[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If the right conditions were put in place such that there were precedents set by the government, and a legal foundation in place for doing what was done, this story may not have even existed. It would be a non-issue, no cover to blow.

Precedents have to come from somewhere. This would have set the precedent.

Originally Posted by besson3c

As it stands, the NYT was doing their job as reporters. The benefit of diligent reporting far outweighs the loss of having this cover blown if this cover was based on flimsy legal justification.

The NYT was ABUSING thier jobs as reporters. While there was little precedent for this (hence the "flimsy" legal justification), that is not the focus of loss. The president and congresional members (both Dems and Reps) asked them to not print it as it would jeaopardize the program. That is the focus. They put breaking the story ahead of responsible journalism.

[besson3c]

To reiterate my earlier point:

If the Right wants to be able to do this sort of thing in an unfettered way, why don't they establish a legal precedent for this capitalizing on the luxury control of both branches enables? Why not take advantage of this opportunity? This is called taking care of business.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Yes, it's leading in that I wrote it to make you talk about and think about something difficult. I had a specific issue in mind, and didn't want it to wander off into the usual subjects. I want you to think about something that you should have been thinking through years ago, but obviously have not.

Something that *I* should have been thinking about years ago? How about something that we should *all* be thinking about? If the Right thought about this sooner, this would be a non-issue. They've had 6 years in power and 2 years of controlling both branches to make the amendments necessary so that this would be a non-issue?

I'm not terribly sympathetic of how Democrats are ruining America when the Right controls both branches. This is your show, you have nobody to blame but yourself for your failures.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Something that *I* should have been thinking about years ago? How about something that we should *all* be thinking about? If the Right thought about this sooner, this would be a non-issue. They've had 6 years in power and 2 years of controlling both branches to make the amendments necessary so that this would be a non-issue?

I'm not terribly sympathetic of how Democrats are ruining America when the Right controls both branches. This is your show, you have nobody to blame but yourself for your failures.

The amendments were made in 2001 and reenacted with the rest of the Patriot Act last year. I can't help it if you don't read the news.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Precedents have to come from somewhere. This would have set the precedent.

The precedent should have been set *prior* to this attempt. Because it hasn't been set, the correctness of what was done is entirely ambiguous, and the NYT was correct to bring this issue to the fore.

The NYT was ABUSING thier jobs as reporters. While there was little precedent for this (hence the "flimsy" legal justification), that is not the focus of loss. The president and congresional members (both Dems and Reps) asked them to not print it as it would jeaopardize the program. That is the focus. They put breaking the story ahead of responsible journalism.

Like I said, if the Republicans want there to be precedent set, they should take care of business and quit complaining when people question what they do.

If you want to summarize a vast majority of Left-wing frustrations right now, it would have to do with the shady nature in which the Right conducts business these days.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The amendments were made in 2001 and reenacted with the rest of the Patriot Act last year. I can't help it if you don't read the news.

Then why is this an issue if it is this clear cut?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The precedent should have been set *prior* to this attempt. Because it hasn't been set, the correctness of what was done is entirely ambiguous, and the NYT was correct to bring this issue to the fore.




Like I said, if the Republicans want there to be precedent set, they should take care of business and quit complaining when people question what they do.

If you want to summarize a vast majority of Left-wing frustrations right now, it would have to do with the shady nature in which the Right conducts business these days.

Have you forgotten the enemy are the terrorists? Yes, I thought so.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Then why is this an issue if it is this clear cut?

That is what I have been asking!!

[besson3c]

By the way, if it can be proven that there was a legal precedent set in a very non-ambiguous way, you'll completely blow all of my assumptions and arguments out of the water. I'll completely and entirely side with you over criticizing the NYT.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c

To reiterate my earlier point:

If the Right wants to be able to do this sort of thing in an unfettered way, why don't they establish a legal precedent for this capitalizing on the luxury control of both branches enables? Why not take advantage of this opportunity? This is called taking care of business.

And to reiterate mine: this was the precedent-setter. They have both government and civilian over-sight. We have known for YEARS that the Bush Admin was disrupting terrorist finances. How else could it be done???? Publishing details of the program did nothing.

