By Hume's Ghost -- "If [Bill Keller] were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber" - Talk show host Melanie Morgan
Treason has been prosecuted around 40 times in US history. Less than 30 convictions have resulted. It's the only crime outlined in the Constitution and it was defined to specifically prohibit specious charges of treason, which the Founders recognized to be a tool of tyranny.
Authors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, in Banana Republicans, quote James Madison from The Federalist #43 to make this point: "new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines, by which violent factions ... have usually wrecked their alternative malignity on each other."
They also note that James Wilson, one of the first appointees to the Supreme Court and the man who drafted the Constitution, also warned against specious charges of treason
The accusation of treason, Wilson warned in 1791, "furnishes an opportunity to unprincipled courtiers, and to demagogues equally unprincipled, to harass the independent citizen, and the faithful subject, by treasons, and by prosecutions for treasons, constructive, capricious, and oppressive."Treason is defined in the Constitution as such:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.Common sense would indicate after reading this definition that one can not commit treason by accident, that the crime of treason requires an expressed overt intention or act to betray the nation. And there are only two ways that treason can be committed: waging war against the United States or "adhering" to enemies who are waging war against the nation.
Both were meant to be narrow and specific means by which treason would be defined. The first is obvious, it means taking up arms against the United States. The second, "giving them aid and comfort," means providing enemies with material assistance, e.g. giving them supplies, housing them, providing them with intelligence, etc. I can already hear the complaints that the Times did provide the enemy with intelligence, so let me address that now.
To meet the standard of treason as defined in the Constitution, it would have to be demonstrated that an individual had given intelligence to an enemy with the expressed intent to help that enemy wage war against the United States. Clearly, it is impossible to establish that the New York Times published either its NSA surveillance story or the SWIFT story with the intent of aiding al Qaeda to wage war against the United States. Indeed, this proposition is on its face absurd. Or at least it would be in saner times.
Writing the decision of Ex parte Bollman & Swartout (also see the Wikipedia entry) in 1807, Chief Justice John Marshall delineated why treason must be narrowly construed (bold emphasis mine)
As there is no crime which can more excite and agitate the passions of men than treason, no charge demands more from the tribunal before which it is made a deliberate and temperate inquiry. Whether this inquiry be directed to the fact or to the law, none can be more solemn, none more important to the citizen or to the government; none can more affect the safety of both.The Court expanded on this theme in 1945 (a time when the US had been completely mobilized for war) in its Cramer v United States decision (bold emphasis still mine)
To prevent the possibility of those calamities which result from the extension of treason to offences of minor importance, that great fundamental law which defines and limits the various departments of our government has given a rule on the subject both to the legislature and the courts of America, which neither can be permitted to transcend.
The Court also explained that even actions that may actually benefit the enemy do not neccesarily constitute treason absent a demonstrated intent to adhere to that enemy (again, bold emphasis mine)
Historical materials aid interpretation chiefly in that they show two kinds of dangers against which the framers were concerned to guard the treason offense: (1) Perversion by established authority to repress peaceful political opposition; and (2) conviction of the innocent as a result of perjury, passion, or inadequate evidence. The first danger could be diminished by closely circumscribing the kind of conduct which should be treason-making the constitutional definition exclusive, making it clear, and making the offense one not susceptible of being inferred from all sorts of insubordinations. The second danger lay in the manner of trial and was one which would be diminished mainly by procedural requirements-mainly but not wholly, for the hazards of trial also would be diminished by confining the treason offense to kinds of conduct susceptible of reasonably sure proof. The concern uppermost in the framers' minds, that mere mental attitudes or expressions should not be treason, influenced both definition of the crime and procedure for its trial.
Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.What is clear here is that the Founders intended for their definition of treason to be restrictive and to be applied carefully to prevent "prosecutions for treasons, constructive, capricious, and oppressive" to avoid "violent factions ... wreck[ing] their alternative malignity on each other." And what is even clearer is that the hyperbolic histrionics being directed at the New York Times is exactly the sort of wreckless rhetoric that the Founders sought to avoid.
But we know that dissent has been equated with treason for some time now. What we're seeing cultivated is an atmosphere in which what were traditionally core democratic values are being characterized as dangerous treasonous vices, and in which those who persist in adhering to those democratic values are characterized as a threat to the nation's security.
For example, I keep hearing the same noxious and servile refrain over and over again, "who elected Bill Keller?" as an argument in favor of the criminal prosecution of him. It's true. Bill Keller was not elected to decide what information should be classified. But what those who make this claim overlook is that the nation, however, did decide to guarantee the freedom of the press in the First amendment. Please note that the Bill of Rights does not grant anything, it guarantees rights that are inalienable. The freedom of the press to provide the public with oversight of its government was a right so fundamental to free society that it became part of the first guarantee of our liberty.
Were a significant portion of the supporters of this administration to have their way, though, treason would cease to be a solemn affair. It would be an everyday occurrence. It would be a means of stifling dissent, a tool to enforce political hegemony. Ann Coulter argues that all "liberals" are guilty of treason. Sean Hannity equates "liberalism" with terrorism (and evil.) Michael Savage calls "liberals" "the enemy within." Michael Reagan favors the hanging of Howard Dean for simply saying that we can't win in Iraq. Blogs for Bush believes Senator Feingold is guilty of treason for proposing the President be censored for breaking the law. Rush Limbaugh wonders if Joseph Wilson is guilty of treason for questioning the administration's Iraq intelligence claims (which as it turns out, were bunk.) Ben Shapiro (approvingly linked to by Michelle "conservatives zealously police their own ranks to exclude extremists" Malkin) believes anyone who speaks out against the administration is guilty of sedition and/or treason. "Aid and comfort" is a common refrain from our President and his administration. Et cetera.
