Media Damange Terror Investigations Again in Effort to Embarrass Bush

[BlackRain]

Media Refuses to Hold Surveillance Story

Jun 23 12:23 AM US/Eastern

The Bush administration and The New York Times are again at odds over national security, this time with new reports of a broad government effort to track global financial transfers.

The newspaper, which in December broke news of an effort by the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' telephone calls and e- mails, declined a White House request not to publish a story about the government's inspection of monies flowing in and out of the country.

The Los Angeles Times also reported on the issue Thursday night on its Web site, against the Bush administration's wishes. The Wall Street Journal said it received no request to hold its report of the surveillance.

Administration officials were concerned that news reports of the program would diminish its effectiveness and could harm overall national security.

"It's a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly," said Doyle McM****, the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau chief. "The key issue here is whether the government has shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected."

Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McM**** said in a telephone interview.

"They were quite vigorous, they were quite energetic. They made a very strong case," he said.


The U.S. government, without the knowledge of many banks and their customers, has engaged for years in a secret effort to track terrorist financing by accessing a vast database of confidential information on transfers of money between banks worldwide.

In its story, The New York Times said it carefully weighed the administration's arguments for withholding the information and gave them "the most serious and respectful consideration."

"We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use it may be, is a matter of public interest," said Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor.


The program, run by the Treasury Department, is considered a potent weapon in the war on terrorism because of its ability to clandestinely monitor financial transactions and map terrorist webs.

In December, Bush used part of his weekly radio address to criticize The New York Times' initial eavesdropping story as helping to inform enemies, saying "the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

McM**** said the other factor that tipped the paper's decision to publish was the novel approach government was using to gather data in another realm without warrant or subpoena.


Under the program, Treasury issues a new subpoena once a month, and SWIFT turns over huge amounts of electronic financial data, according to Stuart Levey, the department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. The administrative subpoenas are issued under authority granted in the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
"Police agencies and prosecutors get warrants all the time to search suspects' houses, and we don't write stories about that," he said. "This is different. This is new. And this is a process that has been developed that does not involve getting a specific warrant. It's a new and unfamiliar process."


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/23/D8IDMQ180.html


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-swift23jun23,0,6482687.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well nothing is sacred in politics - not even national security it seems. IIRC - Nancy Pelosi compromised the police investigation of Richard Ramirez ("Night Stalker" mass murderer in California in the '80's) by going on TV and grandstanding, revealing secret evidence that the police had - setting the investigation back months (and probably costing lives too). But while the cameras rolled it made her look good, authoritative, in-charge etc. Anything to gain political advantage.

[Laworkerbee]

I could not believe my eyes when I opened the NYT this morning :cantbeli:

This isn't the first time they have done such a thing

[Firetxmi]

I think your anger is misplaced. In an effort to discredit the media you have overlooked the fact that the person who needs to be blamed is the leaker. How does the saying go? Oh yeah, dont shoot the messanger.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I think your anger is misplaced. In an effort to discredit the media you have overlooked the fact that the person who needs to be blamed is the leaker. How does the saying go? Oh yeah, dont shoot the messanger.

The media has a responsibility to act, well, responsibly. If a government employee has a concern about something the goverment is doing, that person needs to follow whatever procedures are already in place for such handling problems within their branch of government.

And if a reporter comes into possession of information regarding a government program and has a concern, he or she should be required to provide this information to a member of Congress, a judge, or member of the executive branch. Just so long as it is a designated official from a different branch of the goverment. Maybe require this kind of report to a judge or member of congress convene a committee.

Anyone connected with the disclosure of this information to the general public should go to jail.

The more leaks that I read about in the press, the more I think we need an Official Secrets Act.
Official Secrets Act 1989 (c. 6) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890006_en_1.htm)

[BlackRain]

I think your anger is misplaced. In an effort to discredit the media you have overlooked the fact that the person who needs to be blamed is the leaker. How does the saying go? Oh yeah, dont shoot the messanger.

When the President of the United States asks the media to not report this story cause it could alert terrorists that we are monitoring them --- and the media reports it anyway giving away our intelligence edge ....

That is called treason.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

When the President of the United States asks the media to not report this story cause it could alert terrorists that we are monitoring them --- and the media reports it anyway giving away our intelligence edge ....

That is called treason.
I very much agree!

From what I've heard, this program even has outside auditors.

