CY, we make a thousand Jayson Blairs bloom! If we leak enough fake information to their reporters, even Al-Qaeda will cancel their subscription!

There is some talk about forming a class action suit against the NYT for endangering rerular Americans. What do you think?

Specter

You should get everyone you know to file a class action suit against the NYT cos. I bet you and both of your friends could take them down. Their market cap this morning was 3.5Bn.

Are you going to also file a suit against Forbes, WSJ and Fox News? Or is it just the NYT you want to take down.

Also, is it OK to use trial lawyers when its the NYT on the other end? Or are trial lawyers only bad when Republicans are being sued?

Lint, trial lawyers are a pain because of frivolous lawsuits against corporations that drive up the price of products that people actual need, such as medical services. In the case of the NYT, it is a victimless crime.

Oh I see. But the New York Times Co (NYSE: NYT) is a publicly traded company. A lawsuit against the NYT company would drive up the price of a product that people want.

Lint, you made a funny. A product that people actually want and would actually pay more money for.

Lint, I'm in your corner on this one; The NYT is invaluable when training new puppies... all those pages for one low price... it's a bargain. But then, you would expect competition from the Wash Post to drive the price down. Sometimes it's hard to figure out the puppy papers market.

Why are you guys letting the Wall Street Journal off the hook? They had the story front page today also.

Lint, whether or not suing the NYT is a good idea, I think most of us understand the frustration behind making the suggestion. The NYT is undermining the national security without justification. Also, the NYT is increasingly a product that people do not want. I am one of many who has cancelled his subscription due to that paper's insanely biased reporting and absurd editorial positions.

Nate, the WSJ should not be let off the hook, particularly since the WSJ reporting can be quite at odds with what is that paper's very good editorial pages.

A legitimate question is raised whether there is legal liability on the part of the NYT and any other paper for the kind of reporting the CY post concerns. I am a lawyer who has done First Amendment litigation, and I do not accept the NYT's position that what it has been doing is protected by the First Amendment.

Seen the NYT's stock price lately? They're doing a bang up job of "breaking themselves as a business" without any outside help.

Poor Pinch S. will be forced into a Yugo and living under a bridge in a cardboard box if the trend continues.

PA - Pinch is working for a Soviet comeback. That way, he'll be treated like a People's Champion. Probably get one of those big Russian limos and give up his evil corporate Lincoln.

Lint (good name - like what comes out of belly buttons...lol),

You are right. It may not be worth suing them seeing as their stock and circulation are declining sooooo fast. Maybe you should buy an extra subscription to help them out. Sorry that you can't even debate the substance of the issue of leaks - but hey - that's what NYT readers devolve into.

I think Patrick is wrong to even imply a truck bomb should be used against the New York Times ... many innocent people in nearby buildings could be killed or injured.

I don't believe you are a terrorist sympathizer or a hypocrite, so why say things like this?

Coulter can get away with it because everyone knows she's a sideshow.

...so why say things like this?

As an expression of (that most favorite liberal sentiment) "outrage"...as in we're "outraged" that the NYT is a treasonous pack of terrorist aiding weasles.

By coincidence I think I just ran across the article that you are so upset about. You mean the "Cheney Assails Press on Report on Bank Data" one, right?

I'm a citizen and feel very strongly about government abuse of power, so I'm glad the Times reported this. How on earth does this revelation help the terrorists? The govt could already do this sort of thing with a warrant.

There is too much room for abuse of the democratic process with such practices. Suppose say, Hillary gets elected, and realizes that she can listen in on any call, including calls to and from the GOP headquarters, or can monitor financial transactions concerning her adversaries. I sure as hell don't want to see this happen. It's a risk we have to take to protect the Union.

Which brings up an awkward point -- if we suspect that such and such is a terrorist, why not GET A WARRANT? It's the same as the phone tapping controversy. FISA basically never turns down warrant requests, even 72 hours after the fact.

Whatever evidence comes up from this can't be used in court, so we'll never be able to charge anyone we catch. The courts will throw out illegally obtained evidence. Thus we have to keep criminals locked up in Gitmo, whereas we should be convicting them.