And at the same time as the press lynch mob is busy demanding jail time or worse for the non-servile members of the press, the Senate came one vote short of transforming the American flag into a symbol for the supression of free speech, an effort that would catapult us into the illustrious ranks of other anti-flag burning nations such as Cuba, Iran, and Nazi Germany.
If Mark Twain were alive in Bizarro America today, his iconic explication of American democracy from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court might look like this
You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing; it is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to; institutions extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags--that is a loyalty of unreason; it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy; was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose constitution declared "That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit, and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefensible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they think expedient." Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks that the Commonwealth's political clothes are worn out and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate, anyway, and it is the duty of others tovote him downkill him if they do not see the matter as he does.
Whether this inquiry be directed to the fact or to the law, none can be more solemn, none more important to the citizen or to the government; none can more affect the safety of both.
ReplyDeleteMusic to the ears...
awesome post! a breath of logical fresh air...
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this. I hope lots of people see it. I normally consider myself pretty well-informed about these sorts of issues, but I learned a ton from this piece.
ReplyDeleteI did my part to tear National Review's Rich Lowry's "treason" argument apart here. It's really strange how much of their own credibility the conservatives are willing to sacrifice their credibility and undermine their own arguments and values in order to prop up the "commander in chief." Parts of Lowry's colum read like they were written by Chomsky, which is weird from the National Review.
Two wrongs make a right was an argument that I thought most people outgrew past the third grade.
ReplyDeleteHume's Ghost said...
ReplyDeleteTwo wrongs make a right was an argument that I thought most people outgrew past the third grade.
Three rights make a left... turn. Shooter should be creeping up on our six in due course.
The site feed is serving abstracts -- can we get the full feed please?
ReplyDeleteIf you folks
ReplyDeleteShooter, I'm one person. Please address criticism of things I post to what I have written. While I'm more than willing to defend myself for what I've said, I will not be held accoutable for what "folks" have written or said.
shooter's thinks 'folks' are his idea of 'liberals'. It never stops with him. He thinks he can categorize people well, but he has fallen into the trap the propagandists have set for him.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe Karl Rove to be guilty of treason.
ReplyDeleteThe shooter of bulleted items above evokes for me the image of a tyrant wildly and singlehandedly shooting his rifle into the air.
ReplyDeleteThe Court also explained that even actions that may actually benefit the enemy do not neccesarily constitute treason absent a demonstrated intent to adhere to that enemy
ReplyDeleteUmmm..NSA surveillance exposed...bogus CIA prisons story...revealing CIA aircraft identifiers and flight histories...
Looks like " a demonstrated intent to adhere to the enemy" to me ....
And yesterday, the NYT follows up with pictures of and directions to the vacation homes of( not to mention the locations of security cameras) Cheney and Rumsfeld...
Why?. What's the "public interest" in that? There is a history of frothing, leftist fanatics harassing and threatening the families of Cheney and Rumsfeld at their private homes.
What else could the reason be for publishing this info be other than to a) inveigh their evil little leftist minions to again harass and threaten the respective families, or b)more sinsisterly, provide sleeper terrorist cell assassins with operational info?
I would agree with the shooter if any of his examples were actually hyperbole. (except for the "bush should be hung" part, which is a lie- we don't advocate the deaths of people we disagree with-that is the exclusive purview of the right)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, all of his other examples represent not only what the left has said and will continue to say, but absolute truth.
If the shooter really loved his country, he'd recognize we are in dire straits and join the effort to set it right. As it is, he and his ilk are actively participating in it's demise, gleefully and mindlessly supporting a halfwit who has never so much as taken out his own garbage, cut his own grass, or, I daresay, wiped his own a**. A man who has never known or cared for people who struggle every day to "put food on their families", who cannot conceive of what it must be like to actually have to live on the fruits of his labor; a man who has failed repeatedly at every endeavor, however subsidized by wealthy family and friends, to which he has turned his hand, including a cushy assignment in the TANG. A man who doesn't hesitate to publicly mock a person he would be personally responsible for putting to death. A man who strums a guitar and eats cake as an entire city drowns. In other words, a man entirely devoid of compassion and sensitivity, wholly ignorant of finer pusuits such as a study of history or literature, and completely incapable of understanding anything but the debasing and morally bankrupting fetish for money and power. A man who thinks he has the right to abrogate laws, torture people, lie Americans into supporting him as he invades a country and kills innocent people, and steal elections as if he has a divine right to occupy the WH.
Bushie can't even put together a coherent sentence unless it concerns death and destruction.
The pschological need of the right in this country to be "winners" at any and all cost, to dominate others, to brag of their "supremacy," and never have to admit they are wrong, has led them to worship a "leader" who doesn't deserve their devotion, who despises their lowly station in life and exploits their fatal character flaws and prejudices in order to grab and hold power, and will throw them to the wolves when they are no longer useful (idiots) to him.
Carry on, fellow citizens, and never, never, say we didn't try to warn you.
How can dipshit pull this quote, "a demonstrated intent to adhere to the enemy," and not even know what the word intent means?
ReplyDeleteThe strain of cultist thinking that has perverted the Republican Party's use of reason goes hand-in-hand with their treatment of language.
Hume's Ghost said...
ReplyDeleteI do not believe Karl Rove to be guilty of treason.
I don't think most on the left felt he was either. He should have been fired like he was in Bush I's employ. If there are voices on the left who do suggest he's a traitor it is in response to the constant harping from the right and an attempt to hold a mirror up to the these clowns so they can see what they look like.
How can dipshit pull this quote, "a demonstrated intent to adhere to the enemy," and not even know what the word intent means?
ReplyDeleteUmmm...their stated editorial position on the WOT and the constant efforts to undermine our legal efforts to wage it sure spells out intent to me. You really don't have to be a genius to figure that one out.
the aptly named dipshit...There is a history of frothing, leftist fanatics harassing and threatening the families of Cheney and Rumsfeld at their private homes.
