Redstate

you're gonna love Tuesday's ..

NYT TUESDAY: FBI WATCHED PROTEST GROUPS, NEW FILES SHOW // Surveillance, intelligence-gathering operations involved groups active in environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief...

ACLU CHARGES: 'It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to NSA to the FBI, to engage in spying on Americans'...source: Drudge

But they are on our side, remember.

Dear lord, Bush needs to push to get these leakers behind bars. Until he gets serious these same punks will leak more and more crap to the anti Bush media sources. I can just see the Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer's and the same cast of liberal news shows hammering Bush the next few weeks. Hopefully Bush continues his proactive approach on this.

always gets away with anything

...prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States...

What strategy can the government use to proove that the U.S. has been harmed or that foreign powers have benefitted from the publishing this information?

Blogosphere conjecture is one thing, proving something in a court of law is another.

As not having to show actual harm but the potential for harm. That would be relatively easy. How many leaks of secrets to the NYT do we get before our allies become a little less open sharing their intel with us?

Back when people were calling for Robert Novak to be thrown in the slammer ovre Valerie Plame Wilson a friend made this distinction for me:  It's illegal for someone in the governement to leak the information, but the free press is allowed to publsh what it likes.  The reason being that the press has no responisibility under the law to keep secrets but those in government (especially those given security clearances) do bear that responsibility.  So the Times may walk and leakers at the CIA, NSA, etc. face penalties.  Unless there is some "whistleblower" exemption of which I am not aware.

Perhaps someone can recall how this discussion was resolved previuously?

Are you saying that the leak of any secret information to the Times constitutes a crime? Or are you saying that only the leak of potentially harmful secret information constitutes a crime?

If it's the former, then one only has to prove that it was secret. If it's the latter, then one has to convince the jury that the leak was harmful. I think that's a big difference to the people trying the case.

Going forward the government could start shutting down media outlets because they were providing information that was "potentially" harmful to the US.

About time we one upped the The Sedition Act.

That is recycled pap, and the ACLU is so extreme and so bereft of credibility on civil liberty issues that this is clearly just a diversion.

They know they acted as poltroons by outing the NSA program to wreck the Patriot Act, and just want a distraction.

There is also the question of whether you could point to a pattern of behavior over time. That would be pretty easy to do with the NYT.

It does specifically say classified information... so the bar is higher than that.

Nothing would should we are serious about our rights like incarcerating the publishers of the most reputable newspaper in the world.

You might want to read a little further.

Nick's not giving the full story when it comes to this.

To cut to the chase.  The Times is not necessarily in violation of any law by publishing this information.  As a matter of fact it is LIKELY that they aren't.

It's OK to leak the information as long as the White House does the leaking. ;-)

The NSA leak has a lot more potential to be classified as whistle blowing because of the current consensious that this is illegal ( IANAL, but even Fox is having a heard time comming up with a legal justification for these actions ).  

Either way it just seems like a mess and I egerly await more information from this Administration to justify these actions.  I don't want to jump to conclusions, but currently they have done a poor job of communicating their reasoning to subvert the FISA or change the law.

This leak is almost an exact copy of one that happened earlier with UBL himself. UBL used a satellite phone. Unbeknownst to him, we were listening in. And then the New York Times published the fact that we were intercepting his satellite phone. Well guess what? He stopped using that phone.

We lost track of UBL, we lost the ability to overhear his communications, and the next thing we knew the twin towers went down.

Showing harm from these kinds of leaks will be easy.

I like how you are pinning the blame of 9/11 on The New York Times. That takes a special kind of deceit.

The NYT is hardly as reputable as you would like to think.  

You seem to think it would be ok for high ranking officials to be arrested for sllegedly spilling secrets, why would this be any different.  If they broke the law by outing classified material, then they get what's coming to them.

Bet you though Sandy Berger was just keepin them documents he stole for birdcage liner huh?

You operate under an obvious double standard.

VW

When did the New York Times become a high ranking official?

As for Sandy Berger I realize that he destroyed the proof that Bill Clinton struck a deal with Osama Bin Laden but what can you do?

Showing harm from these kinds of leaks will be easy.

Are you saying your strategy would be establish that historically leaks of classified information have done harm, and from there establish that this leak has the potential to do harm as well?

Or are you saying that it is inevitable that this specific leak about warrantless searches will do harm, and we just have to sit back and wait for the harm to happen so we can have our trial?