"But at the outset of the operation, Treasury and Justice Department lawyers debated whether the program had to comply with such laws before concluding that it did not, people with knowledge of the debate said. Several outside banking experts, however, say that financial privacy laws are murky and sometimes contradictory and that the program raises difficult legal and public policy questions."

Based from this paragraph, I agree that the laws need to be clarified. Questions arose. They always do with these types of issues. So far, there has been no law that shows this to be illegal. The NYT simply wanted to spin it so that it looked like our privacy freedoms were being swept from underneath us.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Have you forgotten the enemy are the terrorists? Yes, I thought so.

I'd like to think that when I attempt to shoot holes in arguments, I do so in a civil way. I do not throw up mocking smiley faces like Kevin does. I do not make offensive generalizations. I do not insult somebody's personality generally speaking (or, at least, I try not to do so frequently). I'm flawed and I make mistakes, I realize I'm a hypocrit, but I try to hold up to these ideals and for the most part do pretty well.

Why is it that when you're backed into a corner, you become pissy and rude? Do you think you are advancing your argument by doing this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That is what I have been asking!!

Can it be proven that it is clear cut?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If the right conditions were put in place such that there were precedents set by the government, and a legal foundation in place for doing what was done, this story may not have even existed. It would be a non-issue, no cover to blow. As it stands, the NYT was doing their job as reporters. The benefit of diligent reporting far outweighs the loss of having this cover blown if this cover was based on flimsy legal justification.

And you can’t see, based on this answer, why Simey’s question is so relevant? So basically, the position seems to be something along the lines of, “Well, we said we wanted law enforcement to combat terror, but whenever it’s expedient, we’ll justify exposing law enforcement methods, and claim ‘diligent reporting’ trumps all.”

I’m curious how you go from admitting you “…don’t know what we should be doing”, to granting a pass to the NYT as if they do, and as if they were some self-appointed, all-knowing overseer of law anti-terror operations. Something is extremely disingenuous in that.

You’re ignoring it of course, but there’s plenty of legal precedent here: the fact that the same methods are used routinely against organized crime, yet no one seems to feign outrage and pretend that this = the loss of all their freedoms.

I honestly do often genuinely *fear* our government. I wish conservatives weren't so naive about the dangers a giant free pass implies.

Please. Liberals pay lip service to this a lot, but then in the next breath advocate turning over vast portions of the economy and private industry to that very same government, and having that same government control everyone’s access to health and wealth. It rings a bit hollow when liberals only *fear* government when it comes to fighting crime and protecting borders (part of what it’s actually charged with doing) but shout down any opposition to vastly expanding government power over economic freedoms and a million other things it’s not actually charged with doing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4

And to reiterate mine: this was the precedent-setter. They have both government and civilian over-sight. We have known for YEARS that the Bush Admin was disrupting terrorist finances. How else could it be done???? Publishing details of the program did nothing.

"But at the outset of the operation, Treasury and Justice Department lawyers debated whether the program had to comply with such laws before concluding that it did not, people with knowledge of the debate said. Several outside banking experts, however, say that financial privacy laws are murky and sometimes contradictory and that the program raises difficult legal and public policy questions."

Based from this paragraph, I agree that the laws need to be clarified. Questions arose. They always do with these types of issues. So far, there has been no law that shows this to be illegal. The NYT simply wanted to spin it so that it looked like our privacy freedoms were being swept from underneath us.

Maybe it will be the precedent setter (or maybe it already is), but we can't have a precedent set without contention and/or something to help us put this issue under a microscope. Otherwise, it would simply be unchallenged, but not a precedent (because maybe it would be challenged the next time around?)

Do you still flaw the NYT for doing this?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Please. Liberals pay lip service to this a lot, but then in the next breath advocate turning over vast portions of the economy and private industry to that very same government, and having that same government control everyone’s access to health and wealth. It rings a bit hollow when liberals only *fear* government when it comes to fighting crime and protecting borders (part of what it’s actually charged with doing) but shout down any opposition to vastly expanding government power over economic freedoms and a million other things it’s not actually charged with doing.

This is so incredibly true. Sharp observation.

[Wiskedjak]

Just out of curiosity, when the Democrats returned to power (it will happen eventually), will you trust them with these kinds of powers? Will you take them at only their word that they are using these powers responsibly?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Maybe it will be the precedent setter (or maybe it already is), but we can't have a precedent set without contention and/or something to help us put this issue under a microscope. Otherwise, it would simply be unchallenged, but not a precedent (because maybe it would be challenged the next time around?)

