[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

My point was absolutely serious. Investigative techniques are revealed constantly. According to your logic, we shouldn't know about fingerprinting, DNA testing, interrogation techniques, or any of the other formerly secret methods used by police. Do you support the revelation that cops use fingerprints?

Now you're just being purposefully silly.

There's nothing secret about fingerprinting. What you wouldn't reveal is any method used by police during ongoing investigations where criminals were being caught without knowing how and when thier finger-prints are being used to link them to crimes! Otherwise every criminal would know exactly how to foil every law enforcement technique ever invented.

You keep trying desperately to leave the relevant context out of this- for obvious reasons. You're simply wrong.

If so, then obviously you don't support the use of fingerprinting to fight crime.

Anyone who does would be pissed at the NYT for blabbing on their front page: "Hey criminals, be sure to wear gloves when you do thus and such where you thought you could relax your guard, your buddies are being nabbed this way!" Can you see the difference, or do you just want to continue to play stupid?

You've really blown it here. This Wall Street Journal article revealed a general method of tracking terrorist financing, not a specific target or date of an investigation. We know the methods that police use in their investigations, we just don't know the details of a specific investigation. It's exactly the same thing here.

Why'd you have to switch to the Wall Street Journal? I don't think I've even mentioned them in this thread. Trying to smokescreen your way around the NYT revealing a specific program, are we?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Now you're just being purposefully silly.

There's nothing secret about fingerprinting. What you wouldn't reveal is any method used by police during ongoing investigations where criminals were being caught without knowing how and when thier finger-prints are being used to link them to crimes! Otherwise every criminal would know exactly how to foil every law enforcement technique ever invented.

You keep trying desperately to leave the relevant context out of this- for obvious reasons. You're simply wrong.


Anyone who does would be pissed at the NYT for blabbing on their front page: "Hey criminals, be sure to wear gloves when you do thus and such where you thought you could relax your guard, your buddies are being nabbed this way!" Can you see the difference, or do you just want to continue to play stupid?

There is no difference. It's no different from publicizing the fact that police use fingerprinting, or DNA testing, or some other general method. Bush had publicly discussed the fact that they were tracing terrorist finances. The Wall Street Journal publishes a report restating that fact, and conservatives see an opportunity to demonize liberals.

I have no trouble second-guessing the editorial decisions of newspapers. But to say that, unless you disagree with this story being printed, you are against the use of this technique - that's absurd and it's un-American. I both support information about fingerprinting being made public, and using fingerprints to catch criminals. You believe that's somehow impossible. Actually you probably don't, you just see this as an opportunity to get unhinged and hate liberals.

Why'd you have to switch to the Wall Street Journal? I don't think I've even mentioned them in this thread. Trying to smokescreen your way around the NYT revealing a specific program, are we?

Because the WSJ published an article the same day as the NY Times and two other papers, but conservatives only talk about the NY Times article. And this isn't simply a political ruse? Hah.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

DC...


OK, I read your posts, including the typical shallow name calling. Big deal...

SOME COMMENTS:

Your suggestions stretch our troops too far. We need time to make weapons train troops, and change the opinion of the terror fighting. I'd have a really close look at the press, and the politicians that seem to be helping the bad guys. I mean IRS, and deep background snooping. If we are really serious about terrorists, it's important to know who can be trusted. There has been politicians who've taken foreign money before, so it's time to find out who and why! You are thinking in 1950's terms when this ISN'T a 1950's kind of 'war'. The UN can't be trusted, and either can the media as has been demonstrated.

You have to treat countries different than terrorist groups, and deal with countries thru the established means to have any world-wide support. That is IF you want it. I wouldn't. IF the groups had state sponsorship. you deal with them like they too were terrorists. WHY should you take the standard approaches when dealing with terrorists anyway? I'd make 'em guess what horrid thing I would inflict on them next. SCREW THE LAWS in that instance. I'd use all sorts of nasty weapons. Bioweapons on population centers, and Nukes in the mountains. I'd grab all the wealth from the banks where they have money to fund attacks on them.