[ElHombre]

When the President of the United States asks the media to not report this story cause it could alert terrorists that we are monitoring them...

there's your problem right there. bush doesn't have any credibility left. his administration has been caught in one too many lies about various eavesdropping stories for the media or the public to take his word for granted any longer.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

there's your problem right there. bush doesn't have any credibility left. his administration has been caught in one too many lies about various eavesdropping stories for the media or the public to take his word for granted any longer.
Since when was anybody in the media qualified to assess the impact on national security a revelation like this would have?

As I said earlier, maybe we need legislation to compel reporters to contact a member of Congress or a judge or an official in the administration (in the case that it involves Congress or the judiciary) Someone who nows how to handle sensitve information.

But this, blurting out in the open; the reporters and their source should go to jail for a very long time.

[ElHombre]

it's been said before and nees repeating: it is not the media's job to keep gov't secrets. thus far, we only have the admin's word that alerting the public to this program is harmful, and the admin's credibility is nil. if the admin wants to be taken seriously on national security matters, they're going to have to figure out a way to restore that credibility.

this might not be a problem if congress had bothered to do any of their constitutional-mandated job of oversight. but since the folks in charge only do rubber-stamping and fall on their knees at the admin's beck and call...

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

it's been said before and nees repeating: it is not the media's job to keep gov't secrets.It's also not thier job to decide what is or is not safe to release.

If anyone that was under surveillance by one of these programs later commits an act of terrorism that costs American lives, I want one of these idiot reporters to stand in front of the family members and explain why he thought it was his ob to make a decision that concerns national security.

Maybe bring them up on negligent homocide charges.

[Firetxmi]

I thought Republicans were for less govt.

[ElHombre]

nah. just corrupt, incompetent gov't.

[Con-man]

Hmmm, the admins credibility is nil, what about the media? Do some research on exactly how much of what the media says is true, not just with Iraq but with everything, you might be pleasantly surprised.

[BlackRain]

it's been said before and nees repeating: it is not the media's job to keep gov't secrets. thus far, we only have the admin's word that alerting the public to this program is harmful, and the admin's credibility is nil. if the admin wants to be taken seriously on national security matters, they're going to have to figure out a way to restore that credibility.

this might not be a problem if congress had bothered to do any of their constitutional-mandated job of oversight. but since the folks in charge only do rubber-stamping and fall on their knees at the admin's beck and call...


Based on your traitorous logic, the media should have revealed the plans for D-Day to the world -- right? You clearly state that the press has no duty to protect government secrets.

In addition you are wrong, the media can be prosecuted for purposely and knowingly leaking national security data during a time of war.


The Espionage Act of 1917, as amended in 1950, very clearly makes it a criminal offense to transmit or receive classified information.

Law Profs. Harold Edgar and Benno Schmidt: "The source who leaks defense information to the press commits an offense; the reporter who holds on to defense material commits an offense."


They are already investigating the media for previous leaks:



But FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.

"The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information," the statement said.

Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.

[c62]

Well nothing is sacred in politics - not even national security it seems. IIRC - Nancy Pelosi compromised the police investigation of Richard Ramirez ("Night Stalker" mass murderer in California in the '80's) by going on TV and grandstanding, revealing secret evidence that the police had - setting the investigation back months (and probably costing lives too). But while the cameras rolled it made her look good, authoritative, in-charge etc. Anything to gain political advantage. Actually it was D.Feinstein when she was the San Fran mayor. And yes it really f-ed up their investigation.

[c62]

Hmmm, the admins credibility is nil, what about the media? Do some research on exactly how much of what the media says is true, not just with Iraq but with everything, you might be pleasantly surprised. It's not that the media lies, rather they are very selective in the truth they tell. They will put every failure of Bush on the front page, every success he has will be passed over. Technically they didn't lie in that scenario, just didn't give a complete and accurate story.

[ElHombre]

Based on your traitorous logic, the media should have revealed the plans for D-Day to the world -- right? You clearly state that the press has no duty to protect government secrets.

but the FDR admin had credibility. bush doesn't, he threw it away.


In addition you are wrong, the media can be prosecuted for purposely and knowingly leaking national security data during a time of war.

you forgot a little detail: where's the declaration of war?


They are already investigating the media for previous leaks:

and doing their best to (sucessfully) stonewall investigations of leaking national security information themselves (bush has already rolled back his promise to fire anyone in his admin involved in leaking classified info). a matter which further degrades their credibility.