Do you still flaw the NYT for doing this?

I agree with you. It must be examined. And if you read the article, it was. By a lot of people, on both sides of the aisle. It wasn't the NYT's job to "break" a story on a national security program, and give details of that would jepordize it's effectiveness. THAT is what I flaw the NYT with.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

And you can’t see, based on this answer, why Simey’s question is so relevant? So basically, the position seems to be something along the lines of, “Well, we said we wanted law enforcement to combat terror, but whenever it’s expedient, we’ll justify exposing law enforcement methods, and claim ‘diligent reporting’ trumps all.”

Don't understand your paraphrasing here.

I’m curious how you go from admitting you “…don’t know what we should be doing”, to granting a pass to the NYT as if they do, and as if they were some self-appointed, all-knowing overseer of law anti-terror operations. Something is extremely disingenuous in that.

I believe I was claiming that I don't know exactly where these boundaries should be set in fighting terrorism in general, because I lack data and the resources to formulate an opinion on where to draw the best lines here. That doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on what we *shouldn't* be doing. We shouldn't be doing stuff that is not founded in a legal precedent.

You’re ignoring it of course, but there’s plenty of legal precedent here: the fact that the same methods are used routinely against organized crime, yet no one seems to feign outrage and pretend that this = the loss of all their freedoms.

If it came down to a vote as to whether this precedent should exist, I'd probably agree with you that it should, although I'd probably prefer that this was in the hands of a bipartisan (or independent) security agency of some sort, simply because bringing politics into our personal security always seems to become rather messy. However, the point is that the precedent hasn't been set.

Please. Liberals pay lip service to this a lot, but then in the next breath advocate turning over vast portions of the economy and private industry to that very same government, and having that same government control everyone’s access to health and wealth. It rings a bit hollow when liberals only *fear* government when it comes to fighting crime and protecting borders (part of what it’s actually charged with doing) but shout down any opposition to vastly expanding government power over economic freedoms and a million other things it’s not actually charged with doing.

If every thread were to be run the way I want it to be run, I'd remove all generalizations entirely. When I make generalizations, it's in an attempt to shoot holes in other generalizations. It's something I don't generally like to do.

Perhaps some Liberals would like to give more control over private industry to government, but it isn't necessarily what *I* would like. I would like government to help regulate when this regulation serves in the best interest of private citizens, but there is a difference between regulation and outright controlling.

In regards to health, I would simply like to boost and expand upon our Medicaid/Medicare.

I bring up my positions not to distract from this thread, but if we are going to be discussing these issues I'd rather defend my own positions than those of liberals in general. I'm not a general liberal

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4

I agree with you. It must be examined. And if you read the article, it was. By a lot of people, on both sides of the aisle. It wasn't the NYT's job to "break" a story on a national security program, and give details of that would jepordize it's effectiveness. THAT is what I flaw the NYT with.

It seems like many issues lately have *only* been brought to the fore in the political arena because a reporting source like the NYT breaks a story. The Valerie Plame thing is a great example.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It seems like many issues lately have *only* been brought to the fore in the political arena because a reporting source like the NYT breaks a story. The Valerie Plame thing is a great example.

I am all for news agencies breaking stories. Just not when the details they give threaten the effectiveness of programs related to national security. Do you think then, that the NYT was completely justified in doing this? Putting national security underneath journalistic rights?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4

I am all for news agencies breaking stories. Just not when the details they give threaten the effectiveness of programs related to national security. Do you think then, that the NYT was completely justified in doing this? Putting national security underneath journalistic rights?

How could they have broken this story without providing enough detail to blow the cover off of this program?

I wouldn't frame the question as you have. I'd ask "do you think the NYT is justified in putting national security underneath the integrity of our legal system, checks and bounds put on the government, and journalistic rights? I'd answer that I think that all of these are very important for different reasons, and that I don't want the program to continue at the expense of these other issues - particularly when it was/is within the government's power to take care of business such that the story would simply go away, removing the security risk.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c

How could they have broken this story without providing enough detail to blow the cover off of this program?

