Sigh. But that’s not the choice. That’s not even close to being the choice. You’re jumping from a program that tracked financial transactions in the fight against terrorism to a police state. Do you know what a police state is? This is just knee-jerk partisanship, dishonesty, and stupidity.
I’ve got some hay out back if you wanna finish up that effigy you’ve started there, champ.
Uh, in a discussion about a national security program that was seeking to prevent similar attacks, it’s kindo f relevant. Don’tcha think? :rolleyes:
My view is this; yes, the NYT was probably wrong to print this story. However, I would rather that we have a system of free press such as this and risk the occasional problem like this (yes, even if it means people may die) than to live in a place with no such system.
The Pentagon Papers controversey was before my time by a bit, so I’m not as familiar with it as I should be to comment with authority.
Did the story expose criminal behavior that would have otherwise been kept secret? Then Yes.
Did publishing the story have a detrimental effect on a legitimate effort of the United States? If so, then maybe not…unless the answer to the first question was still “Yes”.
There is the underlying problem in a nutshell. If this Administration had spent the last five years making an honest attempt to tweak the balance between civil liberties and government powers, making the case that nudging the needle a bit toward the latter was now necessary while showing good-faith respect toward the former and avoiding cheap partisan exploitation of the issue, we’d be able to take their protestations seriously.
They didn’t, so we can’t.
I was about to post the same thing. Not to mention that it is brought up so often because thank GOD, it is the only event of its kind for us to point to in this country and say, “that is why we need tools for fighting terrorism.” Maybe, just maybe the reason it is our only example is that programs like this one help us identify terrorists before they are able to commit these terrible crimes.
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
-Patrick Henry
“He who gives up essential liberties for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.”
-Ben Franklin (attributed too)
“He who does not defend freedom everywhere defends it not at all.”
-Alexander Kerensky
Do you not think freedom is something worth dying for? This country was founded on that principle. Saying otherwise goes against everything America is supposed to be about.
And Oakminster, much as I agree with you on everything else here, we are at war-at least in Iraq. It’s a war, whether we like it or not. The question is, what do we do about it?
The thing I like about this whole NYT bruhaha is that it lets the mouth-foaming Bush apologists(*) come out of the woodwork and reveal themselves as the freedom-stompin’ tyrants they’ve always dreamed of being.
“‘Freedom of the press’? What a stupid idea!”
(* = Term specifically chosen to annoy Shodan 
)
Let me see if I follow you. Deaths, like the 3,000 in question, happen. Automobile accidents happen. The government does the right thing by attempting to curtail the number of deaths in cars. But trying to curtail the number of deaths through terrorism is something the governement should not do. Why? Because some right would be infringed upon. But the the government can infringe on my rights by making me where a seatbelt, driving a certain speed, and not drinking. And that’s fien. But if the governement looks for financial transactions among terrorists, that’s out of bounds. Because? Well, I have no fucking idea. Why don’t you explain it to me?
No, when I say “we are not at war” it is a statement of objective fact. Only Congress has the power to declare war. They have not done so since WWII. Please provide a Cite to any act of Congress formally declaring war on terrorism.
Waiting is…
On the insult thing, the choice is yours. Play nice, and I’ll do the same. I’d rather debate the issue. Rattle my cage and I’ll bite your fucking hands off.
No. if I was being deliberately obtuse to make a political point, I’d be goose-stepping to the party line and, to be quite frank, agreeing with you.
I don’t agree with you. A government by the people & for the people should have extremely limited rights to keep things from the people. Even if those things are scary boogey-men that hide under our beds and scare us like children.
Hey, I’ve got a ‘top secret’ plan to stop terrorists from wanting to attack America: Stop Invading Countries that were never any kind of threat to America!
(oh, sorry Rove, was that your ‘October surprise’? Oh, its the ‘war is peace’ thing? Well, we’ve always been at war with Eurasia… :rolleyes: )
A. you fucktit - your original mention was suggesting that folks who opposed your position were ignorant of or ignoring 9/11. Neither is the case.
B. you fucktit - you assume that the only possabilities are giving up our civil rights, never questioning the lying scum you support or not be able to prevent similar attacks. T’ain’t necessarily so.