ReplyDeleteWhat else could the reason be for publishing this info be other than to a) inveigh their evil little leftist minions to again harass and threaten the respective families, or b)more sinsisterly, provide sleeper terrorist cell assassins with operational info?
I don't know what to say...
Bwaahahahahahaa!
I just can't tell whether they are parodies or not anymore.
dipshit...Ummm...their stated editorial position on the WOT and the constant efforts to undermine our legal efforts to wage it sure spells out intent to me. You really don't have to be a genius to figure that one out.
ReplyDeleteThere you have it. He's a fanatical moron with a clown shoe bomb trying to give himself a hi-explosive hot foot.
H.G.,
ReplyDelete"The freedom of the press to provide the public with oversight of its government was a right so fundamental to free society that it became part of the first guarantee of our liberty."
That's all fine and dandy, but the whistle blower in these instances is breaking the law by disclosing classified information. They, or Mr. Keller, could have just as easily decided to bring this concern to the attention of their local Congressman [woman] first, rather than multiplying the offenses by blabbing the story worldwide.
I'm glad to see you posted an accurate description of treason:
"A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy [...] a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures"
Aid and comfort to the enemy?
How about publishing specific details of how a foreign enemy might avoid the US governments efforts to identify them, their plans and track their agents?
What about operation overlord during WWII? In your opinion if a government employee complained to the NY Times of possible "civil liberties" violations as a result of domestic surveillance undertaken in the planning stages, would it have been "treason" for the NY Times to publish details of the surveillance effort while the plan itself was unknown to them and still classified?
don't know what to say...
ReplyDeleteBwaahahahahahaa!
I just can't tell whether they are parodies or not anymore.
I'm not quite sure why this is funny. The cell in Missassauga planned an assassin attempt on Steven Harper. There have been plots expose to assassinate Cheney and Paul Brenmer in Iraq.
Again, what could possibly be "the public's right to know" the, directions to, pictures of, and location of security apparatuses of the their vacation homes other than to incite someone to take some sort of action towards them?
From dipshit at 10:07am:
ReplyDelete"their stated editorial position on the WOT and the constant efforts to undermine our legal efforts to wage it sure spells out intent to me."
The NSA program is extra-legal, if not outrightly illegal.
The 'bogus' CIA prisons story is anything but, these 'black sites' (exact location and disposition never revealed) likely run afoul with at least the Geneva Conventions.
I've yet to reputable read a story that reveals anything about CIA aircraft identifiers and flight histories.
I will admit I haven't seen today's Times yet, so I'll hold off commenting on the last.
In other words, friend, very little about what this Administration has done is either 'legal' or really in service of this 'war'. And exposing illicit conduct, be it of the government or other powerful concern, is one of the primary duties of the press. Call it treason if it comforts you.
The rest of us will call it 'the media doing its job'.
By their definition, Geraldo Rivera is more guilty than any article printed in the newspaper.
ReplyDeleteHe drew maps of our troop locations in the sand on live TV.
Sure, he was probably really on a beach somewhere in California with a prop stage behind him, but still...
From the f.l.y. at 10:17am:
ReplyDelete"That's all fine and dandy, but the whistle blower in these instances is breaking the law by disclosing classified information."
You know, this refrain from your little chorus line is getting stale. How about a few facts?
Like a definitive statement from the Administration that this tracking program was indeed 'classified'?
Like some detail or element from the story that wasn't already available or couldn't be found through open sources?
From shooter242 at 10:38am:
ReplyDelete"That's the retort of people that don't want to acknowledge being wrong in the first place."
No, its a statement of logic. Doing two wrong things back-to-back doesn't negate them nor their consequences.
Geez. And here I thought you had a working brain.
Perfect! Without a doubt, a clear sense of logic, something hard to find these days.
ReplyDeleteIt's posts like these that everyone in this country needs to read.
Everyone.
Off topic, we should all pay a lot of attention to the latest Osama Bin Laden video! Yes! How wonderful the coincidence that Public Enemy Number One used that special time to laud Public Enemy Number Two, whom Dear Leader recently brought to justice! And how further wonderful the coincidence that the video was released just after Dear Leader had his ass handed to him by the Supreme Court!
ReplyDeleteYou're hearing it here first. The government has a secret program where it uses satellites to conduct suveillance of targeted sites throughout the world.
ReplyDelete[Looking over shoulder for the Bill Keller lynch mob to come after me]
I very much like the post, but I think it begs for a follow up of, "If this be, DUH!"
As with the NSA programs, the financial story doesn't tell the "bad guys" anything they don't already know- mostly from people like the President and Orrin Hatch, but even more so from innate knowledge of the world.
Of course people are being wiretapped, financial transactions are being traced, people are being followed, satellite technology is being used, face recognition and voice recognition technology is being used, yada yada.
The "news" is that these programs are being run with no oversight and often in violation of legal requirements (for example, search warrants). So the only "news" revealed in these stories for terrorists is the news for Americans - that the Government has lost checks and balances to make sure it is not used against the American people, without oversight or used for personal gain and benefit, without oversight.
Satellite observation in the GWWJDWOT - you heard it here first.
The NSA surveillance is perfectly legal:
ReplyDeleteThe [Authorization for Use of Military Force] places the President at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the NSA activities. Under the tripartite framework set forth by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), Presidential authority is analyzed to determine whether the President is acting in accordance with congressional authorization (category I), whether he acts in the absence of a grant or denial of authority by Congress (category II), or whether he uses his own authority under the Constitution to take actions incompatible with congressional measures (category III). Because of the broad authorization provided in the AUMF, the President’s action here falls within category I of Justice Jackson’s framework. Accordingly, the President’s power in authorizing the NSA activities is at its height because he acted “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” and his power “includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Id. at 635.