I place the blame on UBL, who financed its planning and execution. But there is no question that we were in a good position to have caught it in time, except for an act by the New York Times that had the effect of warning him that his satellite phone was not secure. He clearly had not realized that fact prior to the leak by the most reputable newspaper on West 43rd Street.

administration Needs to have a policy inplace where all employees are encouraged with money and promotions to spy and snitch on all other employees. that way anyone who leaks is going to be discovered and then deal with the leakers harshly.

 Secondarily, it would be to the publics advantage to have all federal empoyees living in a state of constant fear.

"Conclusions" is about 50 stories down. There is no "consensious" (sic) unless you spent all day shoveling in the DKos Krap pile.

Look, if you want to say that the New York Times tipped off Bin Laden regarding cell phones, so be it.  Personally I have a hard time believing that since Tom Clany wrote a novel about this sort of thing over 10 years ago.  

But are you seriously suggesting that Bin Laden was in direct contact with the 9/11 crew?  That is VERY hard to accept.

Let's face it...the NYT is not on our side in the War on Terror...they are actively working to undermine our war effort.

This will only end when the public gets mad enough to demand from the news media an end to this madness of subjecting the US govt to endless handwringing over every decision during time of war.

We need to demand that the media outlets cease to allow the NYT to dictate the media agenda.  It's not like the NYT has such a sterling record these days, anyway.

The NYT is a friend of the terrorists, and not of the US.

rationalizing and equivicating for the Kowardly Left?

I laugh when I see this latest "revelation" from the NYT.

Notice how the NYT confuses issues...the surveillance without going through the FISA court, and vague "surveillence, intelligence gathering activities"...including those approved by the FISA court.

Notice how any surveillance of these groups may be due to the fact that terrorist groups often operate under a front of a charity or similar group...often a left wing group.  There are several so-called Muslim charities working for poverty relief that are nothing but fronts for terrorist activities and funding.  But, hey, the NYT expects terrorist groups to register with names like "Terrorists United" or "Money for Bombs"...

Cool idea.

But I wouldn't stop there. I think the government should go through a rebranding effort - much like a can of soda or a 4-door sedan - and cast itself in its new image.

For starters we could start by calling the new government:

The Kremlin

and it's obviously doubtful you could get by the LSAT, much less basic rules of statutory interpretation Nick.  Try reading the rest of the statute as flyerhawk suggests first.  Then apply the rule that statutes must be narrowly construed so as to not create constitutional problems (here, the first amendment issue of freedom of the press comes into play) and you'll see there's....hmmm...oh yeah...ZERO chance the NY times committed any sort of crime.  Your hysterics are absurd to the nth degree.

I think we should start calling the liberal media and in particular, the NYT, "Pravda."

I shiver about the Dems and their allies in the liberal media, which functions as an arm of the DNC, actually having the potential to tie us up and hinder our efforts to actually prevent another terrorist attack.

9-11 happened because Clinton was asleep at the wheel of national security for 8 years; if the Dems have their way, they will so tie our hands in the War on Terror that we will suffer far worse than another 9-11.

Any terrorist already knows there is a chance we are listening in to a conversation. Now all they know is that we may be doing it without a warrant. How does this compromise us in any way? How is this helping our enemies?

The leaker(s) to the NYT should be prosecuted; whether the NYT should be is another story.

Either way, the NYT is no friend of the USA in the War on Terror.

end to this madness of subjecting the US govt to endless handwringing

The public is taking care of that gradually by turning away from news businesses that act like that. The NYT's stock is down 45% over the last year, in an up market. So "Pinch" has paid dearly for his political activism. But that's for the public to decide, through the market.

Releasing classified information that is helpful to an enemy is something else entirely. Government does have a role in prosecuting that kind of behavior.

endless handwringing over every decision during time of war

"Every decision"? "Endless handwringing"? Some people find the lack of warrants to snoop on people to be profoundly disturbing. Also, if this policy is really no big deal, why are so many (on the right as well as on the left) so upset about it?

And as for your "demand" that the media outlets cease anything, we have a free press in this country. If you don't like their coverage, don't buy their paper and buy another. But we must never live in a country where people can force a press institution to do anything.

This story is hugely detrimental to the US in the War on Terror.

How So?  Well, let's keep in mind that the terrorists so far have been pretty sophisticated in studying our society and how it operates.  What if they assume that they wouldn't be spied on without a warrant, and that this gave them a window of opportunity in timing?  Now they know this not to be so...they need to ever more elusive and fast moving.