You worry about oil prices. So, we TAKE the Saudi oil fields, and do the same in Iran, and Mexico.

As far as using "legal tactics" in our war, and trying to snoop the bad guys, I'd say use the same tactics on the press as the bad guys. They might turn up the same overseas connections. You have to wonder about the motives on the NYT and other liberal 'news' outlets.


Rules???? In a KNIFE FIGHT??

To answer this question ("WHY should you take the standard approaches when dealing with terrorists anyway? I'd make 'em guess what horrid thing I would inflict on them next. SCREW THE LAWS in that instance.") I will simply say

BECAUSE WE AS AMERICANS HOLD OURSELVES TO A HIGHER IDEAL WHERE THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS ABOVE ALL ELSE.

If you want the United States to play dirty, which you seem to do, by all means advocate for that. I will not; I will insist the United States play by the rules. We are powerful enough to play by the rules and still win the war on terror. But, if we do play dirty we have become what we seek to destroy and then we become NO BETTER than the terrorists. We have become terrorists ourselves.

[Y3a]

IDEALISTIC BLATHER:


We are powerful enough to play by the rules and still win the war on terror. But, if we do play dirty we have become what we seek to destroy and then we become NO BETTER than the terrorists. We have become terrorists ourselves.



Did we become terrorists when we FIRST used the atomic bombs at the end of WWII?
Were the Germans 'terrorists' when they used the Blitz?

It seems you are still an idealistic liberal who isn't connected to reality.
You DO seem to suggest we should die instead of using all means to protect ourselves, including thinking outside the legal box that the liberals and other s have tried to force us into.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

There is no difference. It's no different from publicizing the fact that police use fingerprinting, or DNA testing, or some other general method.

Well, there it is in a nutshell. You're simply clueless as to the difference between a method and relevant details about how that method is used. The D-Day analogy is perfect, you couldn't spot the difference between "Military will use landing craft to land in France" and "Military will use landing craft at Normandy, June 6th." The first is a big "no freakin' duh" like your examples, the other gives the ENTIRE ballgame away. But in your little world, they're both the same.

You go back to your naive worldview based on watching CSI and I'll continue to be thankful naive liberals aren't in charge of any of this.

Because the WSJ published an article the same day as the NY Times and two other papers, but conservatives only talk about the NY Times article. And this isn't simply a political ruse? Hah.

To my knowledge, the WSJ didn't reveal details of an actual ongoing program- the NYT did. It's so telling how you're trying desperately to tapdance around addressing the NYT and the actual subject of revealing a secret program, by trying to shift focus to the WSJ.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

IDEALISTIC BLATHER:

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

We are powerful enough to play by the rules and still win the war on terror. But, if we do play dirty we have become what we seek to destroy and then we become NO BETTER than the terrorists. We have become terrorists ourselves.

Did we become terrorists when we FIRST used the atomic bombs at the end of WWII?
Were the Germans 'terrorists' when they used the Blitz?

It seems you are still an idealistic liberal who isn't connected to reality.
You DO seem to suggest we should die instead of using all means to protect ourselves, including thinking outside the legal box that the liberals and other s have tried to force us into.

Wow, you really do want the US to sink to the same level as the terrorists with your win-at-any-cost attitude?!?


I for one will choose to remain "[dis]connected to reality" in my hopes that the US can win the war on terror without resorting to tactics used by the terrorists to fight the terrorists.

I certainly hope my vision of the United States wins out for if your vision becomes dominant--if the rules of law no longer matter, especially in the realm of war--then everything that makes this country special will disappear. That would make very sad and make me ashamed to be an American.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

To my knowledge, the WSJ didn't reveal details of an actual ongoing program- the sources the NYT used did. It's so telling how you're trying desperately to tapdance around addressing the sources the NYT used and the actual subject of revealing a secret program from sources the NYT used, by trying to shift focus to the NYT.