The NSA activities are consistent with the preexisting statutory framework generally applicable to the interception of communications in the United States—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), as amended, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1862 (2000 & Supp. II 2002), and relevant related provisions in chapter 119 of title 18.1 Although FISA generally requires judicial approval of electronic surveillance, FISA also contemplates that Congress may authorize such surveillance by a statute other than FISA. See 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a) (prohibiting any person from intentionally “engag[ing] . . . in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized 1 Chapter 119 of title 18, which was enacted by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 (2000 & West Supp. 2005), is often referred to as “Title III.” by statute”). The AUMF, as construed by the Supreme Court in Hamdi and as confirmed by the history and tradition of armed conflict, is just such a statute. Accordingly, electronic surveillance conducted by the President pursuant to the AUMF, including the NSA activities, is fully consistent with FISA and falls within category I of Justice Jackson’s framework.
Even if there were ambiguity about whether FISA, read together with the AUMF, permits the President to authorize the NSA activities, the canon of constitutional avoidance requires reading these statutes in harmony to overcome any restrictions in FISA and Title III, at least as they might otherwise apply to the congressionally authorized armed conflict with al Qaeda. Indeed, were FISA and Title III interpreted to impede the President’s ability to use the traditional tool of electronic surveillance to detect and prevent future attacks by a declared enemy that has already struck at the homeland and is engaged in ongoing operations against the United States, the constitutionality of FISA, as applied to that situation, would be called into very serious doubt. In fact, if this difficult constitutional question had to be addressed, FISA would be unconstitutional as applied to this narrow context. Importantly, the FISA Court of Review itself recognized just three years ago that the President retains constitutional authority to conduct foreign surveillance apart from the FISA framework, and the President is certainly entitled, at a minimum, to rely on that judicial interpretation of the Constitution and FISA.
The 'bogus' CIA prisons story is anything but, these 'black sites' (exact location and disposition never revealed) likely run afoul with at least the Geneva Conventions.
ReplyDeletePlease cite ANY corroborating source to the NYT article that ANY secret prisons existed. Hell, even the EU says they do not.
I've yet to reputable read a story that reveals anything about CIA aircraft identifiers and flight histories.
ReplyDeleteThis has to be a joke, right?
Shooter... Thank you, thank you, thank you. WIth efforts like this one conservatism will be with us evermore. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteJust like monarchism, feudalism Nazism and Soviet style Stalinist communism?
You guys have had both legs chopped off at the knees and are running out of room to stand on your heads.
CIA aircraft don't have identifiers. Dipshit.
ReplyDeleteSomeone names Mary made this simple-minded statement:
ReplyDeleteAs with the NSA programs, the financial story doesn't tell the "bad guys" anything they don't already know-
Several years back ( I'll google later to get the specifics) there was a story about an uber-liberal judge in LA who was notoriously pro-defendant to a fault. he would do things like deny motion after motion by prosecuters and reduce sentences of those convicted, etc.
Police and prosecuters were fed up that he was allowing dangerous criminals to either get off scot-free or walk away after a few months in prison.
Cops invited him to ride along on patrol so he could see what havoc these thugs were wreaking on the community.
On one occassion, he did a ride along with cops who wre supporting an undercover cop involved with drug dealing at the street level. With the first attempt by the undercover cop to make a buy, this agent of the courts rolled down the window and yelled to the dealer to run because the buyer was a cop.
What is the relevance here? Well, drug dealers KNOW that police forces use undercover cops all the time to try to nab them. So obviously they do not know who all the undercovers are.
This parallels the lame argument by the left that al-Qaeda knew we were tracking financial transactions. However, the SWIFT program was not exactly public knowledge.
Hell, even the NYT admits that SWIFT helped thwart terrorist attacks and saved lives.
So, again, why did they do it?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCIA aircraft don't have identifiers. Dipshit.
11:35 AM
Hmm.. you'd better tell that to the NYT because if it's not true they lied yet again.
From their treasonous article from May 331, 2005:
An analysis of thousands of flight records, aircraft registrations, and corporate documents, as well as interviews with former C.I.A. officers and pilots, show that the agency owns at least 26 planes, 10 of them purchased since 2001. The agency has concealed its ownership behind a web of seven shell corporations that appear to have no employees and no function apart from owning the aircraft.
From their treasonous article from May 331, 2005
ReplyDeleteYou need help. That's one helluva leap year, dipshit.
Dipshit - you are wrong about the NSA surveillance. It is both illegal and unConstitutional to the extent it involves tapping conversations of AMerican citizens on AMerican soil without warrants.
ReplyDeleteWe have clear clase law from civil war through that even the COngress and the President acting together, and even in a time of war taking place on our sovereign soil, cannot disenfranchise citizen of this country, in this country, from the Bill of Rights protections.
We have equally clear and more recent case law that wiretaps of Americans on American soil are searches and require warrants.
Even if it were not for the FISA violations, there are extremely clear Constitutional violatons (4th Amendment,Milligan, Keith, Katz)
With FISA, there are also felony violatons of that statute. The AUMF does nothing to override clear Congressional requirments set forth in FISA. Justice Scalia, in Hamdi, sets forth how much the AUMF is worth as a statutory override (I think it compares it to something that wouldn't authorize a dogcatcher to catch a dog *g*).
Now with Hamdan - it's abundantly clear. No AUMF, inherent powers or "signing statements" give the President the right to override Congressional laws and it was already very clear that he could not override the Bill of RIghts, even in a time of war.
You seem pathetically eager to throw away the COnstitution. Sad
Except that --
ReplyDeleteBush "stole" the election
Pretty clear evidence of same actually exists. So let's see how that plays out, shall we?