Of course, we aren't in the world of terrorists and spying and such, so we really can't conceive of the damage this has done.  Just like prior to 9-11, we couldn't conceive of the damage done to our national security through the Gorelick wall and other nonsense of the Clinton administration.

Yes, this is pretty much what I've been looking for for some time here.  Everyone here has been asking if what Bush did was legal, or if what the NYTimes did was legal.  I say that those questions will be answered by people who a) know more about law and  b) know more about the case than any of us here do.  What I want to know is (at least for the purposes of this discussion), was what the NYTimes did right?

The argument to prove that it was wrong must be centered around showing that they provided aid to the enemy, made the GWOT harder, something like that.  And, simply put, I don't see how this could go.  Terrorists now know that they can be monitored (or whatever) without a warrant.  How could that help them if they don't know if there's a warrant on them or not yet?

(PS: this is my first post.  Go easy on me.)

"Notice how any surveillance of these groups may be due to the fact that terrorist groups often operate under a front of a charity or similar group...often a left wing group.  There are several so-called Muslim charities working for poverty relief that are nothing but fronts for terrorist activities and funding."

I hear there are lots of Islamofascists running around in the "Catholic Workers group".

Seems like Abdul the Muslim would fit right in with the "Catholic Workers" group.

Better monitor those cats just to be safe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html

nonsense and you know it's nonsense. But it's more nonsense --- conicidentally their timing is perfect no :-)

I suppose they've had this in the can for a year too and it just became 'ripe.'

I don't find this spying to be disturbing at all; in fact, I find it to be reassuring that our govt is active in the War on Terror.  I'd be disappointed if the govt were doing this.

It's not like they've done this to ordinary Americans; they're doing this to people with known connections to Al Qaeda.  I don't mind that at all.

I'd rather have a govt aggressive in going after the terrorists, than one that is passive like Clinton was.

You'll have to say more about this "window of opportuninty in timing."  

Let's say you're a terrorist.  You don't know if there's a warrant out for you or not.  Case A: You know that the US will not spy on you without a warrant.  Case B: You know that the US might spy on you without a warrant.

What's different?  What can alter the timing of your actions?  

and you'd see that if the terrorists were as smart as you give them credit for (in knowing about our society) then they'd see that the FISA statute allows for searches without warrants in timeframe emergency situations.  Unfortunately, Bush didn't do the other half where you have to get retroactive approval for it.  So no, this doesn't harm at all, because Bush can still do the warrantless searches, it would just be nice if he went with the law and got a retroactive warrant like he's supposed to.

of weeks and lose his moral compass but he could past the LSAT. Just because you call yourself the "Press" doesn't absolve you of criminal acts. The NYT long ago lost any allegiance to the ideals of this Country and while it will not be prosecuted it should be derided for the scum bag it has become.

retroactive approval changes anything. The bell has been rung.

It seems you either go suddenly like nobody even knew you were dying and you're just gone.

Or you can be sick for a really long time and your friends watch you wither and as time goes on you get sicker and sicker.

Seems the Old Grey Lady is going the way of the latter. It has gotten to the point that if it is in the New York times it is dubious, not truthful.

Was to get the Iraqi elections off the front page and fast!

The elctions are an unmitigated success of the Bush policy and the Bush doctrine.

There is no way a self respecting part of the defeaticrat machine is going to allow for a full exploration of the implications of yet another piece of evidence that Pres. Bush has been right.

After all, these are the same MSM 'journalists' who support but 'false but true'.

The NYT does not care about terror attacks, does not care about national security, and certainly does not care if a bucnh of deluded Americans are off helping Ayrabs play at being civilized.

The only thing that counts for the defeaticrats is that they can declare this war a failure and that any action they take making that failure happen is justified.

The NYT did wrong regardless of the legality. GWB did right regardless of the legality. This is the problem with liberals. They have no core values so they can't tell wrong from right.

and that something is whether or not you followed the law or not.  If you do it one way, you obey the law; if you do it the other, you don't.  If the statute didn't require the retroactive warrant, then there wouldn't be anything to discuss (except maybe whether the statute was unconstitutional on its face, but that's another matter).  That obeying the law thing must get pesky when you're president though...

First, this latest revelation has nothing to do with the spying without warrants issue...but the NYT hopes that readers confuse the two.

Second, this is really nothing new...this story in other forms has been out there, and in fact, the documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act.  Hardly keeping it secret.

