TCS Daily


Bank Shot

By Austin Bay - June 28, 2006 12:00 AM

Call it the Washington Beltway's "Axis of Abuse": irresponsible reporters and editors collaborating with agenda-ed, unnamed "leakers."

The exposure of a legal and productive counter-terror intelligence operation on the front page of the June 23 edition of The New York Times is the latest abusive and dangerous example of this Beltway hustle. "Leakers" in this particular case is too weak a term -- exposing the finance-monitoring program amounts to spying for terrorists.

The New York Times acknowledged the program it exposed was limited "to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to al-Qaida by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry ..." The paper also admitted these intelligence operations helped nab al-Qaida's Southeast Asia terror kingpin, Hambali, the man who planned the 2002 Bali massacre.

The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and The Wall St Journal also published the story -- "me, too" popinjays after The New York Times blabbed.

International bank records are fair game for intel teams attempting to track terrorist finances and contacts. A tainted religious mania propels al-Qaida's killers, but money fuels their operations, buys their bombs and secures their safehouses. The 9-11 commission said surveillance of terrorist financing was critical to stopping terrorist attacks and destroying terrorist organizations.

So why expose this fruitful, legal operation? Why expose necessary secrets that protect American lives?

The simple power to do it is one explanation -- and that's the power of a bully. Add arrogance and greed, and we have a "most likely" explanation. The New York Times obviously believes it can expose intelligence secrets and pay no penalty. Hot stories sell newspapers. This "revelation," however, is manufactured sensationalism. The Times has demonstrated it will manufacture scandal no matter the national cost.

There is much still to admire at The New York Times -- correction, there are admirably talented people working at the Times producing world-class work (John Burns is the world's top foreign correspondent). However, editorial responsibility and judgment are seriously lacking. The Times' editors appear to be wedded to the two "press templates" of Vietnam and Watergate. "Get Bush" is their current "Get Nixon."

What should be done? Loose lips have already sunk this ship -- the program is compromised. Al-Qaida's suicide warriors aren't the smartest of enemies, but many of its global financiers are sharp and canny -- they will modify their m.o., forcing U.S. intelligence agencies to jury-rig new programs.

The Senate Committee on Intelligence has asked the director of national intelligence to assess the damage wrought by "unauthorized disclosure." The Senate should weigh the DNI's assessment and follow up with hearings.

The Bush administration should prosecute the leakers. I don't think the administration has the spine, however. It could barely prosecute former Clinton administration National Security Adviser Sandy Berger for abuse of classified material that would have put a soldier in jail. The president's personal denunciation of the exposure is a good sign. I hope he stays mad and proves me wrong.

On June 25, New York Times Editor-in-Chief Bill Keller tried to defend his decision. His public letter included arrogant snark directed at "conservative bloggers" and radio shows.

Keller, however, committed a "deeper error," according to University of Tennessee constitutional law professor Glenn Reynolds.

Reynolds wrote at his influential Website, Instapundit.com, that Keller mischaracterized freedom of the press "as an institutional privilege." It's not. "The founders gave freedom of the press to the people," Reynolds observed. "They didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of constitutional high priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press."

The Constitution gives people the right to bear arms. It doesn't give them the right to commit murder.

Every editor wants a headline, but some headlines damage our government's Job One: national security. I suspect Bill Keller doesn't really believe we are fighting a for-real global counter-terror war. The pleasant semblance of peace in the Hamptons and in Hollywood allows him to trivialize the threat.

At one time there was hole in south Manhattan the New York Times' elitist trivializers could not ignore.

Austin Bay is a syndicated columnist and TCS contributing writer.

Categories:

92 Comments

NYT editorial
Read the NYTimes editorial today. It puts this post to bed.

So: we need to start censoring the press?
Some questions for Mr. Bay

1. Can we point to any arrests that have come from any of the secret programs proliferating in apparent violation of existing laws?