Sent our troops to become "Nazi's"
Who on the left has asserted this? Can I see a link?
"Lied" about aspects of his presidency
Really too many instances to choose from but I'm going to go with the pre-war intelligence lies as they are the most damaging.
Became "lawless"
Pretty much the minute he decided to do an end run around FISA ...
* Became a "war criminal"
Can you spell G*I*T*M*O ??
Should be "impeached"
See all of the above
And then "hung"
Again, who on the left has advocated hanging Bush? Link please.
Bush has "killed" people for profit
Again, who on the left has asserted this? Link please.
Of course, if this turns out to have been an oil war (and it's not like there's no evidence of that), this assertion is not too wildly off the mark, is it?
caused Hurricane misery
Did you somehow miss the cronyism and incompetence that characterized the federal government Katrina response?
And my favorite, is the NAACP ad equating Bush election to the
death of James Byrd dragged behind a pickup truck
Gotta link?
You both need help. So does Dick, Dave, George and Karl but you are not likely to get it any time soon.
ReplyDeleteTo dipshite:
ReplyDelete"http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1764150,00.html?maca=en-rss_english_top-388-rdf
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/02/terror.suspects/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html
Isn't google great?
yankeependragon 10:39 AM,
ReplyDeleteI already responded to that one over here [link], but I suppose I need to repeat it here too:
"Aaron G. Stock,"
"Had you clicked on the link to the Times article you would have discovered that the NYT itself describes the program thus:"
"Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. [...]"
"I'm guessing that the NYT writers and editors intended "classified" to mean "classified". The NYT obviously had no doubts about this, yet published the story regardless of the administrations numerous requests not to."
Formerly classified. You got that now?
My suggestion? Go to Misha's Schnauzer kennel and growl, crotch sniff and butt lick till you get fleas.
ReplyDeleteDipshit - LOL. You're playing, right?
ReplyDelete"What is the relevance here? Well, drug dealers KNOW that police forces use undercover cops all the time to try to nab them. So obviously they do not know who all the undercovers are.
This parallels the lame argument by the left that al-Qaeda knew we were tracking financial transactions. However, the SWIFT program was not exactly public knowledge."
SWIFT has a website. ROFL.
The only way your example (got a cite to that anecdote, or is it creative rambling?) would have any relevance whatsoever is to say that the NYT article indicated names and acccounts with specific financial institutions being traced.
Otherwise its like saying, sure bad guy know police go undercover, but they didn't know police in NYC go undercover until someone spilled the beans. *g*
Pssssst - another "you heard it here first" Banks are required to report certain kinds of transactions and those reports are used for tracking.
SSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Don't want the bad guys to read Fed and European regs and download report forms from websites - then "they'll know"!!!!!!
You're fun.
To dipshite:
ReplyDeleteThat article last year concerning reported "CIA flights" didn't list anything. No specific flight numbers, call-signs, signal codes, ANYTHING.
So much for the treason charge.
From f.l.y. at 12:06pm:
ReplyDelete"Formerly classified. You got that now?"
Bravo. You answered one question that was already answered, but left the second, more important one alone.
Precisely what classified material has been compromised that President Bush himself didn't reveal to the public back in October, 2001?
Remind me never to play Three Mans Morris with you; I'd beat you in five minutes.
Formerly classified. You got that now?
ReplyDeleteBwahahaha!
STFU!
Everything is classified in this administration. Even Dick Cheney's meetings on energy policy.
Classification
Jeebus! Any "terrist" can find all of this information in the press of any European country. It looks like it's finally come down to "us against the world". I side with the world. If you think that's treason, I guess we'll have to kill you.
“pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,”
ReplyDeleteDidn't the Hamdan ruling state that implied is not specific, and that implication itself is not authorization?
Just because I don't raise a specific objection to a specific action doesn't mean I condone it.
Saying nothing is not equal to "yes."
Apparently "intent" is everything in determining right and wrong. So bringing down the Bush administration is a good thing (Intent) because he is bad. While for Al-Qaeda bringing down the Bush administration is to us bad (Intent) because .........he is good?
ReplyDeleteno idiot, read the post again. Intent is required to bring a charge of treason. You can rant about your "rights" and your "wrongs" as much as you want, which is your right, and which I have no doubt you don't need my encouragement to do.
I really don't think the chaff is helping, girls. There's a heat seeker climbing up your six in November. You are all heat and no thrust and flying on vapor. In the words of the immoron Bill Witless: Eject! Eject! Eject!
ReplyDeleteYet another simple-minded statement from someone named Mary:
ReplyDeletePssssst - another "you heard it here first" Banks are required to report certain kinds of transactions and those reports are used for tracking.
SSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Don't want the bad guys to read Fed and European regs and download report forms from websites - then "they'll know"!!!!!!
PSSSTTTT...not all transactions are transparent and for the public record, i.e.numbered -only accounts. So, by reading downloaded report forms, we would not know, for example, that transfer of $1,000,000 from Cayman account # 123456789 to Swiss account # 987654321 was actually from Habibi al-Durka of al-Qaeda to Ali Ali Incomefree of the same group.
However, the SWIFT program was not exactly public knowledge."
SWIFT has a website. ROFL
Actually, what I meant and what every other thinking person probaly understood was that the program of using SWIFT to intercept banking info was not exactly common knowledge
Yankee... That article last year concerning reported "CIA flights" didn't list anything. No specific flight numbers, call-signs, signal codes, ANYTHING.
ReplyDeleteAll reported in the foreign press. From the UK to France to Italy... all former allies, thanks to this insane foreign policy. Global opinion (which Murtha only repeated: The U.S. is a greater threat to world peace than AQ.
Sent our troops to become "Nazi's"
ReplyDeleteWho on the left has asserted this? Can I see a link?
----------------------------------
How about Dick "pro-Turban" Durbin?
