New York Times.. Who's side are they on?

New York Times released information on a sensitive anti-terror program, after they were told to hold the story (due to national security).

Are they on our side, or on the terrorist side...after all... when you release information that hurts our chances of catching the "bad guys"...aren't you working against us ?

The Times is left leaning...but as some Democrats have said, "this was not right"...and possibly borders on aid and comforting the enemy.

What is free speech....during the time of war ?

Should they be held accountable ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story From : Real Clear Politics: John McIntyre
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/06/the_political_fallout_from_the.html
June 27, 2006
The Political Fallout from the New York Times' Leak
This story is a further example of how the political environment can change very quickly. President Bush was already looking better after two weeks of positive news (holding CA-50, killing Zarqawi, Rove cleared, a new government in Iraq) before the New York Times irresponsibly disclosed details of a top secret program aimed at protecting the nation from future terrorist attacks. The program was legal, effective, and had strong bi-partisan support: both 9/11 Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton and Rep. John Murtha (Pa.) strongly urged the Times not to disclose the program.

Politically, this is a clear winner for Bush and the GOP. The issue plays to Bush's strengths and continues to paint the picture of the President as a stalwart fighter, protecting America's safety while the left-wing press does their best to undermine as many successful anti-terror programs as possible.

The Times and the far left are so completely out of touch with where the country is on national security and terrorism issues they probably thought this disclosure would hurt Bush politically. They are clueless.
But while this is a huge win politically for Bush, it doesn't have to be a loss for Democrats. This brewing scandal is a tailor-made opportunity for a Democrat to show his or her independence from the far-left, borderline anti-American media. Hillary Clinton would measurably improve her chances of becoming President if she walked down to the Senate floor and denounced the New York Times for harming American security.
So while the issue helps Republicans, it provides a huge opportunity for Democrats to send a message to the public on how seriously they take the War on Terror. They would be smart to take it.

... This post.

you're buying into the hype, falling for the buzz-words, deluded by the catch-phrases

the NYT caught the feds illegally snooping through OUR FINANCIAL RECORDS

suddenly everyone believes that, in this ONE instance, the feds really ARE doing this to catch terrorists?

Please :eyes:

believe that terrorists have no clue that the government is listening to their phone calls, or tracking their finances. :eyes:

I don't want my media to be on "our side" or "their side". In my little fantasy world the media reports the truth.

This program has been discussed and reported on for over a year...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1514341

been put out there. Nothing new. Also, why the hell all the fuss about the NYT if they are so concerned. This was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and not sure what other media.

This is nothing more than an attack on the NYT for whatever reason, possibly for their right wingnuts along with the flag amendment.

We may not always agree with the New York Times but we never always agree with each other here as well.

They did nothing wrong in the publication of this story and have not hurt our troops. This Admin is the one hurting the troops.

MANY READERS have been sharply critical of our decision to publish an article Friday on the U.S. Treasury Department's program to secretly monitor worldwide money transfers in an effort to track terrorist financing.

They have sent me sincere and powerful expressions of their disappointment in our newspaper, and they deserve an equally thoughtful and honest response.

The decision to publish this article was not one we took lightly. We considered very seriously the government's assertion that these disclosures could cause difficulties for counterterrorism programs. And we weighed that assertion against the fact that there is an intense and ongoing public debate about whether surveillance programs like these pose a serious threat to civil liberties.

We sometimes withhold information when we believe that reporting it would threaten a life. In this case, we believed, based on our talks with many people in the government and on our own reporting, that the information on the Treasury Department's program did not pose that threat. Nor did the government give us any strong evidence that the information would thwart true terrorism inquiries. In fact, a close read of the article shows that some in the government believe that the program is ineffective in fighting terrorism.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-baquet27jun27,0,7950949.story?coll=la-home-commentary

:nuke:

Since they can't even defend our missiles from some "clowns".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1518690

A Constitutionally-protected right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

What is the "sensitive anti-terror program?"

An illegal and un-Constitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment.

what the government does to find terrorists through banking. It's old news and another distraction.

ATTHEWS: Well let‘s talk about this with Ron Suskind. I read your book all weekend, a hell of a book. And one of the things in it is this very question: how the United States agencies or intelligence agencies use financial, electronic transfers around the world, people moving money in the Arab world, especially, al Qaeda people. How we check up on what they‘re up to. This is a book—when did you go to publishing on this? When was your pub date?

RON SUSKIND, AUTHOR: June 20th, about a week ago.

MATTHEWS: When did you write this page 279?

SUSKIND: I‘m not sure which date I wrote when.

MATTHEWS: Well let me just tell you what you said. “Eventually not surprisingly,” and we‘re talking about electronic transfer surveillance, “our opponents figured it out. It was a matter really of deduction. Enough people got caught and a view of which activities had in common provides clues as to how they may have been identified and apprehended. We were surprised it took so long,” said one intelligence official.

So in other words, the bad guys figured out how we were catching them.

SUSKIND: Right, it‘s a process of deduction. After a while, you catch enough of them, they‘re not idiots. They say, “Well, we can‘t do the things we were doing.” They‘re not leaving electronic trails like they were.

MATTHEWS: So what‘s Cheney beefing about here?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13578557/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html?_r=1&ex=1151121600&en=7889c3988c523a7d&ei=5087%0A&oref=login

this and have been using different ways to move their money.. Old news to the terrorist, news to US citizens....

Did congress declare war? When was that?

Also see: "holding domestic spying story until '04 election over."

This time on ours. So sorry you feel so afraid of big bad terra-ists that you're willing to let the gov't break the law and operate in secret. It's the job of the press to report on our government's actions and possible wrongdoing. And there has been much wrongdoing and very little of capturing "bad guys." See: Osama bin Laden.

NYT published about it in April of 2005!

All this "outrage" is manufatured of whole cloth to intimidate the press...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1514341

Good Lord!

:rofl:

newspapers. Lots!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not sure how it would work though. But we could have the antithesis of the Greatest page.

then Novak should be tried for treason.

:)

It is not a time of war....

You could equate the war on Terror with the War on Drugs... The War on Poverty...

It's just as ephemeral...

Second, it is the right of the NYT and the Wall Street Journal and the LA Timess to report what they see is news...

If the "terrorists" haven't figured out that the US or anyother Western Government can trck financial transactions they are truly an ignorant lot...

Not reporting this would be akin to not reporting the loss of the lap top with all those veterns names saved on the the Hard Drive...

It's the same thing...

soul. Dash into the lair of the big, bad lefties, garner enough posts, and then ask an exceedingly transparent and childish question. Here, wittle baby, is the answer.

The NYT strives to be a world class paper, not that you'd know jackshit about good journalism. Sometimes they fail; witness the Judith Miller shilling for bushco episode and Jayson Blair. More often they succeed. Try being really brave and reading John Burns and Dexter Filkins as well as Eric Lichtblau.

which makes no sense.

:eyes:

Somebody started a bonfired but forgot the marshmallows, graham crackers & hershey bars!