2. We beat the Germans and Japanese and won the cold war without having to systematically dismantle legal protections. Why is this different?

3. Do you really want the government telling our media what to print and what not to print?

NYT Editorial
Too few people in the United States care about the Times revealing information - they are not affected by the War against Terrorism. They do not know anyone in the military and do not want to. Life is no different for most Americans today than it was on September 10, 2001.
The LA Times editor said there is no cost for having this information out in public. I beg to differ: the cost is soldiers' lives but too few people care.

Au contraire
"1. Can we point to any arrests that have come from any of the secret programs proliferating in apparent violation of existing laws?"

The program exposed was not in violation of any laws.


" 2. We beat the Germans and Japanese and won the cold war without having to systematically dismantle legal protections. Why is this different?"

"Franklin D. Roosevelt, alas, was little interested in protecting the civil liberties of American citizens. In 1936, he secretly authorized FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover to investigate suspected fascists and communists, a task that Hoover undertook with relish. In 1940, Roosevelt signed into law the Smith Act, which required resident aliens to register with the federal government; streamlined procedures for deportation of any deemed undesirable; and made it illegal for any person to “advocate, abet, teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing any government in the United States by force.” Stone observes that the Smith Act was in effect the sedition law that Wilson’s infamous attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, had failed to convince Congress to enact in 1920."

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0512g.asp


"3. Do you really want the government telling our media what to print and what not to print?"

Do you want the media to print you SSAN if it fell into their hands? Do want the NYT to detail how to make a nuclear weapon? What is off limits?

non-answers
>The program exposed was not in violation of any laws.

The questions wassn't whether the bank program was legal, the question was whether any of the back of surveillance programs revealed one after another have led to any arrests.

Regarding FDR's investigation: it's completely legal for a president to order an investigation of potential threats - investigations go on all the time, under the rule of law. Regarding the Smith Act - there was nothing secret about it, and courts were able to test it.

Regarding what the media does -- laws protect citizens from falsehood and invasion of privacy. You can bring up all kinds of theoretical things you might not want a paper to print, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether you want government to censor papers. Do you?

soldier's lives??? how
where's the connection. What soldiers lives?

And thousands of soldiers have lost their lives after being put into a war started on false allegations, and continued incopetently with missing equipment and poor planning. But it's the press that's endangering our troops? Not (for example) failure to give them good body armor and better vehicles.

The connection? You won't know the connection
You won't know the connection. That's why some information is classified and not to be released. You won't and can't know all the ways an enemy gets information and uses that information. Why help the enemy?

How does keeping Americans ignorant help the enemy?
Nobody is talking about disclosing troop movements, names, weapons secrets, tactical details, identity of secret agents (well, other than Valerie Plame) or anything similar. We're talking about programs that terrorists are surely aware of -- and which don't really seem to have come up with anything.

Again, is there some reason you're bringing up endangering soldiers here, but ignoring it with respect to the way the war was justified and is being fought?

soldiers died because of Pres. Bush's mistakes so they should die because of the NYT also
Bush made mistakes and soldiers died so the Times gets it shot too. Wow.

Except you can see where Bush mistakes killed
Who died from what the Times reported? How? Back this up??

It's classified
How do you publicly report the death or disapperance of classified personnel?

Of course, if you are the NYT you can publish anything if someone will break the law and release classified information to those not authorized to receive it.

difficult concept
This information will be used to hurt or kill. How? In a brutal uncivilized fashion. When? When they figure out how. It may take a while for us to find out it's even happened. You can "see where Bush mistakes killed." That's the easy part - the part where you don't even have to think. I don't blame you for not wanting to think - it's difficult to grasp concepts we can't see.


The Real Issue
"The issue is whether you want government to censor papers. Do you?"

Government censorship is NOT the issue. The issue is...did anyone break the law! Congress and the Attorney General should investigate. If "leakers" are found who broke the law, they should be prosecuted. If the NY Times and/or its management broke the law, then both the business and the responsible administrators should be prosecuted.

