I"ll agree with you that there are allot of blubs about financial programs on govt. websites. However what the times did is un-called for. As for treason...I've posted my thoughts on that in another post but I'll reiterate. You have the 1st amenedment which protects you but should it protect you so much that your immune from everyone and everything? Killing them (since thats the punisment for treason in wartime) Nah, just put them in jail for a month or so and them let em out they'll have learned there leason. The real traitor is the person who orignally leaked the sotry and I doubt we'll ever find him/her...unless we get a judge to make the times tell us..which is another complex issue itself.

I would rather know who Ron Suskind, author of the One Percent Doctrine, got his information that we had a mole inside Al Qaeda. That seems far more damaging then a bank monitoring program that it seems the Terrorists already knew about.

Wait what is this book about...we had a mole in al qaeda...thats very interesting.

Why can't the government track something useful. Like that fucker who has been stealing 1 of my socks out of every load of laundry for the past 20 years. Huh? Where is the fucking justice? When the Times leaks the story just as they are about to recover and return to you all those socks, you are gonna be HELLA pissed. You know you will. I think they are doing something with those socks, people. We all need to be scared. Real scared. There's a plan out there, we just have to open our eyes up enough to see it.

Well, see, the thing is, terrorists are funded by oil and heroin money. All the money that they move around that isn't in suitcases comes from the sale of oil and heroin. What have the Bushies done to restrict the sale of oil and heroin? What have they done therefore to in any way, shape, or form significantly hinder the financial status of terrorist organizations?

Answer is: nothing.

The Times reported a possible CRIME by the government, a possible invasion of personal privacy which would constitute a violation of the 4th amendment. This government can talk all it wants to about stopping the terrorists, but if we lose ourselves in the process, if we give up that which makes us better than the terrorists, what will we have won.

I am ashamed of the leaders of this country for undertaking a "War on Terror"; a silly, crude, flippant usage of words which are meant to be exclusive for the most serious and horrible of all human undertakings. The fact that they are so cavalier in their use of the phrase and their abominable abuses of power disgust me more and more with each day their sick, heartless crusade is being waged. They care nothing for the extreme and lasting repercussions of warfare, both home and abroad. Just look at the Vietnam war. Not only did tens of thousands of men die, but many more came home with serious social, emotional, and mental problems, which have in turn affected their families, their children, and their childrens children. Then look at Vietnam, and the effects there. Look for pictures of the third "Agent Orange" generation.

Our leaders and our politicians think this "war" can be one with guns and strength, but if our enemy is terror, then that enemy has no face until we give it our own.

Logic 101:
#1 The program was only legal if it used powers granted by an actual law. Since no real laws in the united states are secret, and one would assume that the government is doing anything and everything possible under the law to catch terrorists, the public -- including the US citizenry, the NY Times and yes, even "the terrorists" -- already know the government is looking into their banking records, phone records, etc. in a legal manner. There are public laws that give the government the ability to do so. Since we live in what people call a "free society" instead of an "authoritarian police state". The concept is sometimes regarded as a price of freedom.

Since you can't "expose" public knowledge, they have done nothing wrong.

#2 If the program was doing something beyond the scope of the law, or the executive branch is claiming to be able to use secret powers that do not actually exist (since secret laws and powers do not exist), then the program itself is illegal.
For a program to achieve classified status under government secrets laws, it must be lawful.
If the program was illegal however, it cannot legally be classified.

It is not illegal to "un-cover" an illegally classified program, therefore no crime was committed.

THE END

Also: If you do not want your secrets exposed, go about them in a legal manner and it will not be an issue.

The New York Times also ran the story by the White House weeks before they published it, and while they expressed reservations about it, they gave the OK.

So their howling "Treason!" now is disingenous at best.

You were off to a good start, but then became intoxicated by the Koolaid. It's no secret that both Bank of America and CitiBank both launder...er...uh...."hold" trillions in foreign money. I'm not sure why you'd want the "Bushies" to restrict the sale of oil. OPEC does that. Further restricting oil sales just leads to higher [inflated] prices. Restricting heroin sales in the Middle East also isn't within our power. Again, I agree that fuckloads of cash are financed from heroin sales. But you
re asking our government to stop the production and/or sale of heroin in countries that we shouldn't be policiing.

Now for the shitty part. Say our government puts an end to all foreign investors who cannot validate the source of their deposits. Guess what happens to our economy? Guess what happens when two of our largest banks cannot finance home and auto loans? Maybe our government has been aware of this and doesn't want to completely flatline our economy.

Just a thought.

Now, regarding the news media butting in on security: They are no better than our politicians. Both are opportunists. Both would fuck over just about anyone in the pursuit of financial gain. Both are capable of tilting the truth (or breaking it). I personally thought Geraldo Rivera should have been anally fisted for disclosing our military's location during Operation: Desert Storm. I don't feel any different towards the NY Times or any other paper/news source that discloses any plans that the government hasn't already made public. This only relates to issues of security....God knows there are shitloads of other government plots that we should be aware of - regardless of who's in office.

Pfft. Like terrorists read whitehouse.gov. Or newspapers other than the New York Times.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

For the humor-impaired:

It is about Cheny and his minions making incredibly shitty decisions and blaming them all on the CIA. All directly from those involved, I have nto read it but I head the author interviewed at length today and it was an eye-opener even ot my jaded soul.

And no, he did not reveal anything in this book that puts missions at risk, let alone outing a active mole according to his account. What moron in a terrorist organization would not assume they had moles in their organizaition allready?

But I am sure if it gets any play in the media (cus you know, books are meaningless to these folks) the republican mouthpieces will try to ignore all the cogent informaiton in the book and try to tar him for 'treason' because you see the worst crime in the nation is saying 'the emperor has no clothes'

My fav bit from the interview, he said the CIAs nickname for Cheny was 'Edgar' for edgar bergin, chalie mccarthies puppeteer.

The statements from the administration regard mission and intent. The NYT story exposed sources and methods of an active program. There is a vast gulf of difference between the two.

Have you ever seen what a mole-hunt can do to an organization? Look at what Angleton's efforts did to the CIA. If AQ or other organizations think they have a mole they spend time looking inward. Their leaders may decide to electronically communicate directly instead of via several intermediaries. They may even decide to meet face-to-face. There could be internal torture and a few internal executions as they attempt to find the mole.

When news of the raid on Zarqawi hit, did anybody notice the mention of sources within his organization? Did those sources provide good intel? Were there really any sources in his organization? Such questions can turn an organization inward on itself. Those questions breed mistrust which breaks down communication, coordination, and synchronization.

dear george.

my name is ben. i am poor. while you are poking around my bank accounts, please drop some extra cash in it. i think people will like you more.

love,

benny