Times piece and you’ll find that there is very little difference between what the NY Times was doing now what it was doing when we were fighting Germany and Japan.
Let’s get one thing straight Frank, you brought this up. You wrote: If the MSM operated like this during WW II, we d all be speaking German now.”
Now maybe I misunderstood, we’re you not making a ssertion about the NY Times’ coverage of counter-espionage against Nazi Germany during WWII? But of course you were. To now suggest that you were only repeating some quaint colloquialism “which has come into the language over the years” only makes it worse. You’ve just admitted that you mindlessly accept and repeat whatever bullshit you hear that fits your preconceived world view.
And you’re right. I was not aware of this historical article or this incident when I woke up this morning. But I do have a sense of history and I know that the US press and Congress didn’t just roll over for the Roosevelt administration just because we were at war. So I did a little research. And lo and behold what did I find? Proof that you and your prepackaged, ready-to-eat world view was full of shit.
Now do you want to keep this up, Frank? Do you want to go on and on making an ass out of yourself?
As if I would pay anything at all for the New York Times
Now maybe I misunderstood, were you not making a ssertion about the NY Times coverage of counter-espionage against Nazi Germany during WWII? But of course you were.
No,I wasn’t, you psychopath. Even I didn’t think you would you go zipping back into the NYT archives, to prove a point I wasn’t even making.
As I posted at 8:42 PM — your post was three hours later — even you had time to research a response:
It s called a public library.
What a jerk.
What library did you go to, O witless one?
But you have the time and desire to access WordPress to make a long comment in a left wing blog.
So?
Unlike you, I don’t have a paid subscription to the New York Times, and hours to research through time and space, to give “no quarter” to people for whom I have no respect, as you constantly remind us; as you write three part, mile long posts to “vanquish your enemies.”
You may not be an idiot, but you’re as crazy as a bedbug.
Incidentally, I can admit I was wrong, without going back 60 plus years:
I feel better.
“Even I didn t think you would you go zipping back into the NYT archives, to prove a point I wasn t even making.”
What point were you making then Frank? That the New York Times was endangering US security by reminding the terrorists that were monitoring financial transactions? From the article you just linked to:
“The fact is that there is really very little privacy today when it comes to the international transfer of funds. That is why criminal networks, money launderers and terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Hawalas and cash couriers for such transactions.”
So either way your an idiot.
That’s hilarious Frank. You wrote:
“I ll be honest with you. I m not writing peer – reviewed journal articles. I have neither the time nor the desire to access ProQuest to make a short comment in a left wing blog.”
So you have neither the time nor the inclination to check your facts before you repeat a totally assinine smear on the contemporary major media but you want to attack my typos? By all means, have at it.
The genius has confused “your” with “you’re.”
What a dick.
I did say: “I can admit I was wrong, without going back 60 plus years.”
You didn’t notice that, eh?
Genius.
What a jerk.
Care for a violin solo with that?
So?
You obviously have the time and the energy. You just want a reason to whine.
You may not be an idiot
Thank you.
but you re as crazy as a bedbug.
…That has GOT to be the stupidest simile I’ve ever read.
“You didn t notice that, eh?”
I just thought you’d want to be reminded that you were wrong twice over: on your historical reference and your assesment of the contemporary story. hat way you have the satisfaction of admitting it again.