Third, esp. after 9-11, there was reason to suspect all types of groups, including those engaging in overt acts of "civil disobedience."  Let's face it...some of these left wing groups do have ties to some rather suspicious organizations...and terrorists could certainly piggyback on these demonstrations of "civil disobedience" to create havoc and destruction.  It's no different than what the Dems did at their DNC Convention in Boston where they kept demonstrators far away from the convention, and in a heavily secured area some referred to as a "cage."

After 9-11, it was only natural to have a very strong reaction and approach homeland security with a very strict eye.  I'd rather be too strict than too lax and have another attack.

apparently abraham lincoln and Leon both lack moral compass as they are/were attorneys, which is what you clearly insinuate.  That comment pretty much reveals everything I need to know about your worldview and views of anyone who goes to school to better themselves (like Leon, whose analysis on the statute today was pretty decent, even if I ultimately disagree with his conclusions).

You are exactly correct...this was a timed hit piece on Bush designed to take public attention off of the success in Iraq.

If things had been a disaster, do you think the NYT would have run the story, or saved it for when things were going better for Bush?  Remember their bogus story on election eve last year with the missing explosives in Iraq?

I really hope the NYT goes bankrupt.

All this talk over retroactive approval of surveillance is a joke.  

First, you have 72 hours to do so.  If you read Byron York's piece in National Review, you'd get a hint of the bureacratic hurdles in filing this in 72 hours time.  Does anyone really think that there is any bureacratic mechanism in American Govt that allows for a super quick reaction to terrorists?

It's damn hard to jump through all of the bureacratic hoops in 72 hours.

You can think of me as one of those liberals who strongly believe that there is a right and wrong; I think you'll find that most who profess to believe in moral relativism will retract any interesting form of relativism once you press them, but that's another issue.

So, yeah, let's put legality aside; the chips will fall there based on the law and the skill of lawyers.  Where are those moral arguments you alluded to?

a right and a wrong, they just have no clue how to tell them apart.

The NYT has to be Osama bin Laden's best friend in the War on Terror.

The terrorists can only win, well, by terrorizing and breaking the will of those they fight...namely, us.

And who is leading the charge in this country to defeat our will to fight the War on Terror?  The NYT.  If they had their way, we wouldn't even fight the War on Terror...we wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan, we wouldn't be engaged in the Middle East in Iraq, we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, we wouldn't be doing anything differently from what Bill Clinton did during his 8 years, which led to 9-11.  That's the NYT for you...they don't want us to fight...period.  Of course, they'd deny that, but mention anything we do to actually and tangibly fight the War on Terror, and they are steadfast against it.

obeying the law is hard so we're just not gonna do it argument?  Sorry, not buying

that first year hard part is already over

it's obviously doubtful you could get by the LSAT, much less basic rules of statutory interpretation

That would sort of depend on whether I was trying to pass an LSAT. What I was trying to do here was get people to talk about frog marching the New York Times. You're just sore that we're not talking about impeaching Bush anymore.

Try reading the rest of the statute as flyerhawk suggests first. Then apply the rule that statutes must be narrowly construed

Nyaa, you do it and explain it to me. It's time for you guys to do some work. I'm merely pointing out that the New York Times broke the law here and they need to be frog marched for it.

Your hysterics are absurd to the nth degree.

Opinion are like Democrats. Yours and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. One of the reporters on this story has a book coming out on this subject. He stands to profit personally from releasing this classified information. Freedom of the press? I think not. Does the Times have a deal to serialize all or parts of this book in its pages? I don't know, but I think we need to find out. Maybe they had a pecuniary interest in releasing classified information too. More freedom of the press? You try to sell it. I don't think you can.

Just to explain a couple of key terms for those of you who have never dealt with classified government information and who have not bothered to do your homework before sounding off, I provide this excerpt from an Information Classification White Paper produced by DoD. (Read it yourself at http://iase.disa.mil/information-classification-whitepaper.doc ).

(Emphasis added)

"2. CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Classified information shall be classified at one of the following three levels: Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret.  Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify classified information.  

(skip)

2.1 CONFIDENTIAL

Confidential shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.

2.2 SECRET

Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.

2.3 TOP SECRET

Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."

The question is not whether "one has to convince the jury that the leak was harmful". By definition, classified information causes harm if disclosed. The question is how much harm? Based on past experience, I would say that the existence of and details about this program are probably classified at the TOP SECRET level.  I do not recall ever seeing a document that could be useful to an enemy in discovering information about specific US data collection techniques that was not classified at that level. Sanitized output reports are sometimes classified at a lower level, so that necessary warnings can be communicated to operational folks with lesser clearances, but they do not contain any details that could betray an active human or technical intelligence program.