I wouldn't frame the question as you have. I'd ask "do you think the NYT is justified in putting national security underneath the integrity of our legal system, checks and bounds put on the government, and journalistic rights? I'd answer that I think that all of these are very important for different reasons, and that I don't want the program to continue at the expense of these other issues - particularly when it was/is within the government's power to take care of business such that the story would simply go away, removing the security risk.

The oepration was already under governement scrutiny and the leagal system. Frankly, I think it's things like this that take away the power of the government to "take care of business."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4

The oepration was already under governement scrutiny and the leagal system. Frankly, I think it's things like this that take away the power of the government to "take care of business."

Who was putting it under scrutiny? The government?

Until something has been ratified, it is not in the books, and therefore does not provide legal precedent.

[greenG4]

I think we're to the point where we'll just be going in circles. I can see your perspective, I really can. I just don't agree with you.

[greenG4]

Okay, one last thing. lol You mentioned public scrutiny. Secret national security/military operations are supposed to be under congressional scrutiny, NOT public. Those elected by us, represent us in those cases.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Okay, one last thing. lol You mentioned public scrutiny. Secret national security/military operations are supposed to be under congressional scrutiny, NOT public. Those elected by us, represent us in those cases.

Actually, you mentioned scrutiny

What is public scrutiny? I don't understand your argument here... You can have secret national operations *and* have these operations based on good legal standing. If it was clear that this program was based on a solid legal foundation, what the NYT did would probably account for treason.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Actually, you mentioned scrutiny

What is public scrutiny? I don't understand your argument here... You can have secret national operations *and* have these operations based on good legal standing. If it was clear that this program was based on a solid legal foundation, what the NYT did would probably account for treason.

LOL Sorry. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I guess my point is that in cases of national security and military related items like this it's not up to the public to decide the legality of it. That's what our elected leaders are for. And where trust in the leaders we elect comes in.

Now that may scare you a bit, but that's the way it has to be. Everything cannot be made public. The decision of legality should have been decided in closed doors of cogress and the courts--no press. It doesn't belng on the front page for all to know. The NYT times knew better, but went for it anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4

LOL Sorry. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I guess my point is that in cases of national security and military related items like this it's not up to the public to decide the legality of it. That's what our elected leaders are for. And where trust in the leaders we elect comes in.

It's up to the supreme court, why would it be up to the public? The media is basically a watchdog that serves as an important check and balance on government power. When the government is doing things that are not based on a legal precedent established by the courts, the press is our only hope to catch this sort of abuse of power.

Now that may scare you a bit, but that's the way it has to be. Everything cannot be made public. The decision of legality should have been decided in closed doors of cogress and the courts--no press. It doesn't belng on the front page for all to know. The NYT times knew better, but went for it anyway.

Who says that the actions of this program need to be made public? All that would have to be established is a legal precedent. That does not tip off anybody that person x is being monitored by the government, but merely that the possibility exists that the government is monitoring person x because they are legally able to.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

How could they have broken this story without providing enough detail to blow the cover off of this program?

I wouldn't frame the question as you have. I'd ask "do you think the NYT is justified in putting national security underneath the integrity of our legal system, checks and bounds put on the government, and journalistic rights? I'd answer that I think that all of these are very important for different reasons, and that I don't want the program to continue at the expense of these other issues - particularly when it was/is within the government's power to take care of business such that the story would simply go away, removing the security risk.

Wait a second, there is a misconception here. It's not in the government's power to prevent the NYT from publishing however classified the information and however much it might damage national security. This came up in the Pentagon Papers case back in the 1970s. The Supreme Court held that the government could not prevent the press from publishing classified information. If it did, that would be a prior restraint, which is against the First Amendment. What the majority of the Court said the government can do is prosecute journalists after the story is published. But of course, that does not put the cat back in the bag.

That is why we rely mostly on the press to show some responsibility. It is that responsibility that the New York Times and LA Times failed so spectacularly to show. And they did so for no justifiable reason, closing down a program that by their own admission, was catching terrorists and without any plausible argument that there was anything illegal. The Times decided unilaterally that they didn't care that the program was catching terrorists, and that is the issue.