Actually, what I meant and what every other thinking person probaly understood was that the program of using SWIFT to intercept banking info was not exactly common knowledge
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. Now the entire world knows that this country has been monitoring everyone's private financial affairs illegally. Lawsuits pending from around the world.
From Defense Tech:
White House NYT Bashers: Hypocrites
Since 9/11, nobody -- and I mean nobody -- has done more reporting on the government's attempts to track terrorists through their data trails than the National Journal's Shane Harris. (The guy ate Spam and knocked back Tequizas with John Poindexter, for chrissake!) So I couldn't be more psyched to welcome Shane to the Defense Tech family. This is the first of what I hope will be a long string of posts for the site.
Bush administration officials have been lining up to condemn The New York Times for revealing a program to track financial transactions as part of the war on terrorism. But if the Times’ revelation about a program to monitor international exchanges is so damaging, why has the administration been chattering about efforts to monitor domestic transactions for nearly five years?
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, many journalists — including this one — were briefed by U.S. Customs officials on Operation Green Quest, an effort to roll up terrorist financiers by monitoring, among other things, "suspicious" bank transfers and ancient money lending programs favored by people of Middle Eastern descent.
I interviewed Marcy Forman, director of Green Quest, at her Washington offices in December 2001, when I was a writer for Government Executive magazine. Our meeting was sanctioned by Customs' public affairs office, and came at a time when the White House was eager to talk about all the work federal agencies were doing to hunt down terrorists. Forman told me the kinds of people, transactions, even locations that the government was targeting. (These are details, it should be noted, that the recent Times piece did not reveal.) Among the potentially sensitive items Forman told me, which were published:
“Operation Green Quest is focusing on the informal, largely paperless form of money exchange known as hawala, which is Arabic for ‘to change.’”
“Few undercover agents can penetrate Middle Eastern communities and money laundering rings because they look like outsiders and don't speak the language…. As a result, Green Quest has to be more clever, by setting traps on the Internet and working to flush currency traffickers out of their hiding places.”
“Treasury and FBI investigators have identified hawala as a means by which the alleged Sept. 11 terrorists may have received money from overseas.”
“Green Quest investigators, who've spent their careers dismantling money laundering rackets, were blindsided by the existence of the system. ‘Most of us couldn't spell hawala’ before Sept. 11,’ Forman said.”
“The agencies' [involved in Green Quest] cooperative efforts have recently culminated in raids of alleged money laundering operations that aid suspected terrorist networks.”
“Green Quest also wants to lower the threshold at which bank deposits and electronic funds transfers must be documented. Dropping the ceiling from $10,000 to $750, Forman said, may force money traffickers to try to get their cash out of the country by hand. They would then be subject to capture by a beefed-up cadre of Customs Service officers at border crossings, airports and seaports.”
Green Quest was only one of the administration’s efforts to combat terrorist financing which officials discussed publicly. More than two years after 9/11, federal officials testified before a congressional field hearing in Miami and "detailed efforts to stop the illegal financing of terrorist networks." A senior adviser for the Treasury Department "named several initiatives, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which is developing technology to let financial institutions report suspicious transactions more easily and quickly." The adviser also named the system FinCEN was developing to manage a database built to search financial transactions. And he said the department was working directly with financial institutions to help them "develop software to better identify potential terrorist-financing activities."
These details, provided by Customs and Treasury officials, undoubtedly gave terrorists some insight into how the U.S. government was tracking them, and what investigators knew about terrorism financing. These officials weren’t whistleblowers—they were sanctioned by the administration to dispense this information.
In the wake of the latest Times revelation, Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, wants the attorney general to investigate and prosecute reporters and editors of the Times for “aiding the cause of our enemies.” What King and others critics haven’t addressed is how the publication of specific details, over the past half decade, about the techniques the government employees to track terrorists’ money doesn’t also aid their cause.
-- Shane Harris
UPDATE 06/29/9:34 AM: Intel Dump takes a very different point of view. Meanwhile, Bob Kerrey -- and even, to some extent, Peter King --wonder the Times' disclosure actually helps counterterror efforts.
Bob Kerrey, a member of the 9/11 commission, [said] that if the news reports drive terrorists out of the banking system, that could actually help the counterterrorism cause.
"If we tell people who are potential criminals that we have a lot of police on the beat, that's a substantial deterrent," said Mr. Kerrey, now president of New School University. If terrorists decide it is too risky to move money through official channels, "that's very good, because it's much, much harder to move money in other ways," Mr. Kerrey said.
A State Department official, Anthony Wayne, made a parallel point in 2004 before Congress. "As we've made it more difficult for them to use the banking system," Mr. Wayne said, "they've been shifting to other less reliable and more cumbersome methods, such as cash couriers..."
Since [9/11], the Treasury Department has produced dozens of news releases and public reports detailing its efforts. Though officials appear never to have mentioned the Swift program, they have repeatedly described their cooperation with financial networks to identify accounts held by people and organizations linked to terrorism...
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, convened a hearing in 2004 where Treasury officials described at length their efforts, assisted by financial institutions, to trace terrorists' money. But he has been among the most vehement critics of the disclosures about the Swift program, saying editors and reporters of The New York Times should be imprisoned for publishing government secrets.
In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. King said he saw no contradiction. "Obviously we wanted the terrorists to know we were trying to track them," Mr. King said. "But we didn't want them to know the details."
Details which they already knew from other sources... like ties to intelligence agencies in Pakistan and other Islamic countries and the SWIFT website itself.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
ReplyDelete—Dick Durbin, on the Senate floor (14 June 2005)
Durbin's only mistake was apologizing for making this observation.
And if this form of "terrist hunting" is so critical to our security and efforts in prevailing, now we can see why Kerry would have been a much better choice to lead us. He invented practically invented these methods.