My surmise is then, that by definition, the leaking of this information to the NYT "reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security". And for that, I hope they fry the individuals who knowingly violated their clearance.

to actually go through with the bet, I bet that not only could I sell it, but I could even sell it to J. Scalia.  Arguing pecuniary interest is a foolish line of attack as papers by their nature have a pecuniary interest in releasing ALL their information, and that is irrelevant to any point.  The press is about releasing information, their intent (short of provable intent to undermine the U.S. government) is pretty much near irrelevant.

see nos. 1 and 4 in link

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/16/22446/549/13#13

and then I guess you could add

bush - wrong

opposite of bush - right

tbone - listening to these libs on war makes me less in awe of Hitler and napoleans's conquests of the lib countries of Europe. I mean I think a beer gut mens softball team could win a war against the lib weenies.

There is a good blog award out there for a blogger to pair up NYT false claims - the museum bs after the fall of Baghdad, the explsoives lie prior to the election, now the NSA.

What other false stories ahs the NYT ran up the flag pole as hit pieces on our President and this war?

Abu Ghraib as reported by the NYT - the idea that it was a general policy and frequently happened was totally false.

The abuse at gitmo - totally false.

The secret prisons appears to be false.

Of course Katrina was falsely reported to keep African Americans on the democrat plantation.

The list is actually papearing to be pretty long.

This is food for a lot of thought.

existence of and details about this program are probably classified at the TOP SECRET level

What?  The program is "they are wiretapping communications"  This is top secret? What child doesn't know about wiretapping? Anyone who watches a mob movie for 10 minutes know that the government can/will listen in to conversations in an attempt to stop crime and terrorism.  So that was no secret to anyone.

So we're back to the warrants. The only thing revealed was that Bush specifically authorized no warrants for some searches.  So what exactly in the "existence of and details about this program" was top secret?

If you try to hijack my thread about frog marching the New York Times into yet another thread about impeaching Bush, I shall boot you to the Moon.

your moral compass. Glad to hear it was hard. At least you must of had one. Seriously, Leon and Thomas know that's part my lawyer gigging sctick. I knew you were a law student type and it should work, so don't take offense about that. On the other hand, you are totally knicker knotted about the rest of it. PS second year is easier, it's mostly about bill padding.

we can't let the real story creep into Nick Danger's absurd misdirection play of "SLAY THE NYT!"  I'll quit with this issue here, but good luck getting any of the MSM, even Foxnews, to pick up on the nonsense in this thread.

I just love it.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/16/22446/549/5#5

to some of your old posts, I realize that I jumped the gun on that one.  I enjoy a spirited debate though, hence my desire to tangle.  Anyway, if I can just get through environ. law in a couple days, I'll be doing a lot better (and some post exam jack daniels always helps).

Well, now we've got them dead-to-rights leaking classified information. I want to see the Justice Department go after these guys. I'd send a hundred FBI agents in there tomorrow to take the place apart trying to find out who leaked this stuff to them.

Flora, fauna good. People bad.

Frog march the entire political staff of the Times to a federal court house right now.  They don't deserve a trial.  The whole idea that they should be able to mount a vigorous defense is pre-911 thinking of the worst sort.  Throw them all in jail.  They are traitors who deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison.  Maybe send them to Gitmo instead.  I am enraged that they had the gall to leak these secrets.  We are at war, on two fronts -- GWOT and TWOC -- and they have undermined serverly, irreparably.  They are not patriots, they are barely Americans.

that way everyone can win

is why journalists, lawyers and used car salesmen are held in such high regard ...

That the legacy media has a different agenda is not a new finding.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling,(make that leaking in this version), is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]"

...of how this leak is "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information"?  

I've been looking for an answer to this for some time, and all i've found is snark.

Don't believe in a free press, do you? Or do you think that this shocking publication (that the government is wiretapping) doesn't deserve the protection of the first amendment?

Methinks the timing of the article was when the Senate would approve the Patriot Act revision.  That makes much more sense - they made a big splash just before the vote.

I think the fact that it came out after the Iraq election was coincidence.  

And the fact that it came out 10 days before Risen's book is published is a bonus for both the NYT and Risen.  It will be interesting to see what other claims Risen has, and if the NYT publishes them also.  This may be only the first of many claims about Bush, the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.