If the President and/or the Congress will not enforce the law, then the law should be changed. We can establish "open source" government...and release all details about all matters daily to the media. I will feel much safer if our enemies are kept fully informed.

Now what are you talking about??
Oh, please.

>How do you publicly report the death or disapperance of classified personnel?

you mean spies? you report their death without saying they're spies. you can even say, separately, that a news story blew cover on an unnamed spies. Nobody's said this. Do you have inside information??

>Of course, if you are the NYT you can publish anything if someone will break the law and release classified information to those not authorized to receive it.

Then bring charges against the Times, if you think they've broken a law.

We've been around this track
... with the Pentagon papers.

>f the President and/or the Congress will not enforce the law,

What do you mean, "if." He isn't enforcing the laws on the books regarding torture, surveillance, habeas corpus and many others. Why is the issue the press reporting this stuff, rather than the President doing it?

Then let's sit trembling in our beds...
... waiting for the big bad boogeyman while we give up the traditions that made this country gteat and gave it the strength to win its wars.

> I don't blame you for not wanting to think - it's difficult to grasp concepts we can't see.

I grasp the concept of ignoring the law and American tradition just fine. Holding up imaginary casualties doesn't make your point any stronger.

Why does the Left defend this?
I mean, seriously, whose side are they on anyway?

Folks like Gulliver essentially argue that anything is fair game for the press. This is rather silly on so many levels. In fact, this argument does not even warrant a response.

The other argument I hear from the Left is that this is really "no big deal". How the heck would they know? Are they in a position to say so with authority? Of course not.

So what are the root causes of this cycle of treason? Well, it's Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), where scoring hits against Bush takes precedence over any subsequent harm to nat'l security. I call this anti-American.

Not all information is fair game to left
The seemed pretty annoyed when their classified information (SSAN)was disseminated.

No one died. What the problem?

Easy victim
That Gulliver is a childish imbecile is well demonstrated with her circular and uninformed arguments. The point of the SWIFT program is to prevent further killing by islamic anarchists (i.e. the Bali bombing). It has been successful, leading to the capture and imprisonment of the architects of the Bali massacre. These maniacs are no longer free to murder and their funding mechanism is no more. The doltish Gulliver does not understand this and relies upon the whiny talking points of the KosKids to simulate intelligent discourse. Now, it may be true that most of the stupid terrorists have been rounded up or killed and that the smart ones know how to avoid detection of money transfers, but there will be plenty more stupid ones who now know (thanks to the NYT, et al) what to do to avoid detection and disruption. Gulliver, you are too stupid to understand that the islamic jihad is coming after you. They just haven't got you yet. You cannot comprehend the truth of their vision and therefore, you are their easiest victim.

why does the right defend this?
I won't argue that BDS doesn't exist, I wouldn't say it rises to the level of taking precedence over national security. People are paranoid of government anyway, now we have a President that wants everything he does to be secret, unless he is the one releasing it in a photo op or propaganda campaign. It is 100% fact that he has lied about these secret programs and there are serious questions to the legality of these programs, its no wonder people are paranoid to a higher level with such an Administration in power. That just scratches the surface. Add in other factors like the arrogance of the Admin., their proven willingness to mislead the citizens to do what they want, the corruption and authoritarian methods they use...

The left really hates this President, they'll take any opportunity to smear him when given a chance. The right really loves this President, they'll support and defend him no matter how incompetent or misleading he is. But the bottom line, the fact is, to all people of America, and the world for that matter, W is a bad President. The worst in our country's history. Regardless of one's agenda or interests, wealthy or poor, young or old, this President is bad for the people. I mean, even the things that I agree with him on, the things I support, turn out bad because of incompetence. You would think stripping bureaucracy and making government more efficient would be a good thing, but Bush has made it worse. Bush in no way models the ideal leadership in a democracy.

