Defending the Truth

New York Times Is Supposed to Be Better Than Others
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
By John Gibson

The New York Times is supposed to be better than others in the reporting biz, but if that is so it is going to have to start paying attention to its own history, being mindful of what it has said in the past.

Right now it is saying the revelation of a secret program to track terrorist money transfers through the banking system was a legitimate news story. The reasoning seems to go like this:

First, no the program was not illegal but it was questionable. Second, it was something the public should know about. And three, the revelation of secret programs doesn't seem to have stopped them. That is, revealing the secret NSA listening program didn't stop it. Same with the secret program to watch banking transfers. Banking transfers will continue and the feds will continue to watch.

Of course, in the case of both the NSA listening program and the banking transfer program it seems that only the stupidest Al Qaeda member will now get caught. The feds can go on listening and watching, but what terrorist is going to use systems he or she has been warned are under constant surveillance?

Then there is the little matter of what The New York Times itself has demanded in these areas. In September of 2001 — about two weeks after the 9/11 attacks — The New York Times demanded the Bush administration keep an eye on terrorist funding.

In one of its unsigned editorials titled "Finances of Terror," The Times insisted to Bush that: "Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities."

So the Bush administration goes out and does just what The New York Times says. It institutes a legal program to keep an eye on international banking transactions. And what happens? Five years later The New York Times decides it has to reveal the existence of this program, effectively rendering it useless.

So what am I supposed to make of this? That The Times suggests things the government should be doing in order to have a big story a few years down the road after the government has taken The Times' advice?

The Times thought it was a good idea for the government to be tracking terror money transfers, but The Times also thinks it is a good idea to reveal that such efforts are underway, thereby canceling out the value of the very thing Times editors thought was a valuable anti-terror tool.

This is a type of thinking that most Americans don't understand. Frankly, I don't either and I've worked in the news business a very long time.

http://tinyurl.com/fwuw4

Of course I will deny your right to rape my daughter. Did I ever say that we should never deny a right or a freedom? We deny rights and freedoms all the time.

What I said is that freedom does not bring responsibility. Our laws deny your freedom to rape my daughter. You therefore have the responsibility not to rape my daughter, not because you are free, but because your freedom to rape has been denied.

If you were free to rape anyone, you would not have to be responsibile about who you rape. But since our laws say you aren't free to rape people, you now have the responsibility not the rape people. Responsibility is the opposite of freedom.

A United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site. The big 'secret' revealed by the NY Times was public knowledge already.
The Swift program, like the wiretapping program, has been under way for years with no restrictions except those that the executive branch chooses to impose on itself or, in the case of Swift, that the banks themselves are able to demand. This seems to me very much the sort of thing the other branches of government, and the public, should be aware of.
News reporters work under the assumption that they should let the people know anything important that the reporters learn, unless there is some grave and overriding reason for withholding the information. They try hard not to base those decisions on political calculations, like whether a story would help or hurt the administration. It is certainly unlikely that anyone who wanted to hurt the Bush administration politically would try to do so by writing about the government's extensive efforts to make it difficult for terrorists to wire large sums of money.
Most recently, The Times held its reporting about the government's secret antiterror wiretapping program for more than a year while it weighed administration objections. These two programs where not being ok-ed by the laws in place made by our goverment. These two programs were not being run legally(via a warrant from the supreme court) as is the law. Like it our not the times was correct for reporting the fact that once again this administration thinks the current situation in our war on terror gives them the right to be operate above the law. Seems funny how the Administration now is trying to put the rap on the Times, drawing attention away from the original point of it's own wrong-doing.

So by your very admission here, there are limits to freedom. That means responsibility. If no one was responsible, then rape would be legal and I could rape your daughter. However, it appears some people had the responsibility to pass laws that would punish me for exercising what I consider to be my freedom.

You know, you're example is very troubling. I hope this isn't a window into who or what you really are.

Nobody is saying that there aren't limits to freedom.

Gross hyperbole is not an arguing tactic, but a demonstration that you have no argument.

LOL. Maybe I should stop using myself as the rapist. NO, I am not a rapist. I am happily married with 5 children all grown and raised. I was trying to use an example.

Obviously then, a bunch of Americans consider burning the American flag and gay marriage to be limits of freedom. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

The USSC says burning the American flag is not against the law. If there is a constitutional amendment saying it is, then the USSC has to say it is not lawful. There is no way around it.

Uh. Duh!
I consider a law preventing burning the flag and preventing gay marriage to be limits of freedom.

If you want to show how the existence is a "limit of freedom", then please do so.
Otherwise, I don't know what point you're trying to make.


No arguments on that either.
The point at hand is whether or not we should amend the constitution TO RESTRICT our freedoms and rights.

Obviously, the significance of such a move is lost upon you...

Yep. That's life. Tough. Cry me a river. Grow up.