[Hollis]

but the FDR admin had credibility. bush doesn't, he threw it away.


Naw if you were back then, you would be bad mouthing FDR too.

[usmcprincipal]

Technical error...my credibility is legitimately called into question.

[usmcprincipal]

Bush has no credibility with whom? Only with the opposition party, particularly with its far left wing and members of the media with a similar philosphical position. It's ideological and agenda driven. Objectivity is of little importance. If there was such confidence in the poll numbers, the recent congressional referrendum on Iraq certainly didn't reflect it.

Someone tell me what the opposition party has substantively offered since 9/11. I've not been able to catalog anything, but I'm open to a series of answers. I hear the constant criticism, but I have yet to read about ideas and solutions. When writing commentary on foreign affairs the the New York Times is evolving into a shrill lackey for the left.

John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid making foreign policy for the United States....I'm sure they instill confidence in the public.

[pistol]

I couldn't agree more with the spirit of this thread. The American public would be better served by programs to teach the limits of the first amendment to anti-American, terrorist mouth-pieces like the LA Times, than we would be by any oversight of these patriotic, and unquestionably legal, programs.

[BlackRain]

but the FDR admin had credibility. bush doesn't, he threw it away.



you forgot a little detail: where's the declaration of war?



and doing their best to (sucessfully) stonewall investigations of leaking national security information themselves (bush has already rolled back his promise to fire anyone in his admin involved in leaking classified info). a matter which further degrades their credibility.



Classic case of "BDS (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/160406.html)" Bush Derangement Syndrome. The persons pure hatred for Bush wipes out their common sense.

Did you miss the part or purposely ignore the part about:


In this case, as in the NSA leak, Congressional members of the intelligence committee, Republican and Democrat, asked them not to print this information disclosure of which was harmful to national security. As in the NSA case, the White House warned the paper not to publish this information.

Official 'war' has not been declared since WWII. I thought you knew that but I guess I will have to explain that to you. So I guess in your mind, Korea, Vietnam, etc were not 'war'. Right?

[Atlantic Friend]

I sincerely fail to see what would be a more desirable option than keeping a free press, even in a time of war. Especially in a time of war, maybe.

Do you want the media to say everything's fine, everything's taken care of, or would you like wrongful decisions and potentially fatal mistakes to be clearly and soundly denounced ?

Do you really want to read rosy Soviet Pravda-like communiques, where the war is always being won, victory is always behind the corner, no soldiers ever die, no mistakes are ever made, and Heaven on Earth is coming for all ?

[Oddbod]

Printing this story may well be of interest to the public but it sure as Hell isn't in the Public Interest to let any terrorist or sympathiser know how they can be tracked.
The NYT published because they have an anti-Republican agenda & to sell more papers, NOT because people need to know.

[Firetxmi]

I couldn't agree more with the spirit of this thread. The American public would be better served by programs to teach the limits of the first amendment to anti-American, terrorist mouth-pieces like the LA Times, than we would be by any oversight of these patriotic, and unquestionably legal, programs.

Beautiful. I hate anti-unpatriotic-Bush/freedom hating-Americans! :D

[Firetxmi]

"I Do Solemnly Swear (or Affirm) That I Will Support And Defend The Constitution Of The United States...."

[Atlantic Friend]

"I Do Solemnly Swear (or Affirm) That I Will Support And Defend The Constitution Of The United States...."

"Except the amendments I don't have much truck with..." p-)

[XxDualityxX]

it's been said before and nees repeating: it is not the media's job to keep gov't secrets. thus far, we only have the admin's word that alerting the public to this program is harmful, and the admin's credibility is nil. if the admin wants to be taken seriously on national security matters, they're going to have to figure out a way to restore that credibility.

this might not be a problem if congress had bothered to do any of their constitutional-mandated job of oversight. but since the folks in charge only do rubber-stamping and fall on their knees at the admin's beck and call...

Yeah but when you are comprosing national secuirty plans after plans after plans its libel slander towards the president. I think they need to grow up and wiegh there options whats more important a story that exposes the classified program and will fade in week or national secuirty.

[Atlantic Friend]

Yeah but when you are comprosing national secuirty plans after plans after plans its libel slander towards the president. I think they need to grow up and wiegh there options whats more important a story that exposes the classified program and will fade in week or national secuirty.