Now these words are not a defense of publishing classified information. I'm trying to give some context to the situation. We should all be very suspicious of the Administration to begin with, then we learn about another secret spying program that may be illegal too. It seems the right's argument is that we should all be scared of terrorists so we should let the Admin. do whatever it wants to track them down, even if its illegal. From what little we know about this latest secret program I'd guess no Americans were violated by it. At the same time, I'd also guess terrorists assumed we were monitoring financial activity to track them down. The revelation of this program just confirms it. The details of the program aren't public. So now the terrorists have confirmation that we're monitoring financial activity, they still don't know how we're doing it or the scope of it. The only real damage done by publishing the existence of this program is to the reputation of the Bush Administration. Its just another example of a secret spying program, possibly illegal, from an Admin. that has a history of such activities.

Its also interesting how there are no details coming from the right wing about how the revelation of this program has damaged national security. They say it does, but how? They don't talk about how, its not in the talking points, its not the message. Not even speculation, not even hypotheticals about how it could hurt national security. The message is to just say it hurts national security, say it hurts the soldiers, hurts the war effort, question the opposition's patriotism, blame the media. The details, the reality doesn't matter, they only have to sell the message. The discourse from the right wing is disturbingly poor these days. There is no debate, because only one side posits ideas and listens to rebuttal. The right tells you what to think and doesn't listen when there are questions. Just stick to the message. Even a moron can be an expert when one doesn't have to think critically. Maybe thats the problem, Bush has given morons the ability to opine without knowing what they're talking about. Truth and logic don't matter anymore to the right. They found power, that trumps reality.

Dumb Terrorists
Bin Ladin was dumb enough, for a while, to use a satellite telephone until the news was broken that the US could monitor and locate satellite and cell phones.

I would guess that the damage done by a leak to a classified program would be classified.

bob exhibits BDS, even as he is denying he suffers from it.
this president wants everything he does to be secret?

Man, bob needs help, big time.

Wow, what great insight you provide Mark. Talkin loud but sayin nothin.
I didn't deny suffering from BDS. I love to see him embarrassed. I don't like it when it hurts the country, but 99% of what he does hurts the country, so he may as well look stupid in the process.

"this president wants everything he does to be secret?"

Yes. Unless its something he releases in a photo op or propaganda campaign, as I previously stated. If you need help understanding what I say, just ask.

I do need help big time, we all do to get this Admin out of office and get the country back on track. At least we'll be able to do that once all of Bush's messes are cleaned up.

Mark, if you don't have something worthwhile to say, please don't say anything at all.

Damned poseur
Same goes for you, you damned poseur. Please shut up. Your grotesque generalities are just plain stupid. You're beyond help. "Get this country back on track", indeed! What, more attacks on our emabassies and cities? We were attacked because of ostensibly, the policies of our nation as determined well before Bush even considered running for president. You know, back when our nation was, by your definition, "on track". Your reaction is to attack the president who is obligated morally and legally to protect your right to lunacy. The legacy of free speech is that it is very revealing and you bobjones, have revealed your true cowardly self. By your words we know that our nation cannot count on you when the going gets tough. So, bugger off you poseur.

It's the NYT --- God's righteous right hand
Pass this comment back/forward:


This is nothing new for The Times. It was the NYT that was responsible for the arms race in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, the US government was making stories public that the USSR, like the USA, had case-hardened nukes in concrete bunkers. This was not true and the USA knew it --- BUT --- it let the USSR think we had that impression. The result --- the neither the USSR or the USA had to push for more and "better" nuclear weapons.


However, some ******* goody-two-shoes in the Pentagon leaked the U2 pictures of the USSR's missiles to Hanson Baldwin (God's avenging angel), who was military editor of the NYT --- all out in the open. The NYT, "outraged" that our government was lying to us published these classified pictures on the front page with no concern as to their impact.


The USSR saw this too and knew that (1) we were in a superior defensive position, (2) we were in a superior offensive position, and (3) they were highly vulnerable to a first-strike (should Washington ever feel that madness) with no retaliatory ability.


