Brass Ones.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fenian_Bastard
  • Start date Start date
Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

F

Fenian_Bastard

Guest
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060626111309990009&ncid=NWS00010000000001

And, somewhere, Valerie Plame is laughing herself sick.
Oh and, in case you didn't notice, Peter King, former Sinn Fein US frontman, has decided that terrorism trumps the First Amendment.
Keller's just got to be stronger than this.
 
To quote a well known blogger; "What would be more useful, if you were operating a terrorist network: the name of one Virginia-based WMD analyst who used to be a covert agent back before the African embassy bombings? Or roadmaps of how the US government monitors telecommunications and financial transactions?"
 
If Worldwide Terrorism Inc. doesn't already have a pretty good idea that its financial activities are being monitored, and ShrubbyBoy and his mentor Darth Palpacheney aren't fully aware of this fact, then both parties must be dramatically stupider than we could have previously imagined.

Georgie Porgie, however, continues to push the envelope.
 
Disco Biscuits said:
To quote a well known blogger; "What would be more useful, if you were operating a terrorist network: the name of one Virginia-based WMD analyst who used to be a covert agent back before the African embassy bombings? Or roadmaps of how the US government monitors telecommunications and financial transactions?"
Well known blogger?

I thought you just typed away about baseball? :)
 
Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times’ decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were “half-hearted” is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing “half-hearted” about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that “terror financiers know” our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the “public interest” in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you’ve seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

Emphasis added in reply to Starman who I guess thinks he's an expert on terrorist financing.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Gee, the latest paid lackey at Treasury is upset. That'll change my mind.
The story is legitimate. It is part of what the oversight of the press is supposed to be about, and it is a minor pushback against the idiotic interpretation of the presidency foisted on us by third-rate constitutional illiterates and authoritarian sycophants. There's nothing in that story that remotely approaches even the Pentagon. Do I wish Congress and the courts were doing their constitutionally protected roles better? Yes, but they're controlled by sheep, so we get Judy Miller's old paper instead.
And, no, I don't feel safer, thanks. Just less American.
 
Fenian_Bastard said:
Gee, the latest paid lackey at Treasury is upset. That'll change my mind.
The story is legitimate. It is part of what the oversight of the press is supposed to be about, and it is a minor pushback against the idiotic interpretation of the presidency foisted on us by third-rate constitutional illiterates and authoritarian sycophants. There's nothing in that story that remotely approaches even the Pentagon. Do I wish Congress and the courts were doing their constitutionally protected roles better? Yes, but they're controlled by sheep, so we get Judy Miller's old paper instead.
And, no, I don't feel safer, thanks. Just less American.

Snow took quite a drop in pay to serve his country - so paid Lackey is not even worthy of you. Plus keep in mind that Keller tried to justify his actions by saying nobody really tried hard to keep him from publishing this story. Snow directly and publicly contradicts that lie.

And as far as you changing your mind? I think we have all seen that you are completely set in your mindset and no amount of logic will make you change your belief set.

You might not like him but Bush was elected to office. Who elected Bill Keller into a position to decide what national secrets to divulge to the world?
 
I would imagine those wacky terrorists would only need to watch any of dozens of movies or TV shows to realize that they best be careful what they say over the phone or how they handle their cash.

Do they really need the New York Times to tip them off?
 
Disco Biscuits said:
Fenian_Bastard said:
Gee, the latest paid lackey at Treasury is upset. That'll change my mind.
The story is legitimate. It is part of what the oversight of the press is supposed to be about, and it is a minor pushback against the idiotic interpretation of the presidency foisted on us by third-rate constitutional illiterates and authoritarian sycophants. There's nothing in that story that remotely approaches even the Pentagon. Do I wish Congress and the courts were doing their constitutionally protected roles better? Yes, but they're controlled by sheep, so we get Judy Miller's old paper instead.
And, no, I don't feel safer, thanks. Just less American.

Snow took quite a drop in pay to serve his country - so paid Lackey is not even worthy of you. Plus keep in mind that Keller tried to justify his actions by saying nobody really tried hard to keep him from publishing this story. Snow directly and publicly contradicts that lie.

And as far as you changing your mind? I think we have all seen that you are completely set in your mindset and no amount of logic will make you change your belief set.

You might not like him but Bush was elected to office. Who elected Bill Keller into a position to decide what national secrets to divulge to the world?


Keller's only doing his job. Newspapers work for their readers, not anyone else. There's no way you keep a story like this from the people you're dedicated to serving.
 
So what you are saying is that it the job of the New York Times to print classified information? That's Bill Keller's job? Just want to get this one straight.
 
When the administration in charge classifies anything it doesn't like and leaks classified information to discredit political enemies?

You're ******* right, that's their job.
 
While I posted earlier that this particularly program might not actually be a prime example of the Bush Administration's shredding of the Constitution, the fact remains they have crossed the line inappropriately so many other times that I'm at the stage now where I trust the judgment of my fellow journalists over at the New York Times more than I trust the claims of John Snow and the rest of the Bush lackeys.

Something about chickens coming home to roost.
 
Disco Biscuits said:
Snow took quite a drop in pay to serve his country -

You mean to pay back his cronies at Dubai Ports World? They forgave him of a $20 or $30 million dollar loan. Just said "eh forget it, no big deal" as he was wrapping up his tenure at CSX. And then he becomes Treasury Secretary and tries to sneak this selling of the ports by everyone. When the deal falls through, he quits. Yeah, John Snow is a reallll American. At least in the mold of the current Bush Administration.
 
Disco Biscuits said:
Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times’ decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were “half-hearted” is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing “half-hearted” about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that “terror financiers know” our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the “public interest” in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you’ve seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

Emphasis added in reply to Starman who I guess thinks he's an expert on terrorist financing.

You don't have to be an expert. Any ****ing idiot, in or out of the government or in or out of terrorist groups, KNOWS the U.S. government tracks this stuff. It's neither a stunning news revelation, nor a vital national security secret. Guess what? They tap phones and e-mail, too. :o :o
 
And guess what -- they need to follow existing law when they do it or it's illegal, and the law is vast and easy to follow.
 
Somebody seems to think it's the government's job to decide what gets printed and what doesn't.
That's prior restraint and it's why we have a First Amendment in the first place, going back to Milton's Aeropagetica and the Zenger case. Of course, if history starts for you in 1981, or even on 9/11, that kind of stuff doesn't matter.
And, yes, it is occasionally the press's job to print classified information because the government can't be trusted far enough to classify only that which is legitimately kept secret -- cf The Pentagon Papers -- and this bunch has such vast contempt for self-government and the legitimate checks and balances of our government that it gets the benefit of no doubts on this point.
And Snow is a paid lackey. O'Neill wasn't.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top