On the legalities, I am not quite sure what you mean by "precedent" in this situation. Precedent is what lawyers rely on in the common law. Here, there are statutes passed by Congress that permit what the government has done. When a statute is passed, it doesn't matter whether something is done for the first time, or the millionth. The statute is the law. There is also, of course, the background of the Supreme Court's holding that there are no Fourth Amendment privacy rights attached to financial information. But that is just background, the action here is statutory and regulatory.

Unfortunately, statutory law and the regulations (in this case, Treasury Regulations) issued pursuant to statutes are also something that is not generally easy to point to in the same way as, say, a supreme court case. You often have to have familiarity with several statutes that can be quite lengthy and with difficult syntax and lots of complicated cross references and specialized definitions. This is not terribly accessible to non-lawyers, or even lawyers who don't work in these areas of the law. It's complicated, but that doesn't mean there aren't clear answers even if it might take several pages for a lawyer to explain why in a legal memorandum. That is why it is lawyers who generally decide these things along with responsible government leaders, not laymen like journalists.

I mentioned above that a friend of mine is working on an article this weekend and is therefore putting together the research in a form that should be pretty digestible to laymen. He has been published before on these kinds of issues, and if his article is published as we expect, I will be happy to link to it.

In the mean time, I have shown you that the Washington Post has looked at the law and editorialized that they believe the program is lawful. That being so, and given that the lawyers have already looked at this and determined that the law permits the government to prosecute crimes identified by Congress in this way, then there is no justification for what the NYT did. That background should leave you free to answer the questions I asked.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's up to the supreme court, why would it be up to the public? The media is basically a watchdog that serves as an important check and balance on government power. When the government is doing things that are not based on a legal precedent established by the courts, the press is our only hope to catch this sort of abuse of power.

Show me in the contitution where it sets up checks and balances, that it mentions the media. That's not to say that the media cannot serve as a kind of check on our government, but that does not extend to secret government operations. The media is NOT our "only hope." That's just plain scary, as the media is full of bias from all sides.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Who says that the actions of this program need to be made public? All that would have to be established is a legal precedent. That does not tip off anybody that person x is being monitored by the government, but merely that the possibility exists that the government is monitoring person x because they are legally able to.

To have a precedent, this situation would have had to happen already. This is new. You can't have precedent for something new. To be honest I didn't really catch what you're trying to explain about person x.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by tie

What is with your "liberals this" and "liberals that" generalizations? I don't know who in particular you are referring to, if anyone at all since you don't give a quote. There are crazy liberals just as there are crazy conservatives.

This thread started with idiotic statements, and hasn't gone anywhere.

I don't think Simey understands that this is all about Iraq. Bush has forgotten about the war on terror, and instead started his war for imaginary WMD. It's no surprise that people don't trust the executive branch. Thousands of Americans might still be alive (and $2 trillion saved) if media outlets like the New York Times hadn't blindly trusted the administration's claims of "national security," promoting its propaganda and keeping its secrets. Is the pendulum swinging the other way? In general, I hope so.

Now Simey will respond with some insanity about how I'm a liberal who "sympathizes with the enemy." And then say something how about how there still might be WMD in Iraq, or maybe Iran -- who can tell the difference anyway? -- and how he's hoping for more tax cuts for the rich. This administration is real focussed on terrorism. Osama who?

Alright, I just want people to realize this, that even though the news stations that you watch didn't sensationalize it, our troops did detonate a chemical weapon at least once.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

While they might not be the weapons Bush was hoping to find, it does prove that he still did have stockpiles of "destroyed" weapons. They're not very deadly in the current form, but according to a few articles I've read, it is not very difficult to re-refine them back into a potent form.

[BRussell]

It's one straw man after another. First, liberals want a law enforcement-only approach to terrorism. Next, we want the media to help terrorists by destroying perfectly legal programs. Now, we want day-to-day public oversight over every detail of the investigation of every terrorist. If those were true, liberals really would be the unhinged treasonous fascist party of death that conservatives say we are.

Your claim here is that 1) there is no difference between this story and a story about how we're investigating a specific person at a specific time, and 2) it is all perfectly clearly obviously slam-dunk legal. I think the first is demonstrably false, and the second is, at best, unclear at this point.