So, what would you do in that position? If you were the USSR, you'd put your missiles in case-hardened concrete silos and build more powerful nukes. And this posed a new threat to the USA --- SO we built more power nukes to get at the missiles in the USSR's new silos and further strengthened our silos. In response, the USSR built more and bigger nukes and case-hardened silos --- not to mention building mobile launching sites that could be covered by the Russian forests --- with more powerful nukes in greater numbers. So, we built mobile launching systems --- in railroad boxcars --- and more and more nukes of greater destructive power. And the cycle continued tit-for-tat. Thank you assholes at the NY Times!!!


I won't go into what the NYT did with the Pentagon Papers --- which were nowhere near as bad as they made them out to be. I doubt they read all 40 volumes. I did. The NYT was VERY selective in its quotes. And the US government should have sent that moron psychiatrist who leaked them to jail for life.


Someday I'll tell you what I REALLY think about the NYT!!!


Take the time to read the news below from a man in the war zone. PS: save a tree and avoid the NY Times.


June 26, 2006


A word from Lt. Cotton


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


Bob continues to sink deeper and deeper into paranoid delusions
Is Bush beaming secret messages directly into your brain? Or does the tinfoil hat I sent you work to block the messages?

Thanks for proving me correct prospector
You did a good job of staying on message.

Bring up 9/11 and the fear we should have, then call me a coward. No substance but lots of moral repugnance.

You are right my generalities are grotesque, thats the nature of the Administration I was describing.

More attacks is what we're getting now. Not on our own soil, but everywhere else in the world. And why is that? Why are there more terrorist attacks in the world today compared to 6 years ago? Because we invaded Afghanistan? No. We were justified in doing that. Because we invaded Iraq? Bingo. A voluntary war with a weak opposition that posed little or no threat to our country. Invading Iraq was not a part of the War on Terror. Only later after jihadists flooded into Iraq because we ended any notion of security and law in that country has it taken a role in the War on Terror. I'm not saying it would be better with Saddam still in power, I'm pointing out the reality.

You're also right that the President is obligated morally and legally to protect my right to lunacy, but he must do it within the framework of the law. It'd also be nice if he was more forthright with the people, if he wouldn't leverage fear to keep us confused and scared so he can do what he wants without pesky oversight, but maybe I expect too much. We can't automatically trust Bush to do what is right to protect us, he has proven he is willing to cut corners and ignore important realities to fit his agenda. Its our obligation to hold him accountable, which is another thing he has proven he will not do for himself or his Administration.

I'm not a coward by the way. I say it like it is. Cowards respond with messages and talking points.

On point
"Cowards respond with messages and talking points." Yes, and you've just repeated the message and talking points of the deranged Bush-bashers.

"Why are there more terrorist attacks in the world today compared to 6 years ago?" Because we are in a shooting war and the demonic jihadists choose easy and helpless victims who thought they were safe. Bush and his generals decided to choose the battlefield and not give ground to our enemies. I stress the word "our" because like it or not bobjones, bin Laden and his minions are currently at work to come after you and your family. To think that if we just left the middle east and impeached Bush would mean everything would be hunky dory and "getting our nation back on track" is grossly underestimating the intent of jihad. Afterall, it would be Cheney running the show.

"Not on our own soil,...." the only pertinent point that you've made.

Objective Truth
"2. We beat the Germans and Japanese and won the cold war without having to systematically dismantle legal protections. Why is this different?"

What a monumental lie. During WWII, ever single telegraphic communication going out of the country was intercepted and read by the government. Every overseas phone call was listened to, and there was massive censorship. Not to mention the imprisonment of thousands of American citizen and legal aliens simply because they were of Japanese decent.

But lying and lying and lying is what liberal like Gulliver, and LiberalGoodMan, and Roy_Bean do every day.

Because the objective truth is that like the publisher and editors of the New York Times, they are openly on the side of the terrorists in the war we are in.

