New York Times Terror Leak

[Rev Rabies]

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.

[Hi no Seijin]

I say we burn their headquarters to the ground. >:(

I'll do the honors.

They 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?"

[MagmarFire]

Maybe certain NYT employees have some ties up with the government. That's my best guess.

[Gamefreak]

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?

[John Wesley Hardin]

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.

[MasterKeyX]

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.

[John Wesley Hardin]

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.

[Hi no Seijin]

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.

[MasterKeyX]

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!

[John Wesley Hardin]

But it had already been announced therefore it was not at all dangerous.  They have a website for goodness sake.

[Hi no Seijin]

It's the principle of the matter now.  We're a free country, but we have to exercise our freedom responsibly.

[MasterKeyX]

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.

[John Wesley Hardin]

How can you justify your argument when your automatic response is to accuse it of being "untrustworthy" just because it is liberal.

[Hi no Seijin]

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.

[MasterKeyX]

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.