ReplyDeleteFollow the Money
ReplyDeleteHow John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank
Still another example of simple-mindedness from someone named Mary:
ReplyDeleteThe only way your example (got a cite to that anecdote, or is it creative rambling?) would have any relevance whatsoever is to say that the NYT article indicated names and acccounts with specific financial institutions being traced.
Otherwise its like saying, sure bad guy know police go undercover, but they didn't know police in NYC go undercover until someone spilled the beans. *g*
No, not at all. It's like saying, Sure bad guys know cops go undercover, but not all drug buyers are undercover cops. So, logically it would follow that a drug dealer would not know that a particular drug buyer was a cop, unless that fact was exposed.
the drug seller may suspect it, but still go through with the transaction anyway because of the attendant exigencies and would assume some risk.
Now, follow me here. International terrorist organizations are aware that there are programs in place to track financial transactions. However, they do not know the scope and specifics of all the these programs and would not knowunless someone tipped them off LIKE THE NYT DID.. They may have suspected, but in all probability did not know that we tapped into SWIFT. Even the NYT admitted that suspects were caught and attacks were thwarted because of our SWIFT program. Therefore, the conclusion we must assume is that al-Qaeda did not know for ceratin that we were tapping SWIFT and had to assume a calculated risk.
I believe your statement to be a fine example of ignoratio elenchi.
All I can say is: the brilliance of the authors of the federalist papers. They definitely under human beings as political animals.
ReplyDeleteThe only conclusion possible is that Pinch and Keller have quite likely committed treason. I think they should be arrested and put on trial. Let the courts and the people decide. I agree with Melanie Morgan. If found guilty, there is the possibility of the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteNo Dip, I think you have it wrong.
ReplyDelete"Actually, what I meant and what every other thinking person probaly understood was that the program of using SWIFT to intercept banking info was not exactly common knowledge"
What every thinking bad thinks is that if there is an information clearinghouse, it is likely being used for information tracking. So as long as they know SWIFT exists, which they do, and they know financial transactions are tracked, which they do, they know SWIFT is being accessed to track financial info.
I'm thinking the revelation may be how little thought the "thinking people" you are thinking about, think about. :)
Let me help with the process, but don't tell NSA I'm clueing you in - thinking is traitorous these days. LOL
"PSSSTTTT...not all transactions are transparent and for the public record, i.e.numbered -only accounts. So, by reading downloaded report forms, we would not know, for example, that transfer of $1,000,000 from Cayman account # 123456789 to Swiss account # 987654321 was actually from Habibi al-Durka of al-Qaeda to Ali Ali Incomefree of the same group."
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!
Now, did you get those specifics from reading the NYT article? Link me babe. *G*
All you got was confirmation of what everyone already knows - the government and for that matter bad guys themselves access info from info clearing houses. The bad guys do it surreptitiously with no rules - the good guys are supposed to do it with oversight and rules. When they don't - that should be reported.
I'm so glad you offered your example on how it is reporting the specific account info, etc. that is the "look behind" info that should not be done. Good job.
All you got was info that the ongoing SWIFT intercepts are being done with only internal oversight and that
You might want to ask your old pal George Bush about how close to the vest he kept the SWIFT monitoring during the 2004 election, dipshit.
ReplyDeleteIt basically costs 20 bucks to kill an American soldier these days, and it's all thanks to the brilliant war in Iraq. If any of these NYT "revelations" were actually NEWS to The Terrorists, they'd likely be laughing their heads off because as long as we're in Iraq they don't need much funding at all. We're putting ourselves right in their backyard with targets on our asses saying, "blow me up, please." Or should I say, the Bush administration is putting our fighting men and women in that predicament.
dipshit said...
ReplyDeleteThe only conclusion possible is that Pinch and Keller have quite likely committed treason. I think they should be arrested and put on trial. Let the courts and the people decide. I agree with Melanie Morgan. If found guilty, there is the possibility of the death penalty.
Clearly a new species of troll. A rightwinger who adopts the guise of an over the top parody troll in an attempt to hijack a thread. Identify, classify, ignore.
I'm curious as to why these people that think the Constitution is just a damned piece of paper hate America?
ReplyDeleteGood Golly, still even more simple-mindedness from someone named Mary:
ReplyDeleteWhat every thinking bad thinks is that if there is an information clearinghouse, it is likely being used for information tracking. So as long as they know SWIFT exists, which they do, and they know financial transactions are tracked, which they do, they know SWIFT is being accessed to track financial info.
The point is, Little Miss No-Nothing, is that al-Qaeda was obviously not certain that SWIFT was being tapped since even the NYT had to admit that the program helped capture a number of al-Qaeda terrorists.
You really need to quit while you're behind. You're looking a bit silly.
good Heavens,the simple-mindedness of someone named Mary never ceases to amaze:
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!
Now, did you get those specifics from reading the NYT article? Link me babe. *G*
For crying out loud. I, nor anyone else, ever said the NYT published the particular account info. all they have to do is expose the project in general to let al_qaeda know what we are up to for certain. And, I believe that was the intent of the story...to warn al-Qaeda.
Clearly a new species of troll. A rightwinger who adopts the guise of an over the top parody troll in an attempt to hijack a thread. Identify, classify, ignore.
ReplyDeleteNice try. More like the old species of troll that presents sound, logical arguments that you and the others cannot compete against.
Dipshit is one of those adherents of the terrorists are morons except when they're evil geniuses school of thought.
ReplyDeletethe dipster is a troll from The Left Coaster -- where it was named. There's not much point in conversing with it, except maybe for practice.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I believe that was the intent of the story...to warn al-Qaeda
ReplyDeleteSo you honestly think the NYT wants Americans dead....
How can you sleep at night knowing that such evil lurks around every corner?