They undeniably make clear their allegience to the new Facism every time they post their hate and lies here.


The whole point of keeping secret how you get information...
The whole point of keeping secret how you get information is so you can keep getting information.

The means and methods used to get information is usually more secret than the individual pieces of information that are gathered by it.

As long as the enemy doesn't know (or don't have his suspicions confirmed) how you get your information, you can usually use the same means and methods to get more information.

Premature exposure of means and methods to get information causes damage that you can't put a price on. Every terrorist, whose funds are not tracked by the SWIFT program, are now free to commit their acts of terrorism with the New York Times as [un]witting accomplices.

People make jokes about "military intelligence" being a contradiction in terms, because they sometimes carry secrets to the extreme, but that makes more sense than publishing how we get our secrets during a war.

Freedom of the press does not give the right to commit espionage.

Questions and Answers for Gulliver
"1. Can we point to any arrests that have come from any of the secret programs proliferating in apparent violation of existing laws?"

What makes you jump to the conclusion that laws were violated?

"2. We beat the Germans and Japanese and won the cold war without having to systematically dismantle legal protections. Why is this different?"

The difference is during WW2, the Republicans were the "loyal opposition". They did not let their hated of FDR and his policies turn them so sour that they could justify espionage and treason as merely opposing the FDR administration.

"3. Do you really want the government telling our media what to print and what not to print?"

No, what we really want is for reporters and editors to use common sense. We want them to realize that we are at war with terrorism (a.k.a Islamofascism) not the Bush Administration.

And the alternative is?
>Folks like Gulliver essentially argue that anything is fair game for the press. This is rather silly on so many levels.

I haven't argued that at all. Any decision to publish anything can be challenged, and even prosecuted.

The question is, are you calling for government censorship of media indefinitely, for as long as someone in Washington says there's a threatening mullah somewhere? If not, what's the solution.

> Well, it's Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), where scoring hits against Bush takes precedence over any subsequent harm to nat'l security. I call this anti-American.

Buy a clue. Criticizing the Bush administration is no more "anti-American" than criticizing Clinton was.

The "news" was
That the Russians killed a Chechen terrorist by zeroing in on his phone. They bragged about it. Blame them, not the NY Times.

Why not save the hate for terrorists
Rather than fellow citizens who want to win as much as you do, but just differ on means and their assessment of the competence of our chief executive.

Or is noting that Bush has made a lot of big mistakes "treason?"

take it one point at a time:
censorship: during WWII, it was publically imposed, with the cooperation and consent of the media, after a declaration of war. The internment of Japanese is now universally regarded as a total abuse and mistake. We've paid reparations. Are you saying it was a good thing? That it helped win the war?

>But lying and lying and lying is what liberal like Gulliver, and LiberalGoodMan, and Roy_Bean do every day.

chickenbird, you haven't cited lie one. You're just spouting and pouting. Get over it. People who disagree with you are just as patriotic as you. Get used to it.

taking it one point at a time:
Let's go through it:

>What makes you jump to the conclusion that laws were violated?

I said, "apparent violation," because the activities look like they violate the provisions of laws like FISA, habeas corpus, the Geneva conventions, U.S. prohibitions against torture and many more. That noted hotbed of terrorism the Supreme Court just handed down a decision agreeing with my position today. Why don't you tell them they're wrong.

>The difference is during WW2, the Republicans were the "loyal opposition". They did not let their hated of FDR and his policies turn them so sour that they could justify espionage and treason as merely opposing the FDR administration.

The other difference was it was declared war against two nations that were attacking the U.S. You might also note that defeating the Germans and Japanese was a three-year process. Three years into this war, we just seem to get new screw-ups from the bozos who don't know what they're doing. Maybe that's treason.

>No, what we really want is for reporters and editors to use common sense. We want them to realize that we are at war with terrorism (a.k.a Islamofascism) not the Bush Administration.