So let me ask a question: What governmental power would be worth questioning to conservatives? Or even knowing about for that matter? Because every time one of these comes up, conservatives invariably defend it. As far as I can tell, the power of the government knows no bounds in a conservative's mind.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

BRussell:

You miss the point of oversight altogether and have an odd idea of how your government works. Police forces (in this case, the Department of the Treasury) aren't supervised day to day by legislatures. That is how it works in Parliamentary democracies where the executive and the legislature are one body. In our system, Congress writes statutes that are executed by the executive. Congress also writes budgets and has a supervisory power that extends essentially to ensuring only that the statutes aren't violated and that the money isn't misspent. But that is all, because the legislature isn't the executive.

Day to day supervision of law enforcement is done by the executive branch. That is who we elect to make these decisions. So when I said that these issues need to be debated by Congress, and not by self-appointed journalists, what I meant is that Congress wrote the statute, and the executive is merely doing what Congress charged them to do, using the tools and budget given to it by Congress. That statute and those budgets are what you are disagreeing with (and yes, of course they were decided by all members of both houses, that is how statutes become law). So the proper place to decide statutes and budgets is in Congress, which is where the statutes that authorize the executive to obtain this information were decided. But that is a broad direction only and once those statutes are written and signed into law, they are the law of the land. No legislature in American jurisdictions decides how prosecutors do their day to day jobs once the authorizing statutes are written and the budgets provided. Neither do legislators decide who is prosecuted, or what means to use. That just isn't their function.

And neither, on a day to day basis, is it the public's job and definitiely not the unilateral job of an editor of a newspaper. The public gives broad direction at election time, but since it is the public who is being policed, there is no way for the public to know all the details without the criminals also knowing all the details. If your position is that day to day decisions of the details of law enforcement should be public knowledge, then you simply are opposed to the necessary secrecy that surrounds law enforcement. You can't walk into any crime lab in the country and demand to know exactly how they investigate and prosecute crimes. You can't walk into a district attorney's office and ask to see his investigative files. You can't ask the FBI or the IRS who they have under surveillance. And you can't ask to see a grand jury make its deliberations -- not even if you are a defense attorney defending someone they are indicting. All these things are necessarily cloaked in secrecy. If they weren't, they wouldn't be effective at all. And the bad guys would run amok.

This isn't just about the war on terror since the above applies to all law enforcement, and as I have explained, uses in this case overlapping tools. I find it impossible to believe that you seriously don't understand that there is a necessary degree of secrecy, and that it is the job of the executive branch to do these things in secrecy. That being so, it does seem strange to me that out of all law enforcement issues out there, the only time where you seem to think it is justified to undermine law enforcement is when terrorists threaten and Republicans try to stop them. Seriously, are you more scared of Republicans running the government than terrorists attacking us? I'd like to think it is otherwise, but I'm running out of other plausible explanations. Does that come from complacency about terrorism, inordinate fear or loathing of the other political party, or a combination of the two? I don't know, but it is dangerous and a corrosive attitude in a democracy where there really is a threat from terrorism.

Do you wonder why liberals have a poor reputation on national defense and have a hard time being taken seriously? This is a pretty good reason. You really do seem to begin your analysis with the idea that national defense is optional and that the real threats come from your fellow countrymen. Until you stop giving that impression, it is going to be awfully hard for liberals to be taken seriously when they claim to be in favor of fighting terrorism.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's one straw man after another. First, liberals want a law enforcement-only approach to terrorism. Next, we want the media to help terrorists by destroying perfectly legal programs. Now, we want day-to-day public oversight over every detail of the investigation of every terrorist. If those were true, liberals really would be the unhinged treasonous fascist party of death that conservatives say we are.

Your claim here is that 1) there is no difference between this story and a story about how we're investigating a specific person at a specific time, and 2) it is all perfectly clearly obviously slam-dunk legal. I think the first is demonstrably false, and the second is, at best, unclear at this point.

So let me ask a question: What governmental power would be worth questioning to conservatives? Or even knowing about for that matter? Because every time one of these comes up, conservatives invariably defend it. As far as I can tell, the power of the government knows no bounds in a conservative's mind.

