As some of you may know. A few weeks ago, the New York Times printed a story telling about a secret U.S plan to track Taliban spending records. Of course, the Taliban now knows about this. The Times are facing a lot of heat because they leaked top-secret U.S plans to defeat terrorism. The Times are defending themselves by saying what I like to call "Pleading the first" Which basically means that the First Ammendment covers their right to Free Speech. What do all of you think?
I think they ought to go to hell for leaking important information like that. Isn't that tecnically treason in which case the First Amendment wouldn't matter?
It's definitely a contradictory event. I guess you could call this a "gray area". Personally I think when in times of war, important military information should be kept secure.
Really, no kidding. Sometimes, you need to abolish freedom to maintain/obtain freedom. Yes, it sounds like an oxymoron, but in this case, it sounds like it's true.
well so much for that plan.
Emperor Palpabush should behead those traitors with his lightsaber!
Seriously, what good did the The New York Times think would come from that?
Why, the American public would know about the plan that's what. ::)
It's like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one. It gets people hurt. What most people don't realize is that with freedom comes responsbilility. The First Amendment lets you say what you want, but that doesn't mean you get to act like an idiot.
I live in New York, so im very angered by this. Heres how i see it: the New York Times' idiotic article may be in line with the first ammendment, but that doesnt matter: they're endangering the country and its people and its very inconsiderate.
And it was a very successful plan until The Times revealed it.
yep, that's the New York Slimes. always bashing bush and being as liberal as theyu can be. >:(
that is extremely stupid. Why would anyone else but the military need to know this? I think it was very stupid of them to print top secret info out in public like that.
Yeah. Thanks New York Times. We love you.
I say we burn their headquarters to the ground. >:(
I agree. They put us in danger just to get a "good story." Well, thats very selfish New York Times, and thenaks for the insecurities. >:(
I think that crosses the line of rationality.
That actually is treason, for all we know the heads of new york times could be spies telling the "public" about the us's plans.
Quote from: Darth Wyndisis on July 12, 2006, 03:52:51 PM
I say we burn their headquarters to the ground. >:(
I'll do the honors.
QuoteThey put us in danger just to get a "good story."
That's the sad thing about newspapers. All they care about is selling their papers. It should be a service to the public. If the public doesn't need to know it, such as top secret government information or the personal lives of celebrities (sorry, had to put that one in), they shouldn't report it. But no, it's just a business for them.
My question is, "If that was top secret government info, then how did the New York Times get it?"
Maybe certain NYT employees have some ties up with the government. That's my best guess.
So you're commending the Times? I think that in a time of war, the media shouldn't reveal extremely important data that the other side has easy access.
Take for example:
You're fighting with your friend. When you have a plan to get back at them, I come up and say out loud, your entire plan to get back at them. Would YOU be happy?
You seem to believe that the New York Times has committed some terribly evil act.
You clearly forget that it was George W. Bush who announced this program, SWIFT, to track terrorists spending in 2001:
"We know that many of these individuals and groups operate primarily overseas, and they don't have much money in the United States. So we've developed a strategy to deal with that. We're putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice, we will work with their governments, ask them to freeze or block terrorist's ability to access funds in foreign accounts."
George W. Bush (2001)
Not exactly top secret. When the Bush Administration's Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked about how terrorists could not possibly know about SWIFT, his best response was:
"I'm saying, yes. I think that a lot of people didn't know about the existence of Swift."
Conclusive proof clearly.
Of cource if you don't believe me you could always check their website, http://www.swift.com/ - not open to terrorists obviously.
Thats not the point, the New York Times should've never published a story like that in the first place, no matter what the circumstances are! It was inconsiderate and selfish no matter which way you look at it.
So are you saying that the government has the right to control what is written in newspapers - bearing in mind America is a free country.
The government can't say what goes into newspaper, but that doesn't mean the staff can just say anything they want. If the story has the potential to put the country into jeopardy, it would be common sense not to run it. It's like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one. It will get innocent people hurt. By the way, this is illegal, no matter what the Constitution says.
The Constitution gives us all of these freedoms, but it is our duty to exercise them responsibly. Leaking information that can hurt innocent people is not responsible.
Quote from: Jack Fate on July 13, 2006, 10:51:03 AM
So are you saying that the government has the right to control what is written in newspapers - bearing in mind America is a free country.
That is absolutely not what i am saying, im saying the idiot's shouldnt have printed the story ever. IT WAS DANGEROUS!
But it had already been announced therefore it was not at all dangerous. They have a website for goodness sake.
It's the principle of the matter now. We're a free country, but we have to exercise our freedom responsibly.
Ok, it wasnt dangerous. Point taken.
But here my other point:
This proves the new York Times is a liberal, bush bashing, untrustworthy "newspaper" that thinks they can do whatever they want under the first ammendment. They can't. They can't publish whatever they want if it ever jeopardizes people, and knowing the New York Times, they will in the future.
How can you justify your argument when your automatic response is to accuse it of being "untrustworthy" just because it is liberal.
Okay, now Jack Fate has a point. Just because the people who run it are in a different political party than you doesn't automatically make them untrustworthy. I think newspapers would be better off just printing the facts, but opinions need to be in their too, because that's the purpose of a newspaper. To inform people and expose them to different ideas. Don't bash them just because they bash Bush.
Very true, i was wrong to say they were untrustworhty just because they are of a different party, or because they bash bush.
Its the principle of the whole matter, i dont like the fact they printed the stroy in the first place. it made it more accesible and open to the public than it was before.
I never said I distrusted them because they were a different party.
i did, he was aiming his remark towards me.
Quote from: Jack Fate on July 13, 2006, 09:26:34 AM
You clearly forget that it was George W. Bush who announced this program, SWIFT, to track terrorists spending in 2001:
Your argument is a Strawman based on two facts: (1) yes, terrorists knew we were tracking their money, and (2) SWIFT does openly exist, because it is a legitimate intergovernmental organization.
Where the rubber means the road and your strawman falls down is that (1) terrorists didn't know HOW we were tracking the money, what channels we were using, and therefore what banks/financial systems/etc. to avoid (whereas now they do), and (2) just because SWIFT exists openly doesn't mean the terrorists knew that we were using SWIFT to track money.
The problem here is that the NY Times revealed exactly what methods we were using to track terror funds, where the money was being watched from, and gave fair warning to terrorists of what channels to avoid when moving money in the future.
There was no public interest in this revelation, and it was done purely as a finger in the eye of the Bush administration.
I really should get more into current affairs. 8)
So, we're back to calling the New York Times idiots now, I presume?
Jack never said anything about them being idiots.
I know, but I'm just asking if other people will go back to the conclusion that the NYT is full of idiots. Because I certainly think so.
I never said that they were idiots. I think that they crossed a line when it came to rational thinking.
Fair point. And maybe I'm being a tad bit harsh, and irrational myself.
Well, sometimes you have to be that way to emphasize your opinion.
In this case, I'd say the press could be America's worst enemy. Journalism can be so IRRITATING sometimes!
Especially when it comes to all of those tabloid magazines who follow every aspect of a celebrity's life. I hate the paparazzi.
the press i liberally biased,k so anything they do will be to hurt bush or [eople trust in him. This makes them veery agrivating.
I wish they would back the hell off and report the damn news as it is.
The news is the only reason we lost Vietnam.