Believe me, nobody denies this. Perhaps you can point to something bad that's happened because of one of the Times stories? Hopefully something worse than has happened because of (for example) the failure of Rumsfeld to get motivated about getting troops body armor.

Why don't you get a job and stop wasting all our time?
.

Speaking of childish imbeciles
If this program is so amazingly successful, why are we still bogged down in Iraq?

>Gulliver, you are too stupid to understand that the islamic jihad is coming after you.

And if I had to depend on dip*hits like you to defend me, I'd be long since dead. Why don't you run in circles some more? It's so impressive!

I totally agree.
>Freedom of the press does not give the right to commit espionage.

Who has committed espionage??

Your advice
Why don't you take your own advice? Turn your hate of your own president and countrymen outward towards our common enemy? Noting that Bush has made a lot of mistakes, which he has admitted making many, is not treason and in fact, is a popular parlor game for many and an obsession amongst the deranged. Take a look at your own posts. I detect no desire to win against our common enemy in your posts. Let's step back a bit first. Can you even indentify your enemy?

Defending dip*hits like you
Apparently you are unaware of the progress being made in Iraq and it seems you prefer it this way. BTW, I've spent a good chunk of my life defending dip*hits like you...3 years USMC and 5 years USCG. What are your credentials for defending our country?

Where is Joe Wilson when you need him?
"When I asked him whether exposure had hurt the program, Kean replied quickly. “It’s over,” he said. “Terrorists read the newspapers. Once the program became known, then obviously the terrorists were not going to use these methods anymore.”

So there you have it. A valuable program was compromised and real damage was done to the war on terrorism. And what have we heard from the people who so loudly demanded an independent investigation of the exposure of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity? Not much.

Has Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) pressed the Justice Department for a special counsel?

Has the Times called for a vigorous leak investigation?

And where is the prominent Bush critic Joseph Wilson?

The reason you’re not seeing these people spring into action is that this case presents no opportunity for them to gain advantage in their various fights with the Bush administration.

Instead, it is a clear-cut matter in which the administration was doing the right thing, was doing it carefully, legally, prudently — only to have its work compromised by whoever leaked the story to the Times.

You might think that would disturb the administration’s critics as much as the CIA leak affair.

But you would be wrong."

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/062906.html

Congress declared war
"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution."

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

"The other difference was it was declared war against two nations that were attacking the U.S. You might also note that defeating the Germans and Japanese was a three-year process. Three years into this war, we just seem to get new screw-ups from the bozos who don't know what they're doing. Maybe that's treason."

After 3 years of fighting what were the casualties in WWII?

Iraq, with help, has deposed a tyrant, created a government and is building an army. How long did it take for the allies to help Germany or Japan do that?

My enemy is Islamic loon
Bush fails by all measures...

That's not a declaration of war
>Iraq, with help, has deposed a tyrant, created a government and is building an army. How long did it take for the allies to help Germany or Japan do that?

about a year after VE and VJ day. Of course, then we had an administration that knew what it was doing.

What would that mean?
If Congress declared war, wouldn't that give the President more power to censor the NYT?

The question is this White House seems to think it's above all rules.
During WWII, formal censorship was imposed. With the consent and cooperation of the media.

The problem with this president, as the Supreme Court has just noted, is he (or the people who do his thinking for him) believes his role as chief executive and commander in chief gives him the right to do anything he likes, disregard any and all laws he finds inconvenients, without any check or any balance.

Don't need you to defend me, bozo
I'm a citizen. I like it here. That's all the credentials I need. I think the country is being run by incompetents, and a lot of evidence backs me up. The Supreme Court just ruled that the White House is totally out of line. Why don't you go tell them that they're pathological Bush haters and borderline traitors?

Declaration of War
How would a declaration of war by Congress change this?

It wouldn't change the attitude in the White House
The consistent line from the White House is that the President, in his role of commander-in-chief, is above the law - all law. That's the problem, and, you're right, a declaration of war by Congress wouldn't change this.

TCS Daily Archives