You know, maybe we shouldn't discuss this issue altogether, because some terrorists may not have read the NYT, and so every time we denounce the NYT's publication of terrorists being tracked down we increase the chance of terrorists knowing about it ! p-)

Because I'm sure terrorists never ever thought governments might want to track down their financial assets...

[Firetxmi]

Yeah but when you are comprosing national secuirty plans after plans after plans its libel slander towards the president. I think they need to grow up and wiegh there options whats more important a story that exposes the classified program and will fade in week or national secuirty.


libel (lī'bəl) ****unciation
n.


1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
2. The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

tr.v., -beled or -belled, -bel·ing or -bel·ling, -bels or -bels.


slander (slăn'dər) ****unciation
n.

1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.


v., -dered, -der·ing, -ders.

The sad part is all the info is true. No grounds for a Slander/Libel case at all!

[Clarsachier]

compromised the police investigation of Richard Ramirez ("Night Stalker" mass murderer in California in the '80's) by going on TV and grandstanding, revealing secret evidence that the police had - setting the investigation back months (and probably costing lives too). But while the cameras rolled it made her look good, authoritative, in-charge etc. Anything to gain political advantage.

Ramirez was making a laughing stock out of the police, continuing his murder spress despite the description the police has constructed.

Thanks to Pelosis' forcing the police to publish composite drawing of Ramirez, Ramirez was captured by citizens who recognized him.

I'll bet Ramirez is outraged by this 'political grandstanding'. Nobody else is.

[BlackRain]

Ramirez was making a laughing stock out of the police, continuing his murder spress despite the description the police has constructed.

Thanks to Pelosis' forcing the police to publish composite drawing of Ramirez, Ramirez was captured by citizens who recognized him.

I'll bet Ramirez is outraged by this 'political grandstanding'. Nobody else is.

You got the details wrong. It was not Nancy Pelosi but Mayor Diane Feinstein and she impeded the investigation.



In 1985, as the city of San Francisco was in a state of fear caused by "The Night Stalker," serial murderer/rapist Richard Ramirez, Mayor Feinstein held a press conference, and revealed details of the hunt for the Night Stalker.

Unfortunately, she revealed specific evidence of what clothes the Night Stalker wore, in so doing so, she allowed Ramirez to be aware of what the authorities knew, and to toss his shoes into the river.


Richard Ramirez was caught by several neighbors when he tried to steal a red Mustang and confirmed by a fingerprint in the vehicle he used in the commision of another crime.

[Hollis]

The sad part is all the info is true. No grounds for a Slander/Libel case at all!


Public figures, especially Poltical figures can not take a person to court because of Libel/slander laws. I forgot exactly how the laws goes, but it is old. Part of the right to political expression even in cartoons.

[Clarsachier]

=
BlackRain]You got the details wrong. It was not Nancy Pelosi but Mayor Diane Feinstein and she impeded the investigation.

In this case, 'impeding' the investigation meant apprehension for Ramierez through forcing the image to be shown on TV. After that, nowhere was safe for him. The 'investigation' was going nowhere and was turning into a personal battle between the police and Ramirez who began taunting them with communiques.

I just think that it's ironic that even though the 'political action' in this case facilitated the end of the 'night stalker's' spree it's being missconstrued as somehow an example of 'Lib obstructoin of justice.'


Richard Ramirez was caught by several neighbors when he tried to steal a red Mustang and confirmed by a fingerprint in the vehicle he used in the commision of another crime.

To clarify, he was caught while trying to evade citizens who recognized him by stealing a car. He wasn't captured through any fingerprint analysis.

[caridon]

When the President of the United States asks the media to not report this story cause it could alert terrorists that we are monitoring them --- and the media reports it anyway giving away our intelligence edge ....

That is called treason.

BR we all know that you are MP's resident neo-con myrmidon. but can you please try to understand that dissent is not treason and it is not treson to not follow every word by your "beloved leader".

/C

[XxDualityxX]

The sad part is all the info is true. No grounds for a Slander/Libel case at all!

like I said a ton of them true to be false but force bush to answer question and spark new ones this fall under libel slander.

"malicious statement or report about someone."

The newspapers attack him you know livelslander is also called defamation of character.

[Laworkerbee]

Printing this story may well be of interest to the public but it sure as Hell isn't in the Public Interest to let any terrorist or sympathiser know how they can be tracked.
The NYT published because they have an anti-Republican agenda & to sell more papers, NOT because people need to know.