Cheney is a bold liar. A year ago he said the insurgency was in it's last throes, and just the other day he lied and said he was taken out of context. He also just said that there are over 250,000,000 fully trained, independent Iraqi troops, which is total hooey.

PA -- of course he's outraged, but you're missing the point, Either he wants the Times to be blown up, or he doesn't. In the first case he's a terrorist sympathizer, in the second he said something he doesn't believe.

Explain to me how outrage fits in here.

I meant "250,000 troops" up above, not "250,000,000 troops."

Cyrus,

You should read the article. It states there was nothing illegal done, that congress was briefed, and that the program was within the law. There was not outraged "whistleblower" who felt the government was overstepping its' bounds. So maybe you could rationalize and explain this:

I'm a citizen and feel very strongly about government abuse of power, so I'm glad the Times reported this. How on earth does this revelation help the terrorists? The govt could already do this sort of thing with a warrant.

Oh...wait...I know. It is because you think that if the NYT reports it, then it must have been illegal. You really should read and study before opening your mouth.

What the Times actually did was to reveal a national security secret that in their own article they say was not illegal. They just did it because they wanted to. And that is what you think of as good journalism? Maybe you should become a regular over at TruthNot. They like your brand of irrational non-logic.

OH...BTW...the program is apparently covered under the Patriot Act.

Specter -- You should read the article. It states there was nothing illegal done, that congress was briefed, and that the program was within the law.

It sounds like you didn't read the article. Several people provide differing viewpoints. For instance Arlen Specter is quoted as saying he "was concerned about the legal authority for the operation."

You really should read and study before opening your mouth.

That's rich.

Cyrus - Good try. Give me a specific link Cyrus - and I mean one that specifically claims that something illegal has been done. Here are the articles I read:

http://www. washingtonpost .com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300919.html

http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300754.html, which included this excerpt:

The program to examine banking transactions is run out of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and overseen by the U.S. Treasury Department. The records examined mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas or into and out of the United States.

http://www. washingtonpost .com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300167.html, including this (emphasis mine):

...has used the agency's powers of administrative subpoena to compel an international banking consortium to open its records. The Brussels-based cooperative, known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year.

~snip~

The program is "on rock-solid legal ground," Levey said, and is based on the IEEPA, which he said "specifically gives us the authority to conduct this type of investigation if there is an emergency declared by the president."

~snip~

In addition, the administration informed major central banks, including the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, of the program. "They were all briefed so they could exercise appropriate oversight," Levey said. "We have kept it confidential but made sure the appropriate people knew about it," including members of Congress involved in intelligence matters, he said.

~snip~

In a statement, SWIFT said it "responded to compulsory subpoenas for limited sets of data from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury. Our fundamental principle has been to preserve the confidentiality of our users' data while complying with the lawful obligations in countries where we operate. Striking that balance has guided SWIFT through this process with the United States Department of the Treasury."

Arlen Specter? The darling of the NYT/WaPo. Listen - he was wrong on everything else he called hearings for - why would you think he's right on this? Again - try reading before you open that big trap.

Specter -- About the NYT article you said this: You should read the article. It states there was nothing illegal done.

That's simply not true! It quotes Cheney as saying it's legal, the paper doesn't assert that it's legal. Of course he's going to say that. There are several dissenting views in the article, including the Arlen Specter one. But no, you say that one doesn't count, even though he's much more impartial than Cheney.

I read the first link you posted from the WaPo, and that was enough. Again there are about three dissenting views, in addition to the quotations that you reproduced. And again, it's Stuart Levey's opinion that this is legal, and of course he's going to say that given his position, it's not proof as you believe.

try reading before you open that big trap

I remembered someone saying something particularly stupid on this forum, and on a hunch I Googled for it, Sure enough:

"Sorry - you are wildly uniformed. Depends on which program you are talking about though. If you are talking TSP - yes."
--Specter

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/179743.php

I wouldn't have brought this up were it not for your ill manners.

OK Cyrus - I see that you did not take my challenge. Again. Instead you dodged the issue, just like any good disinformationalist when confronted by data.

