NY Times demands Bush act against terrorist financing

[dorbie 0]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014523.php

How Times have changed.

[Gawain 0]

Okay, but only if you don't tell anyone.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[narcimund 0]

Quote

How Times have changed.

How so? Is it somehow hypocritical to insist that a president obey the law while exercising his duties?

If I call for the the police to stop the graffiti in my neighborhood, and they do it by shooting the black people, am I a hypocrite for criticising their methods?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Okay, but only if you don't tell anyone.

Well really what do you say to a case of buyers remorse like this, careful what you wish for?

Of course you want a program like this to be as effective as possible and letting the enemy know of it would only undermine it.

The Times' hypocrisy revealed by this editorial is just stunning. They called for this, got exactly what they wanted then feigned outrage and in the process blew the whoel program wide open. Now they express surprise that anyone thinks secrecy is justified as they try to pretend that this was an outrageous reach by the President even after they called for this. This is an.... inconvenient editorial for them.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

How Times have changed.

How so? Is it somehow hypocritical to insist that a president obey the law while exercising his duties?

If I call for the the police to stop the graffiti in my neighborhood, and they do it by shooting the black people, am I a hypocrite for criticising their methods?

He never broke the law, he implemented a legitimate program exactly like the one the NYT bayed for after 9-11, now they'd like to pretend it's a bad idea after demanding it.

You do know that in addition to the executive, members of the permanent select committee on intelligence from BOTH parties called the NYT editors to request they not devastate an intelligence effort they themselves had demanded right after 9-11.

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

He never broke the law

How did he not break the law? At the very least, the spirit of the due-process and unreasonable-search-and-seizure stuff?

He is not above the law, and the administration should be subject to a broader, not a narrower, interpretation.

That said, sometimes having the police office out there on the highway prevents speeders; yes, he didn't catch any, but, ya know -- if fewer people aren't speeding, isn't that a good thing?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

He never broke the law

How did he not break the law? At the very least, the spirit of the due-process and unreasonable-search-and-seizure stuff?

He is not above the law, and the administration should be subject to a broader, not a narrower, interpretation.

That said, sometimes having the police office out there on the highway prevents speeders; yes, he didn't catch any, but, ya know -- if fewer people aren't speeding, isn't that a good thing?

Wendy W.

First we're shooting potential grafiti artists because of their skin color now we're equating terrorism with speeding, you guys need to lay off the analogies it ain't helping. This program did catch terrorists even the Times admits that.

Just what do you think the Times was calling for, look only at financial transactions labeled "for Terrorism"? What do you think an intelligence gathering effort like this entails? Hint; Secrecy is high on the list, we have closed door congressional oversight for a reason.

[Gawain 0]

What's worse, is that the US worked through internationally recognizable channels, allowing proper subpenoa to SWIFT. This wasn't a warrantless program, and apparently, it worked very well.

Of course, these details get overlooked by those that are suddenly shocked by a decision to exercise their 1st amendment rights irresponsibly.

I do think the paper is culpable for their protection of the leak. Investigators should, I think, look into this and pursue criminal charges against the actual source. Throw away the key I say.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

What's worse, is that the US worked through internationally recognizable channels, allowing proper subpenoa to SWIFT. This wasn't a warrantless program, and apparently, it worked very well.

Of course, these details get overlooked by those that are suddenly shocked by a decision to exercise their 1st amendment rights irresponsibly.

I do think the paper is culpable for their protection of the leak. Investigators should, I think, look into this and pursue criminal charges against the actual source. Throw away the key I say.

There you go letting all those inconvenient "facts" get in the way of a good public lynching.

I do agree with your conclusion though, it's naked politics and they knew ahead of time it would undermine US security because they themselves demanded the program be put in place in 2001.