I'm wondering would an English news paper publish this article?

[BlackRain]

BR we all know that you are MP's resident neo-con myrmidon. but can you please try to understand that dissent is not treason and it is not treson to not follow every word by your "beloved leader".

/C

You do realize that the term 'neo-con' is a anti-semitic pejorative, right?

And, yes, it is treason and elected officials here on Sunday state they will seek the indictment of the NY Times.

/C

[BlackRain]

=

In this case, 'impeding' the investigation meant apprehension for Ramierez through forcing the image to be shown on TV. After that, nowhere was safe for him. The 'investigation' was going nowhere and was turning into a personal battle between the police and Ramirez who began taunting them with communiques.

I just think that it's ironic that even though the 'political action' in this case facilitated the end of the 'night stalker's' spree it's being missconstrued as somehow an example of 'Lib obstructoin of justice.'



To clarify, he was caught while trying to evade citizens who recognized him by stealing a car. He wasn't captured through any fingerprint analysis.


Go back and read the history of the Richard Ramierez case.

Diane Feinstein had no role in his capture and was berated by law enforcement for damaging their investigation.

The people that captured him did not know he was the "Night Stalker". He was caught trying to steal a red Mustang that a man was working under and the man chased him. Then Ramierez tried to car jack a woman to get a way and was subdued by alerted neighbors who held him for the police. His identity was confirmed by his fingerprints left in a car he used in a previous crime scene.

Why are you deliberately trying to lie about what happened?

To those reading this post: here is the video of how bad this liberal politician screwed up the investigation. Where is you God Now?

http://www.msunderestimated.com/EarlyDiFI.wmv

[Oddbod]

I'm wondering would an English news paper publish this article?

No

The paper would be issued with a "D Notice" under the Official Secrets Act.

If they went ahead & published, then the Editor & several others would end up behind bars.

[Firetxmi]

The people that captured him did not know he was the "Night Stalker". He was caught trying to steal a red Mustang that a man was working under and the man chased him. Then Ramierez tried to car jack a woman to get a way and was subdued by alerted neighbors who held him for the police. His identity was confirmed by his fingerprints left in a car he used in a previous crime scene.

Why are you deliberately trying to lie about what happened?


Ramirez was not in Los Angeles when his name and picture appeared on TV and in newspapers, but on returning, he was immediately recognised.

Upon seeing his picture on the front page of a newspaper he fled. He tried unsuccessfully to hijack a car, but by now a huge crowd of people were chasing him. He was eventually caught by the mass of angry people and beaten. Ironically, his life was saved by the police who arrived just in time. While he was held in a cell at Hollenbeck police station, a lynch mob of more than 600 gathered outside, calling for his hanging.

Link: http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/features/richard_ramirez:_the_night_stalker.php

or...

Jaime recognised Ramirez as being the Night Stalker, and Ramirez ran for his life before being hit repeatedly by Manuel with a 3 and a half foot metal post.

link:http://judey.dasmirnov.net/richard_ramirez.htm

Hmm....When I watched the story on the history channel about it they made a huge deal out of how the picture was published in a Spanish language newspaper and local hispanic neighbors saw he was the killer and chased him.

Then again the History Channel is probably too liberal for you also.. :roll:

Why are you trying to twist the facts?

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

No

The paper would be issued with a "D Notice" under the Official Secrets Act.

If they went ahead & published, then the Editor & several others would end up behind bars.
Wish we could do that!

Seriously!

[BlackRain]

Link: http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/features/richard_ramirez:_the_night_stalker.php

or...


link:http://judey.dasmirnov.net/richard_ramirez.htm

Hmm....When I watched the story on the history channel about it they made a huge deal out of how the picture was published in a Spanish language newspaper and local hispanic neighbors saw he was the killer and chased him.

Then again the History Channel is probably too liberal for you also.. :roll:

Why are you trying to twist the facts?


Did you even read the sources you posted?

Example 1

This newspaper article confirms what I wrote. They didn't know he was the night stalker until his fingerprints were compared to ones used in another stolen vehicle.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/9586/richardramirez4uk.png

[Firetxmi]

So you are telling me the citizens didn't recognize him until the citizens performed a fingerprint check on him? Right there in the field? Damn, musta' been something out of CSI. I was under the impression that we were talking about the citizens recognizing him due to the media (newspaper) publishing it as the request of a (GASP) Democrat who had it published.