I asked you to find any article that clearly asserts that something illegal was done - not just innuendo based on nothing simply because it is a Bush project.

The problem Cyrus is that you are so quick to call everything the Bush administration does illegal. Everything, whether or not someone actually claims it or not! I was serious that you should hang at KOS or TO! You and your interpreting skills would be very welcome there.

I have read many articles on this and nobody has outright said it is illegal. Not one. So let's go back to the article that started the whole thing - Lichtblau and Risen's NYT article (emphasis mine - and note that the emphasized portions talk about the various aspects of legality):

The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.

~snip~

"We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them. We also know they adapt their methods, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement officials."

~snip~

While the banking program is a closely held secret, administration officials have held classified briefings for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission, the officials said. More lawmakers were briefed in recent weeks, after the administration learned The Times was making inquiries for this article.

~snip~

Similar subpoenas for the Western Union data allowed the F.B.I. to trace wire transfers, mainly outside the United States, and to help Israel disrupt about a half-dozen possible terrorist plots there by unraveling the financing, an official said.

~snip~

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans had no constitutional right to privacy for their records held by banks or other financial institutions. In response, Congress passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act two years later, restricting government access to Americans' banking records. In considering the Swift program, some government lawyers were particularly concerned about whether the law prohibited officials from gaining access to records without a warrant or subpoena based on some level of suspicion about each target.

~snip~

For many years, law enforcement officials have relied on grand-jury subpoenas or court-approved warrants for such financial data. Since 9/11, the F.B.I. has turned more frequently to an administrative subpoena, known as a national security letter, to demand such records.

~snip~

Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability, officials said, and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control began issuing broad subpoenas for the cooperative's records related to terrorism. One official said the subpoenas were intended to give Swift some legal protection.

~snip~

Underlying the government's legal analysis was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Mr. Bush invoked after the 9/11 attacks. The law gives the president what legal experts say is broad authority to "investigate, regulate or prohibit" foreign transactions in responding to "an unusual and extraordinary threat."

~snip~

Several former officials said they had lingering concerns about the legal underpinnings of the Swift operation. The program "arguably complies with the letter of the law, if not the spirit," one official said.

So again I ask - other than in your own mind - where did someone say that what was done was illegal? Remember I made that challenge in response to your post:

I'm a citizen and feel very strongly about government abuse of power, so I'm glad the Times reported this.

So - where is the reported abuse of you as a citizen? Care to point it out? Let's see...subpoena's were used, Congress informed, all gathered information audited - including the reasons to go after the information, etc. etc. Just specifically Cyrus - How were you abused by this?

You are very good at dodging the issue though Cyrus. So answer my questions. Simple enough. Don't try to wiggle out of what you said by saying "I read the first link you posted from the WaPo, and that was enough." Remember what I asked:

Cyrus - Good try. Give me a specific link Cyrus - and I mean one that specifically claims that something illegal has been done.

As to you bringing up what I said on this forum months ago - get over it. No criminal action from anyone in either the TSP or the data-mining operation. Interesting huh? I was right about that and you were not. So much for calling my post "stupid".

Oh - BTW - We should all thank the NYT though - Bush's numbers are going up again. Some day they may get it through their minds that most rational americans (the majority) support the President in his efforts to track down terrorists. LOL.

dang...forgot a tag again.

I have read many articles on this and nobody has outright said it is illegal. Not one. Then tell me, why do people regard this as news? That's not a rhetorical question.

Specter, you're making a strange argument here. The articles that you quoted present opinions from both side of the SWIFT monitoring debate. Now you're saying, no one happened to use the word 'illegal'. That's fatuous. We're just learning of the existence of the program, so it's not obvious whether the program is illegal or not. The whole point of these articles is that this secret program exists, and some people think it's an illegal abuse of power, and needs to be investigated.

Most important, I don't know that it was illegal! Maybe it is legal, I don't know enough to say. What I said was, "illegally obtained evidence gets thrown out of court," which is true. We need to find out ASAP if the SWIFT thing is legal. Again, the articles you quoted question this.