Corrected. Your bad Faith is becoming legendary.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Well, there it is in a nutshell. You're simply clueless as to the difference between a method and relevant details about how that method is used. The D-Day analogy is perfect, you couldn't spot the difference between "Military will use landing craft to land in France" and "Military will use landing craft at Normandy, June 6th." The first is a big "no freakin' duh" like your examples, the other gives the ENTIRE ballgame away. But in your little world, they're both the same.

You go back to your naive worldview based on watching CSI and I'll continue to be thankful naive liberals aren't in charge of any of this.

The simple fact is that no details about a specific investigation were revealed. They revealed that the government was tracking bank transfers, but Bush had already publicly discussed this and, as you yourself say, there is a legal basis for it so it shouldn't be a surprise. The articles did reveal that one of the methods they were using was SWIFT, and I think it's fair to argue that they shouldn't have revealed that. But supporting the publication of this WSJ article doesn't mean that you're opposed to the method, any more than the knowledge that the FBI can get a court order to eavesdrop on the mafia means that you're opposed to eavesdropping on the mafia. Now, if an article said "FBI to eavesdrop on Zambini family starting tomorrow," that would be different. But that's not what this WSJ piece did.

And I have to return to the fact that our government has been caught engaging in a string of highly questionable activities related to executive power, like this NSA wiretapping business. In that context, they need to be watched more carefully than normal. If you believe the government can do no wrong and should take as much power as it wants, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on the role and power of our government.

To my knowledge, the WSJ didn't reveal details of an actual ongoing program- the NYT did. It's so telling how you're trying desperately to tapdance around addressing the NYT and the actual subject of revealing a secret program, by trying to shift focus to the WSJ.

You're simply wrong on that. The WSJ, the NY Times, and the LA Times all published the same information on the same day. You're just believing the BS spewed by those on your side that it was all the NY Times.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The articles did reveal that one of the methods they were using was SWIFT, and I think it's fair to argue that they shouldn't have revealed that.

Well thank you for finally meandering your way to the point. Yeah, they shouldn't have revealed that.

But supporting the publication of this WSJ article doesn't mean that you're opposed to the method, any more than the knowledge that the FBI can get a court order to eavesdrop on the mafia means that you're opposed to eavesdropping on the mafia.

Who's supporting the WSJ article? Clearly, you're following the left's talking points memo to the letter here, which is the old "Well he did it toooooo!" first-grader argument.

The WSJ, the NY Times, and the LA Times all published the same information on the same day. You're just believing the BS spewed by those on your side that it was all the NY Times.

On what planet are you beaming in from that any conservative would go out of his way to support the LA Times? A paper with such a rotten track record of over the top bias even liberals have been part of the mass exodus of dropped subscriptions because even they can't help but smell the stench of blatant spin on any subject that's a pet project of the editors (the recall election was the biggest example).

As bad a rag as it is, with absolutely no reputation for reliable journalism -let alone actual investigative journalism of any merit- I'm still not aware that they revealed the SWIFT program. All they did was follow in ME-TOO fashion what papers that actually do have some reputation did.

The WSJ to my knowledge didn't specifically out the SWIFT program either. And if either paper did... so what? That makes it okay for the NYT? What kind of first-grade level "he did it too!" BS argument is that?

Your whole talking points argument on this is convoluted anyway- on the one hand, you want to say that this was common knowledge- yet on the other you're arguing you needed newspaper editors to inform you of... what you supposedly already knew!

So really, are you breathlessly awaiting the big NYT scoop revealing *GASP!* that the police use fingerprint evidence?!?! After all, you've been trying to float that's the same thing as outing the SWIFT program. Let me guess- will the "inside sources" on that big scoop be the cast members of CSI Miami?

Maybe the LA Times can follow up with a huge scoop that *GASP!!!* police use DNA evidence! It's your right to know such deep 'insider' stuff BRussel, but that evil Bush is keeping you from getting news articles about stuff everyone already knows! FASCISM!