You are ducking the questions I asked. When I asked them, I did so in a fairly narrow way. Of course, I appreciate that not all liberals disagree with the use of military force against terrorism. Joe Lieberman is a liberal, and a staunch supporter of the war on terror. But that isn't the subject of the thread. I want to talk about the law enforcement aspect because I think it is fair to say that until this week I assumed that all liberals were comfortable with the use of traditional law enforcement techniques against terrorists. Certainly, I am comfortable with the use of law enforcement techniques against terrorists. What I want to know is if liberals like you are as well, and if yes, whether you endorse the NYT's decision to render them ineffective.

Incidentally, I am fine with debating the proper scope of statutes in the abstract. It's dry to most people, but important. You can do so using all kinds of hypotheticals that can debate the proper authority of government. Take a look at a law journal sometime. They are full of such articles.

What I do not agree with is publishing detailed operational details of ongoing anti-terrorist operations. I'm defending the program because it is legal, necessary, and defending the country. It's not that I always defend government power, it is that you and your ilk tend to attack all the wrong ones and in all the wrong ways.

And your links to books above are a good illustration of why you do it. Do you honestly think there is nothing more important than partisan politics?

[vmarks]

Dear BRussell,

Defense and law enforcement are constitutionally required. Beyond that which is explicitly constitutionally required, conservatives believe the role of government is to stay out of citizens lives. Unfortunately for us, Republicans aren't always conservatives. Still, where expansionist government is taking place, at least let it be expansion of that which is in article one, section eight.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Dear BRussell,

Defense and law enforcement are constitutionally required. Beyond that which is explicitly constitutionally required, conservatives believe the role of government is to stay out of citizens lives. Unfortunately for us, Republicans aren't always conservatives. Still, where expansionist government is taking place, at least let it be expansion of that which is in article one, section eight.

For those who don't know their Constitution. Shame on you.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

So let me ask a question: What governmental power would be worth questioning to conservatives? Or even knowing about for that matter? Because every time one of these comes up, conservatives invariably defend it. As far as I can tell, the power of the government knows no bounds in a conservative's mind.

The point of my post way back there was that many of the people up in arms right now weren't speaking out when the Clinton Administration did similar things.

Being the opposing party is a critical role but it doesn't mean you always disagree.

Both parties are guilty of this kind of thing where they complain when the others are in power and don't when they are. It's human nature.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If every thread were to be run the way I want it to be run, I'd remove all generalizations entirely.

Yes, and difficult questions, like Simey's!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Yes, and difficult questions, like Simey's!

No, I like difficult questions, and I attempted to answer his question as best as I could.


My opinions on this are certainly tentative, this has been an interesting thread. I'm still thinking about what has been said here and mulling over things in my mind. There are a lot of considerations that require a careful balance.

[hyteckit]

Anyone who buys a weapon such as a riffle needs to have their phone tap, financial records monitor, and house search. Go BUSH!

[Kerrigan]

Once again the enemies are Republicans and not terrorists.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Lawmaker Wants Feds to Probe N.Y. Times.
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...w185244D43.DTL

Looks like some people arent happy with the NYT right now.

Interesting thread. Also interesting how the original question has taken a backseat to the same ol' BS.

[Wiskedjak]

How will Republicans feel when a Democratic government (it will happen eventually) has all of these tracking powers and says "trust us, we're being responsible"?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I am not obsessing about liberals. I am asking a pertinent question. And that question isn't a foreign policy question. To repeat: assuming for a moment that we rule out the use of military force, or the use of intelligence agencies, but instead treat terrorism solely as a law enforcement issue, are liberals willing to use the same law enforcement powers that are used against other transnational criminals? I'm asking becauseit seems that this would not be possible given the position taken by the New York Times, but others of you might be willing perhaps to put a little independent thought into this and might perhaps not agree with their actions. I am hoping that perhaps some of you (unlike the Times) have thought about the fact that criminal investigations require investigating criminal actions.

It's a pretty simple question. It just requires you to think about the issue without going off on tangents about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edit: some daylight Here. The Washington Post editorializes that the program seems to be legal. But thanks to the NYT, the damage is already done.

What is that persiflage: "but others of you might be willing perhaps to put a little independent thought into this and might perhaps not agree with their actions"? Again, stop being pedantic.

The answer to your question is not about what the NYT published, but rather, how come they got to know about the process. Stop shooting the messenger and look at the sources. Stop generalizing what the NYT publishes into "liberal thinking", and look into your own thinking; one hopes you may find a solution in there...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Thanks to you both for finally being honest.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by tie

Hm, this thread started with a typical frenzied attack on liberals from a right-wing nutcase, calling liberals terrorist-sympathizers. I didn't see you complaining then.