C. you fucktit - siad ‘national security program’ has never been subjected to judicial review, we have to accept this lying scum administrations contention that only bad guys were targeted, that it indeed had to be so secret that even the judiciary wasn’t an acceptable risk in order to protect our country. Since these same lying scum thought it was perfectly acceptable to burn a CIA operatives identity in order to score political points against her hubby, I don’t trust their judgement in this area.
D. you fucktit - if you believe that somehow Congressional oversite is somehow more secure and less prone to security leaks, than you truly are batshit insane.
Wow! That changes things completely. These quotes that I’ve never seen before are a real eye-opener. Thanks so much. Where did you find them? Are there any more? Who are the people who said them?
Yes. But stupidity isn’t. We know there are peope who want to blow us up. The governement is duty bound to protect us from such occurences. In order to do that they have to devise plans and programs to keep us safe. Some of those plans and programs will be more effective if they aren’t paraded in front of the enemy. That this has to be explained or defended is mind boggling.
So, I guess you would be in favor of having nothing classified as secret in the interest of national security? If I’m wrong, where do you draw the line?
No, I’m not and I never said I was. Certainly the government is obligated to take steps to insure the security of its citizens. However, as citizens we shouldn’t blindly accept every step the government tries to take just because it will make us “safer”.
I think we have the right to be informed about the tradeoffs we are making of our freedoms for “security”. Do I think the government should do nothing? No. Do you think the government should be allowed to do whatever it wants with no oversight from the citizens? How are we to exercise our rights and responsibilites as citizens if we do not have the information we need?
or just maybe, instead of having to come waaaaay the hell over here to kill us, we helped them by going to their neighborhoods. If you think we haven’t been subject to terrorists attacks since 9/11 you’re dreaming.
your arguement is exactly the same as this dandy pink elephant deterrant I have - don’t see any pink elephants, do ya? see, it worked.
Ooh, I would be happy to! First off, let me correct you here:
Not terrorists. SUSPECTED terrorists. What makes somebody a suspected terrorist? Who decides who is suspicious enough to warrant investigation? If they are that suspicious, why couldn’t we get a warrant to trace their bank transactions?
Maybe the difference is that you trust the government to make the right call here and I do not.
People always say that as a counter-argument when people point to the fact that there have been no terror attacks in the US since 9/11. You are right, I suppose…there is a chance that there have been no attacks in the last 5 years on American soil is because the terrorists have simply decided that they no longer have an interest in attacking us. I suppose that is not completely out of the realm of possibility.
Wait, wait - people are arguing about the legality of the bank transfer monitoring. I thought we were supposed to be arguing about whether or not the people at the NYT are a bunch of traitorous fucks who Don’t Understand That We’re Living In A Post-911 World, and who will Do Anything To Make Bush Look Bad, and who Want The War To Go Badly So They Can Advance Their Liberal Agenda.*
If the bank stuff is legal, I’m sure there’s plenty they can still do even if people OMG KNOW ABOUT IT.
I don’t buy Lemur866’s theory that Bush leaked the story on purpose, but I do agree that cutting off terrorist access to legitimate banking interests isn’t exactly a bad thing.
- I vote “No.”
My original mention was in response to a one line post by NicePete, who I think was ignoring that little fact. Sorry that you find it so troublesome in a discussion about stoppiing terrorists. :rolleyes:
Oh, get off your high fucking donkey. I am willing to give the President—any President—great leeway in terms of national security because I know that much of what goes into those decisions won’t, cant, and shouldn’t be known by the populace. I have to depend on him to protect us, and I do not want to undermine thiose efforts. All the more reason to take great care with who you vote for. And before you start sputtering and frothing, no, I did not vote for Bush either time.
And I don’t trust yours. And since you seem to know, who outed Plame? The world would love to know. If you don’t want to trust the administration, how abou the NY Times. Their article had no accusation of wrongdoing.
More secure than what? See, you’ve gotten yourself all worked up and you’re not making sense. Again, sorry if you find the fact that 3,000 people were murdered by terrorists on 9/11 so inconvenient in a discusion about stoppiing terrorists from murdering people.
And since you seem to be so fixated on it, Yes, I do fuck tit(s).