If you look at my second source you will see what I am saying:


"Jaime recognised Ramirez as being the Night Stalker, and Ramirez ran for his life before being hit repeatedly by Manuel with a 3 and a half foot metal post."
Link: http://judey.dasmirnov.net/richard_ramirez.htm

[Firetxmi]

Or maybe this:


Two days later, his mug shots were broadcast on national television and printed on the cover of every major newspaper in California.

The next day Ramirez was recognized, and then mobbed and beaten by residents of a Latino neighborhood in East Los Angeles as he was trying to steal a car. Police had to break up the mob to prevent them from killing Ramirez.

Link:http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Richard_Ramirez

[BlackRain]

Or maybe this:

What is more accurate? Your internet post from 2006 or the original newspaper article from the time of his arrest that makes no mention of the crowd recognizing him?

And as far as the uber-liberal Diane Feinstein goes, here is what the police thought of here at the time:

http://www.msunderestimated.com/EarlyDiFI.wmv

[Firetxmi]

When Ramirez stepped off a Greyhound bus in LA on Saturday 31st August after arriving from Phoenix (where he had been buying cocaine), he soon realised that his luck had run out.
As he walked into Tito's Liquor Store in the Hispanic heartland of East LA to buy his usual sugary breakfast, a can of Pepsi and a packet of doughnuts, he glanced down at the newspaper rack. He saw his own photo staring back at him under the headline "Police Identify Stalker Suspect".

Ramirez knew the game was up.

He turned on his heels and ran for two miles. Police cars descended on the area amid reports that the Night Stalker had been spotted. Ramirez tried to commandeer a car but the driver fought him off and a group of bystanders rushed to her aid. He fled, jumping over fences and into the back gardens of homes in this tough East LA neighbourhood.
link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/ramirez1.shtml


Is this a better source?

[Clarsachier]

Link: http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/features/richard_ramirez:_the_night_stalker.php

or...

link:http://judey.dasmirnov.net/richard_ramirez.htm

Then again the History Channel is probably too liberal for you also.. :roll:

Why are you trying to twist the facts?


Beacuse some people have an 'issue' with reality. :)

IMO, it was fortunate that Ramirez tried to E&E through a Latino neighborhood instead of a 'look the other way' yuppie one.

I heard he was roughed up abit.

[Laworkerbee]

No

The paper would be issued with a "D Notice" under the Official Secrets Act.

If they went ahead & published, then the Editor & several others would end up behind bars.

Thats what I thought.....thats the way it ought to be in wartime .

[cx2115]

Classic case of "BDS (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/160406.html)" Bush Derangement Syndrome. The persons pure hatred for Bush wipes out their common sense. I'm beginning to think that there is a counter-part to BDS. Its the Beloved Bush Syndrome; symptoms include:

1) Automatic dismissal of any attack on Bush, his party or his politics as a symptom of BDS - regardless of factual content of the attack

During the dismal:
1a) always attack the character of the attacker
1b) never attack the facts presented
1c) do so with passion - at all costs, avoid a calm, reasoned counter debate
2) Consistent use of the Straw man (http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Elilyth/strawman.html) tactic

3) A fervent belief that Bush should be exempt from the media's standard operating procedure when it comes to politicians:
"The only thing worth reporting about a politician is his f**k ups"

[caridon]

You do realize that the term 'neo-con' is a anti-semitic pejorative, right?

And, yes, it is treason and elected officials here on Sunday state they will seek the indictment of the NY Times.

/C

No Neo-con is not anti-semitic. it is a political term not a ethnic/religious. it is the short wersion of neo-conservative. but thanks for proving my point about you when you imediately try to play the "anit-semite" card :)

So it is treason ? and the elected officials will seek indictment ?

I assume that you can cite tha law that is broken and post a link to the complaint. (or at least a link to a statement from a "elected official" that claims this will be done ?)

If not i can only assume that you are talking S__t again.


/C

[BlackRain]

No Neo-con is not anti-semitic. it is a political term not a ethnic/religious. it is the short wersion of neo-conservative. but thanks for proving my point about you when you imediately try to play the "anit-semite" card :)

So it is treason ? and the elected officials will seek indictment ?