Terrorists might think they're in the clear if they think a warrant is necessary?  

Good grief.

If they were such students of American law, then they'd know that any warrant could be issued retroactively and that they're extremely unlikely to get a heads up warning from the NSA saying "hey, we're spying on you."

Though I must say it's delightful all this sputtering and spewing about the NYT.  I thought you guys liked the NYT what with all that feel-good stuff about Chalabi and WMD.  

Must have been a May-December thing.

you'll like.

More snark

Guess what's in your stocking?

Oh, you don't suppose the government was evesdropping in an attempt to learn new coordinates for the war on christmas, do you?  How devious.

Especially since others have been asking and debating the same question on this and other threads with no clear answer.

You can try to declare it "stupid" but that doesn't explain anything.

I hope you are only a conservative trying (a la devil's advocate) to defend the US Consitution.  But, alas, I fear you are a misguided liberal. Free press is one thing, intentionally pulling this stunt right around the time of the elections and GWBs speeches is another.  It smacks of childish whining... sneaky passive aggressiveness.

I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal.

wThe original poster called for the entire political staff of the NYT to be jailed for this article.  I then asked if he a) did not believe in a free press or b) if he did, did he think this article did not deserve those protections? What's your take on his post?

Assuming your post to be true: "childish whining... sneaky passive aggressiveness. " You call it a "stunt" etc.  Fine. Label it, denigrate it, disagree with it all you want.  My question is, "Does the first amendment protect them?" Yes or No?

If you are going to condemn the NYT for this, then you must also Condemn Bob Novak for leaking Plame's name and identity as a CSA agent.

Make no mistake, if you do not think that these spy tactics on Americans are way over the top and a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment and the built-in checks and balances of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of The Land, then you are no conservative!  "Conservative" used to mean that you were for limited government, and this is very quickly spiraling out of control into an Executive branch that is limited only by the brashness of its own agenda, Constitution be damned.  This is not what I voted for!

which part is "stupid"?

and will anyone actually answer the question?

Now you're talking!

But don't stop there. We should also pass laws that authorize arresting all Democrats, and imprisoning them for crimes against the throne!

That will place about 50% of the population in prison and immediately solve all the Bolshevik entitlement programs!

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one, so once we have our Kremlin government and Pravda media, we definitely will need to change the title of President to Tsar! And speaking out against the "Tsar" will be akin to acting against the "throne" - an imprisonable offense.

"Thought", I think we're getting somewhere! Keep the ideas coming!

Hear hear. About time someone else said this.

My father was in Army Intelligence. Before that, his father was in the OSS. These men had a clear and consistent sense of patriotism, of duty, and of abiding the law. Even with what stakes they faced in a greater, clearer conflict; they at all times taught me that adherence to the law is noneogtiable. If you cannot finnd a way to achieve your aims within in a position of power, you violate the sanctitiy and responsibilty people have put in your care.

Moral relativism can be appreciated; the discourse in our country which all too easily falls into high pitched shrieking extremism on both sides negates any attempts to truly observe what's going on with any complexity. I'd like for most liberals to try and get their heads around Thermopylae, the story recounted by Herodotus in his Histories.

I'd also like for my conservative brethren to pull their heads out of their rears and stop thinking that loyalty to a poltiical party is the same thing as having Conservative values. Maybe you all ought to read Julius Caesar.

Conservative values to me mean fiscal responsibility, clear moral values, a sense of justice and fairness, the quashing of any attempt to violate or censure a free press (one of the absolute fundementals this country was conceived under and the very thing we're supposed to be fighting for in Iraq), and respectfulness of Americans rights to bear arms and their privacy.

I also, as a Conservative, believe in the entrepreneurial spirit as exemplified by all Americans who work hard fairly to get ahead with their own businesses. That's not the same thing as having a company like Enron and the culture that followed in the wake of senior citizen abusing dorks who ran that shop.

Bush is definitely the CEO president. Power grabs, doublespeak, and an absolute display of dishonesty combined with arrogance and disconnection. I have never in all my life seen a president who seems so out of touch with what's going on, and I mean that from the bottom of my Montana raised heart. The news in the past few days has disgusted me to the point of not wanting to be silent any more.

I am a proud Conservative, who ignores all the specious ranting on cable news and looks at things as they are. Our country is in bad shape. Our deficit is collosal. Our army is weakened and stretched thin. Many of these soldiers coming home are not happy nor are they well looked after in the combat zones, which you can squarely blame on the Democrats but that doesn't fix the problem.