I'll clarify the point of my post: I'm glad the Times is reporting on the monitoring. I don't favor blindly trusting the government like extreme liberals do, I don't trust them at all, regardless of affiliation. That is the clear lesson I learned from the Founding Fathers and the Constitution; tyranny is the most dangerous enemy.

It's ridiculous to think that terrorists have been moving money with impunity, of course it's already occurred to them that they could be caught this way. Monitoring can for sure be done legally with a warrant, after all.

Cyrus,

Didn't answer again right? Thought not. How is is hurting you as a citizen. C'mon - be specific. You are the one who said it.

It's ridiculous to think that terrorists have been moving money with impunity, of course it's already occurred to them that they could be caught this way. Monitoring can for sure be done legally with a warrant, after all.

And yet again you make a veiled comment that if something isn't done by warrant then it is illegal. Subpoena's are legal documents Cyrus and are used to track down data on a regular basis.

Specter,

How is is hurting you as a citizen. C'mon - be specific. You are the one who said it.

What I said is, I'm a citizen and feel very strongly about government abuse of power, so I'm glad the Times reported this. You're putting words in my mouth. If you mean, why am I concerned about government abuse of power, refere to what I said above: I don't favor blindly trusting the government like extreme liberals do, I don't trust them at all, regardless of affiliation. That is the clear lesson I learned from the Founding Fathers and the Constitution; tyranny is the most dangerous enemy.

Your arguments have been 1) no opponent used the word 'illegal'; 2) I have not been harmed as a citizen; 3) the quotations in your referenced articles prove that it was legal. None of these is worth debating in any detail.

And it's not the fist time. Again, you once said "Sorry - you are wildly uniformed. Depends on which program you are talking about though. If you are talking TSP - yes." In a context of where OF COURSE I was talkng about the TSP. You effectively said that I'm wildy uninformed, but correct. Your arguments have plenty of heat but not much coherence. I won't spend any more time debating you.

Good....I win. Take your ball and go home.

You are the one who said (all right implied through a direct statement) that somehow the government was abusing its power in this. And since you made the statement in the light of "I am a citizen" the natural way to interpret it is the government has been abusing it's power against citizens. I haven't seen it in any article besides the obligatory references to "officials that can't be named".

You followed that with the statement that you are glad the NYT told everyone about this legal, supervised program that has shown results in tracking down terrorists. So why? Why do you think this is an abuse of power. Why do you think that it adversely affects citizens? Why do you think it is OK for the NYT to publish national secrets?

Extreme liberals trust the government? Who?

I guess I will have to spend the effort to look up where you got the quote. How much do you want to bet that you took it out of context?

You know...I was looking at my portfolio earlier today, thinking of some good stocks to purchase that are at 52 week lows. Then I did some stuff around the house (I won't bore you). Time passes, and here I am reading political blogs. Here I am reading CY, among others, about terrorists, bombs, threats, etc. Then I go back a few hours in my mind when I was thinking about stocks and my financial future and saying to myself..."aren't we all tired of talking about stupid bombs and terrorists that are so hyped in the so called liberal media and these ridiculous blogs? Why can't we go back to the 90's and think about social ideas, financial ideas, and real progress? The only thing people had to complain about was Clinton getting a blowjob, mainly the conservative hators, people who couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fist full of pardons!" Go back and remember that everyday middleclass people were becoming millionaires via small business and the stock market. Now...we are trying to pay for our gasoline and the dow teeters back and fourth at 10 to 11 thousand for the past decade. In the past years...how backwards we have journeyed. It is such a waste of time and progress. Some people will never evolve. They will only think about guns and blowing up stuff, and how the boogie man is going to get us. Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney are building their business infastructure in Iraq at taxpayer expense, and continue to stablize the region to maintain their existing business partners, mainly Saudi Arabia. What a waste.

So the gist of this is that there is a lot of oppinion that this may or may not be legal depending on whom is quoted. Of course, no one would have been quoted if this topic was given some light.

It'll be interesting to watch how conservatives will do 180's on all this executive power extensions if/when a non-republican gets in office.