New York Times? You're under arrest.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    My bold. Plain Dealer link

    I grow genuinely cold when I hear them say things like "something should be done." To me, that means we're sliding further down the slippery slope. We've not only defanged most of the media, but the few voices that still dare to speak up have to be concerned about criminal prosecution now. Are we going to arrest publishers and editors now, like the Gestapo and the KGB did?
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    i bet half the reason the administration has unleased King on the NYT is for its chilling effects. the other half is probably because of the midterms.

    i don't reckon this'll be pursued. at least i hope not.
     
  3. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #3
    Keith Olbermann had a great segment regarding this on his June 28 broadcast. Basically, he showed a group called SWIFT that's been around for years discussing this, their website, and their magazine. He also showed half a dozen clips of Bush throughout the years saying what the Times reported. Crazy.

    P.S. He also destroyed Bill O'Relly later on in the show. Priceless. :D
     
  4. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #4
    Don't you just love Bush's comment about wartime secrets? What a great strategy! Cause a war then do what you like because the press can't comment. A politician's dream maybe, but does he honestly think that it's reality?
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    So how come it wasn't treason when Bob Novak published the name of a CIA NOC agent?

    Anyhoo... Glenn Greenwald lays out the facts on this situation:
    The Bush administration isn't upset about The Times publishing national security secrets. They're upset about The Times publishing things that are unfavorable to the Bush administration. Unfortunately, to a Bush supporter, there is no difference between the two.
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    Do we want or need a govt that does everything in secret behind close doors because of a some thugs on the otherside of the planet that they refuse to catch? Anyone remember the Saudi family that has such very close ties to to the Bush family. Bin Ladens? National Security is being abused by this administration for anything they want to do including torture. The people need to know what the govt is doing. At the moment there doesnt appear to be any oversite of this administration by Congress.
    Treason is taking us into a war over lies. Thats treasonous, or how about ignoring your oath of office while the mexican invasion continues. If anyone is guilty of something its the current administration of spin. So they are spying on Americans,listening to the phone calls,looking at our bank records and who knows what else because they are the ones that let the terrorist into the country in the first G.D. place. I want to know what my govt is doing because they have shown over & over & over they cant be trusted without oversite on anything.
     
  7. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #7
    I have to support taking the NY Times to court.

    I think it's a fantastic idea.

    Just imagine how many 9/11 related stories have been tucked away in the
    NY Times archives.
    The stories they sat on, because they were too hot.

    Have we forgotten that New York actually was a target that day?
    Have we forgotten about all those gag orders? missing evidence and lack of
    customary forensic procedure?

    Go ahead GOP, drag their ass into court where your witnesses have to
    testify under oath. This should be great, right before the elections.

    Back the N.Y. Times into a legal corner and prepare to get butts shredded when they defend themselves.
     
  8. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #8
    I think its good. NYT is getting ridiculous and posting stories nobody needs to know that serve no purpose other than to *possibly* clue-in bad guys to what the government is doing to them.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Would you support charges against the WSJ as well?

    And do you really think al-Qaeda is dumb enough to think we don't track their calls or their money?
     
  10. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #10
    Wow. SWIFT is releasing information about foreign citizens to the US govt. even though it is illegal according to European law. Anyone who feels that the NYT should be prosecuted for this should be looking over his own shoulder because it certainly won't be long before the govt. has a dossier on you.
     
  11. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #11
    Yes.

    Yes.

    I really wouldn't mind if the government did. It would make me feel safe knowing that if it had, it must have one on everybody, and therefore will easily find people wanting to do harm to me or my family. I don't do anything that I want to hide from the government.
     
  12. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #12

    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." - Benjamin Franklin
     
  13. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    I'll be that 20-30 years ago you would have been one of the most vocal when it came to protesting against this very same thing when applied to the USSR or the Eastern Bloc.

    How can you consider youreslf an American much less someone who is willing to uphold the Constitution?
     
  14. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #14
    Don't quote founding fathers. I'm sure if they saw what you (the left) was doing now, they would be horrified.

    If it's done right, it would probably actually be beneficial. It just shamefully hasn't been done right in the past - with the government spying on citizens to protect the government, rather than to protect the citizens.

    I am... once it's ammended it will be perfect.
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    the Spelling Amendment, i presume.
     
  16. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #16

    Good comback :rolleyes:

    I'm sure they would be more horrified with the fact that you (the right) are destroying everything they fought for.
     
  17. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #17
    We'll have to let the FF speak for themselves. Since few of them were professed Christians, you'll have little chance of ever knowing.

    So, you're willing to implicitly trust your government to maintain a file on you under any and all circumstances? We don't have to look far back into our history to discover that well-intentioned government spy programs inevitably are abused at the expense of the average American. Your faith in the government is so broad that I can't help but feel you have little knowledge of history or of human greed.

    Ahh, so the present form of the USC is an imperfect piece of paper and only when your god is granted rights above all others will it reach a state of nirvana?
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #18

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


    What part of that don't you understand? The entire thing? The bit about the press? Big words like "the"? Or the small ones like "a"?
     
  19. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #19
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Would you support charges against Bush for revealing the same information?
     
  21. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #21
    about dpaanlka

    hey kids -- just so you know who you're dealing with...

     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    *roflmao*
    *wipes tears away*
    And righties claim the LEFT is angry. Good god man, get some help!
     
  23. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #23

    Didn't have much respect for him before....certainly don't have any now.

    From Myspace:

    Interests:
    * Being a Tyrannical Dictator


    Kinda goes against hating terrorists. Then again, I guess he just wants to follow in dubya's footsteps.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    What a cocktail. Bound to be trouble...
     
  25. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #25

    god damn, I didn't even see that one.

    I know if one of my kids ever said they weren't proud of their ancestor's heritage...not saying they have to love it, but saying they weren't proud to be ____, then I'd be tempted to slap them (good thing I don't have kids then ;)).
     

Share This Page