And with all of Bush's constant woe and lying now we have a public starting to turn against our Conservative majority and starting to think that yes, a pullout and troop reduction is in order.

We have no choice but to commit to Iraq now until it is over. But again, the liberals will not read Herodotus, and most of my fellow Americans who think alike are all so busy happy that Republicans are in power they haven't stopped to think about the corrupt, bloated sellouts those people are.

"after 9-11, there was reason to suspect all types of groups, including those engaging in overt acts of "civil disobedience.""

So, does that mean the federal government should have been monitoring pro-life protestors? Pro death penalty protestors? How about anti-immigration protestors? Should the FBI have been monitoring all the groups protesting on behalf of Terri Schiavo?

Or are we just talking about all groups engaging in overt liberal acts of "civil disobedience"?

And I'll just say this again because I find it hysterical:

"Catholic Workers group"?

Anyone want to defend the FBI monitoring these guys on the grounds that terrorists may have infiltrated them?

Catholic. Workers. Group.

Thought, can you confirm how many FISA warrant applications were unsuccessful over the past 10 years?

I'm hearing it's an exceedingly low number, but am wondering if you came across any hard data about how restrictive the bureaucratic hurdles are.

Maybe Byron York referenced in the article you mention. I don't have a link to his article, however.

Any data on the number of warrant applications that were rejected?

Catholic. Workers. Group. is supposedly being monitored, but there is a radical and virulently anti-American left wing of the Catholic church.

Maryknoll. Fathers. for. example.

And does any "shield" law protect the identity of leaker(s) who knowingly violated the law by disclosing highly classified information?

yes it does, but just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.  It takes some self-discipline and discretion to be mature and moral.  Yes, they had a right to print it.  No, they had a moral duty to protect this country and they knew that doing this was another in a long string of left-engineered stunts designed to embarrass this nation, divide this nation, and ultimately, endanger this nation.

This is RED STATE, not Kos or some Howard Dean fan site.  This is a site that is specifically for conservative ideas.  As you have shown in your posting, you have a very liberal view.  Stop trying to be an agitator and go to some left wing website and be with your own.

The NYT is an advocacy organization, they care nothing about the factual news, and they have an agenda that they push in their news stories as well as their editorials.

It's rare that I see a comment that so perfectly mirrors my own here.  All too often it is just the partisan screaming that fills the ears rather than dialogue.  Even though I've been here almost from the very beginning I very rarely post because any dissent here is seen as treason.  This thread is a perfect example.  It seems my party is leaving me.  Thanks for giving me hope that the process is not yet complete.

It does not protect speech that is seditious, for example. This particular bit of speech did exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. I would prefer that this speech be punished under law, with due process. That's because, if the New York Times doesn't knock it off, and continues to pretend that they are above the law with respect to classified information, they will end up getting some of our troops to think in terms of street justice. It would be very easy, for example, for a bureau reporter in Baghdad to be taken under fire, especially if he's meeting with known militants. "Accidents" and "unfortunate events" happen in war.

...but how is what going on unreasonable?  I'm re-reading the original New York Times article and it states clearly that "the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages" and that the agency "still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications."  The monitoring seems to be based on information from the captured computers and cell phones of terrorists.  The phone numbers and email addresses may be that of people in the US, and the quicker that person is captured, the better it is for all of us.

The 4th Amendment denies the government can do unreasonable search and seizures, but I don't see that here.  The timeframe with regards to how quickly information can be lost is very, very small, especially with the technology available, and a delay can lead to disaster, maybe even another 9/11.  The NYT piece states that the judge of the FISA court, Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, said the NSA material could not be used in seeking warrants.  So what we have here is a judge that could possibly be hindering the efforts to stop potential acts terrorism in the US, while we are at war (for some unknown reason not presented in the article).  

The President's Constitutional Article II, Section 2 authority as Commander-in-Chief requires him/her to act accordingly, especially during wartime.  Had information gathered with this method not allowed to be used and another major terrorist attack occurred, the people would be screaming for Bush's head, and rightly so.

With deference to the comment about the OSS and WWII, the times and technologies are much different and more advanced than they were then.  As an example, when a Nazi agent would enter this country, he was, for all intents and purposes, on his own to complete his missions.  If he was suspected of anything, the time needed to get all the appropriate warrants would not have significantly hindered the efforts of authorities in tracking down and arresting the agent.  That isn't the case today.  An entire operation, including command and control, can be communicated from thousands of miles away and with an ability unheard of in WWII.  Time is of the essence, especially during wartime.  Instead of referencing Julius Caesar, a more appropriate read would be Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

The reason you rarely post here, you flippin' drama queen, is that you are trolling for the libs, and doing a really bad job of it. Seminar posters using liberal talking points are easy to recognize.