1. I'd hardly call Simey a right-wing nutcase.
2. I wouldn't call him right-wing.
3. I wouldn't call him a nutcase.
4. His post wasn't an attack, but a serious question.
5. I don't see where he has ever called liberals "terrorist-sympathizers." If you'd like to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it. But what you inferred might not have been what was implied...

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Once again the enemies are Republicans and not terrorists.

Hm, this thread started with a typical frenzied attack on liberals from a right-wing nutcase, calling liberals terrorist-sympathizers. I didn't see you complaining then.

[besson3c]

Are some Republicans who are very much for the war also pretty fearful dudes, or does that just manifest in the way some of you post (at least to me)?

So much of the criticism against the left seems to come in the form of sympathy with the terrorists, not loving our country, not being tough enough against the terrorists, being pacifists, anti-military, whatever...

Is there some connection to an underlying fear felt? Are you guys afraid of Americans sympathizing? Afraid of what the terrorists might do? Afraid of what will happen if we aren't tough guys? What is it? We have the biggest and baddest military in the world, a ton of economic and political resources. A little debate or political dissent is not going to make the walls crumble down and open us up to a massive terrorist invasion.

Is there a connection between fear and far right wing rhetoric? Do you left-bashers also own guns?

Just wondering... Always fascinated by all the testostrone you guys toss out there.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You are ducking the questions I asked. When I asked them, I did so in a fairly narrow way. Of course, I appreciate that not all liberals disagree with the use of military force against terrorism. Joe Lieberman is a liberal, and a staunch supporter of the war on terror. But that isn't the subject of the thread. I want to talk about the law enforcement aspect because I think it is fair to say that until this week I assumed that all liberals were comfortable with the use of traditional law enforcement techniques against terrorists. Certainly, I am comfortable with the use of law enforcement techniques against terrorists. What I want to know is if liberals like you are as well, and if yes, whether you endorse the NYT's decision to render them ineffective.

Incidentally, I am fine with debating the proper scope of statutes in the abstract. It's dry to most people, but important. You can do so using all kinds of hypotheticals that can debate the proper authority of government. Take a look at a law journal sometime. They are full of such articles.

What I do not agree with is publishing detailed operational details of ongoing anti-terrorist operations. I'm defending the program because it is legal, necessary, and defending the country. It's not that I always defend government power, it is that you and your ilk tend to attack all the wrong ones and in all the wrong ways.

And your links to books above are a good illustration of why you do it. Do you honestly think there is nothing more important than partisan politics?

I haven't ducked your questions, you just keep asking the same questions over and over again and I prefer a little variety in my responses.

I'll state an answer to your question as simply as I can:

1) I have mixed feelings about whether these stories revealed information that was too specific. Generally, we know what police are allowed to do, even when we don't know the specifics of a particular investigation. It seems to me that these stories fall into what the government is generally allowed to do, rather than specifics of a particular investigation. I'd be willing concede that they should not have named SWIFT, however. Terrorists could try to find banks that don't use swift now. The more general revelation that they're tracking bank records, however, is not only OK, but IMO necessary, for reasons below-

2) You claim that this was all perfectly legal, but I'll wait on others' opinions on that question. If it really is all slam-dunk legal, and it should be very obvious to anyone that it is, that will change my opinion. But from what I've read, I doubt that will be the case, and given the history of this administration, the standard has changed when it comes to revealing to the public what they're doing. Simply put, they've proven themselves untrustworthy on these matters, and therefore they need greater scrutiny than might otherwise be the case.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by tie

Hm, this thread started with a typical frenzied attack on liberals from a right-wing nutcase, calling liberals terrorist-sympathizers. I didn't see you complaining then.

See my response that somehow went right above your post.

[Y3a]

I guess nobody has tried to understand the motives of the NYT?
What do they think should happen?
Do they want the US to not be a world power?

Either liberals don't think at all, or can't think more than 1-2 steps into the future.
I've never read an intelligent argument from a lefty that accuratly discusses history
and chronology of events without editorializing and stating opinions as if they were facts.