I assume that you can cite tha law that is broken and post a link to the complaint. (or at least a link to a statement from a "elected official" that claims this will be done ?)

If not i can only assume that you are talking S__t again.


/C


All I can say is that you don't understand the word 'neocon' then. I was never a democrat or liberal, I am not jewish, and I am not a Republican.

Broken law? -- Espionage Act, Section 798

Elected official? Here is your link.



The note to readers was published the same day Rep. Peter King urged the Bush administration to prosecute the paper.

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Prosecuting_Reporters.html

Perhaps, you can do the research yourself next time.


/C

[Firetxmi]

Blackrain, was my source sufficient or do you still want to lie? (Taking a play out of the playbook from you).....

[BlackRain]

Blackrain, was my source sufficient or do you still want to lie? (Taking a play out of the playbook from you).....

I proved you wrong and you refuse to concede. I am done conversing with you. If I were to produce I witness testimony from the trial, you would refuse to believe that as well. So why bother?

[ElHombre]

The note to readers was published the same day Rep. Peter King urged the Bush administration to prosecute the paper.

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.

note to the rep.: we seem to have missed the part where congress (that's you) declared war.

[Firetxmi]

I proved you wrong and you refuse to concede. I am done conversing with you. If I were to produce I witness testimony from the trial, you would refuse to believe that as well. So why bother?

haha...Ok dude, sure you won. Feel good about yourself now? I guess if I tell a white lie to save your feelings that doesn't count. :D

I provided 3 seperate sources confirming that the publishing of the newspaper photo caused the residents of the neighborhood where he fled to recognize him and they subsequently apprehended him. If you want to believe otherwise go ahead. My question to you, like you pose to so many others, why must you lie?

[BlackRain]

note to the rep.: we seem to have missed the part where congress (that's you) declared war.


PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 - 107th Congress

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

The US has not and does not declare 'war' anymore. I thought you knew that? The Congress now authorizes the use of force through a resolution. Do some research on the 'War Powers Act".

If you don't think we are at war now, I would like you to explain what's going on?

[KB]

I sincerely fail to see what would be a more desirable option than keeping a free press, even in a time of war. Especially in a time of war, maybe.

Do you want the media to say everything's fine, everything's taken care of, or would you like wrongful decisions and potentially fatal mistakes to be clearly and soundly denounced ?

Do you really want to read rosy Soviet Pravda-like communiques, where the war is always being won, victory is always behind the corner, no soldiers ever die, no mistakes are ever made, and Heaven on Earth is coming for all ?

Rosy Pravda sentiment seems to be prevailing.

[caridon]

All I can say is that you don't understand the word 'neocon' then. I was never a democrat or liberal, I am not jewish, and I am not a Republican.

Broken law? -- Espionage Act, Section 798

Elected official? Here is your link.



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Prosecuting_Reporters.html

Perhaps, you can do the research yourself next time.



You are wierder than usual I have a very good understanding of the word neocon
lets have a look at some sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=neocon
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative

Are you going to try to wiggle out of htese definitions ? As you can se the label is a political one. and you dont hvae to be either a ex- liberal,a republican or a jew to be a neocon.

The law is interesting. It is the biggest ruberband act ever. because anything the goverment deems clasified (even if it were something horrible like the goverment murdering small children) would fall under this act if reveled. So it is my guess (I'm not a layer so we will have to wait for the courts for the final verdict) that this act clashes rather hard with the first amendment.

BUT breaking this law is NOT treason. Treason is much narrower in scope, so i stand by my statements. you have not proved treason (regardless if the espionage act was broken or not)


As for the link. Thank you for posting but remember that it was you that made the claim, than it is your job to back it upp not mine.

/C

ps i think the act you are refering to in another post is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
not the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act
ds

[BlackRain]

BUT breaking this law is NOT treason. Treason is much narrower in scope, so i stand by my statements. you have not proved treason (regardless if the espionage act was broken or not)


Surely, the unauthorized release of classified intelligence on a program designed to monitor terrorists, over the request of the US government not to publish, gives aid and comfort to our enemies.



§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


1) The NY Times knowingly published classified material in a public forum.
2) The NY Times published after requests not to publish by the US government.
3) This classified information aided Al Quaeda and other terrorists organizations -- enemies of the United States.

Pretty clear cut.

OT: Do you know who the publisher of the NY Times is or his background? Do some research on his political philosophy and you will understand why he did it.