As for spas12, having a macho-he-man screen name doesn't improve your trolling skills.

Nothing would should we are serious about our rights like incarcerating the publishers of the most reputable newspaper in the world.

To paraphrase Denis Leary, I have two words for you:

JAYSON *&^%$#@! BLAIR!

should have been shut down as a Soviet front in the 1980s or earlier. It was really active in funneling money to the Sandinistas, the commie guerillas in El Salvador, and with CISPES in the US.

I don't know what it's done lately but I certainly don't have any objection to it being watched.

...has engaged in sabotage of US strategic weapons systems, among other things.

They also headed up the Sanctuary movement, which has helped give us our massive illegal alien problem by getting local governments to cease LE cooperation with immigration officers.

As a Catholic, I can only view the Catholic Worker movement as being engaged in constructive treason.

"Anyone want to defend the FBI monitoring these guys on the grounds that terrorists may have infiltrated them?"

Yes. The "Catholic Workers Group" is a hard-core, anti-American, Marxist organization that uses the Catholic Church to provide a figleaf of respectability for their sabotage of American defense systems, espionage on behalf of hostile powers, smuggling of illegal immigrants of unknown provenance, and generally behaving in a fashion that should be rewarded by having them dance Danny Deever.

"The first amendment does not protect all speech/"

Thank you.  That was my point, not that "I don't believe in a free press" -- I do -- or that I'm a "misguided liberal" -- I'm not.  What the Times did is simply not protected by the the First Amendment.  End of story.

They list among their favored affiliations a link to the International Action Center. And, of course, they're still doing their standard School of the Americas screeching.

Nuff said.

Balfour should take a closer look at them -- he might be interested in joining up.

How is what the administration is doing different than what Argentina and Chile did in the 70s?  They were under the threat of internal terrorism and they  took action.

How is what the administration is doing different than what Argentina and Chile did in the 70s?

We're not executing hundreds of people without due process of law because we dislike their politics, for starters...

We have no objection when the FBI monitors the Klan.  We don't object when they monitor the various separatist militia movements.  We don't object when they monitor suspected mafioso.

So why should we object when they monitor groups with dubious reputations, histories of bad behavior and odd allegiances?

Ass poohbah and others have said, the Catholic Workers Group is neither affiliated with the Catholic Church or actually for real workers.  So they are a Group with good naming concepts.  Why should they be sacrosanct from observation in your mind?

Some people don't like that sort of thing.

...is good for the old gray goose.    

I like how you are pinning the blame of 9/11 on The New York Times. That takes a special kind of deceit.

Oh, spare me.  Nick is pointing out the risk of the media compromising sources and methods.

I work in the intelligence community.  Once a source for information is gone, we may never get it back.  EVER!!!  The bad guys may switch to a means of communication we can't crack.  The HUMINT source feeding us the info might disappear.  His friends, seeing him disappear and not wanting to be next on the list, choose not to talk to us.

If the NYT compromised some critical intelligence sources, which then went away--and those sources might have given us info that could have stopped 9/11--then, that would be a bad thing, wouldn't it?  I'd gladly seen the NYT staff lose a few Pulitzers and Peabodys, if it meant we could have kept the Twin Towers and the, oh, three thousand people who were in them.  But HEY...that's just me.

Flippant thinking of the kind displayed in your quote (italicized above) shows a special kind of lazy and unrealistic thinking.

Fortunately, the American voters have removed those who are driven by such thinking (Democrats) from power.  We are much safer for it.

The Argentine government considered them terrorists, remember? There is no due process of law when dealing with terrorists.

loser.

I've been known to have blackouts at times in my life but I'm real sure I haven't had one in a decade or so. When did we have the coup? Who are the generals on the junta?

Just joking.

You've been previously warned by another editor for content-free posts. This continues that tradition. Find other people to bother.

He's alright,for the most part.  He's not like most of the lefties that come here with their little GoodWillHunting Talking-Point-O-Matic diatribes.  Yes, he quibbles a bit, and he likes to whittle his points down as he goes, but he will engage you in constructive conversation if you are willing.

can call for desperate measures.

the most reputable after Weekly World News.