Nice try. More like the old species of troll that presents sound, logical arguments that you and the others cannot compete against.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what trolls do. That's never been a troll's intent. You have made no arguments. Assertion is not a substitute for argument. That's why they usually get banned, like you have been everyplace else you troll.
For crying out loud. I, nor anyone else, ever said the NYT published the particular account info. all they have to do is expose the project in general to let al_qaeda know what we are up to for certain. And, I believe that was the intent of the story...to warn al-Qaeda.
That's ignoratio elenchi.
They also think that the Supreme Court decision is a winner for them politically, and they are spouting the “special rights for terrorists” nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI thought one of the most basic rights, including what the Geneva Conventions consider the minimum standard in a civilized nation, is the presumption of innocense until proven guilty in a court of law.
What these guys are saying is that, because they are guilty, the standard for proving that they are guilty should be lower. Because they are guilty, we should make it easier for the government to prove them guilty.
The 'special rights for terrorists' conclusion is so backwards, no one with any integrity could honestly call the minimal rights the Supreme Court demands for these people 'special rights.'
It's also a variant of ignoratio elenchi, an enthymeme.
ReplyDeleteThe parade of simple-mindedness by someone named Mary continues:
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad you offered your example on how it is reporting the specific account info, etc. that is the "look behind" info that should not be done. Good job.
Little Miss Mary Nary a Thought, this is another example of ignoratio elenchi. I never, ever said the account info should not be further probed. in fact, it's quite the opposite. Obviously, you did not quite comprehend the analogy. The meaning was that the general public could not discern the necessary info to track individuals simply by downloading fianacial transactions. This is only part of the equation. There must be a ceratin prior knowledge of the ability and intent of these transactions, combined with other pertinent nfo of the individuals involved.
PhD9...And, I believe that was the intent of the story...to warn al-Qaeda
ReplyDeleteSo you honestly think the NYT wants Americans dead....
How can you sleep at night knowing that such evil lurks around every corner?
This is eerily reminiscent of when WFB, Jr. and the conservative movement parted company with the John Birch society in the late 50s and early 60s. You know what happened to the conservative movement in 1964. It fractured, and Nixon faction moved to the left. They never recovered, (except for the debacle of the Nixon adminstration) until 1994.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Assertion is not a substitute for argument
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It's a component of argument. .....which I always back up with fact and logic
Dick Durbin certainly fits the constitutional definition of a traitor to a tee. What is comparing our brave fighting troops to Nazis, Soviets, Khmer Rouge, other than "adhering to the enemy"? And calling for the ignominous withdrawl of our troops after all their hard won gains, what is that other than an overt act of giving aid and comfort to an enemy on the verge of total defeat? And there were at least 99 witnesses to this overt act.
ReplyDeletePerhaps re-read the post. Thoughtcrimes can not be treason.
ReplyDeleteWhat is comparing our brave fighting troops to Nazis, Soviets, Khmer Rouge, other than "adhering to the enemy
ReplyDeleteum. why that would holding them accountable to the standards of human decency.
The idea that anything we do is right because its us doing it is pretty much the working definition of hypocracy.
Dipshit, having personally extolled your unimpeachable logic and argumentation, perhaps you care to explain the logic behind your assertion that a corporation not five blocks away from the former WTC would have the INTENT to actively assist the people who destroyed it, presumably increasing the likelihood of their own destruction.
ReplyDeleteComponents of argument:
ReplyDeletedipshit said...
Assertion is not a substitute for argument
Agreed. It's a component of argument. .....which I always back up with fact and logic
A Clear Statement of Position
Evidence or Proof
Conclusions
Citations
All you have offered are vague and wild assertions, and not even clear statements of your position. Again, not a substitute for argument.
yankeependragon 12:14 PM,
ReplyDelete"Precisely what classified material has been compromised that President Bush himself didn't reveal to the public back in October, 2001?"
Personally, until the NY Times story I had never even heard of SWIFT, and I also had no idea that the Bali terror bombing mastermind was tracked by using transaction records, i.e. "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror".
Since you claim the SWIFT program has been in the public domain since October, 2001, I would think you of all people would have been one of the first to post a comment here alerting others to yet another unconstitutional "power grab".
Maybe I missed something. Perhaps you could post a link to where one might find your own comments on the SWIFT program that predate the NY Times story?
"Remind me never to play Three Mans Morris with you; I'd beat you in five minutes."
Yeah, maybe you could challenge "Anonymous 12:26 PM" instead. You might want to limber up your brain stem first, remember: Train, don't strain.
Dick Durbin certainly fits the constitutional definition of a traitor to a tee. What is comparing our brave fighting troops to Nazis, Soviets, Khmer Rouge, other than "adhering to the enemy"? And calling for the ignominous withdrawl of our troops after all their hard won gains, what is that other than an overt act of giving aid and comfort to an enemy on the verge of total defeat? And there were at least 99 witnesses to this overt act.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like Stalinist rhetoric from whenever... or Maoist rhetoric from the cultural revolution. It's a chuckle, like your constitutional expertise. Thanks!
I do have one question, though.
Is Durbin the traitor, or CSPAN for recording and releasing his comment?
OMG! Do you think there might be Islamofascist agents in the hallowed halls of our congress?
ReplyDeleteThey might even be under our beds!
About SWIFT
ReplyDeleteSWIFT is the financial industry-owned co-operative supplying secure, standardised messaging services and interface software to 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries. SWIFT's worldwide community includes banks, broker/dealers and investment managers, as well as their market infrastructures in payments, securities, treasury and trade.
SWIFT consistently delivers quantifiable business value and proven technical excellence to its members through its comprehensive messaging standards, the security, reliability and ‘five nines’ availability of its messaging platform and its role in advancing STP. The guiding principles of SWIFT are clear: to offer the financial services industry a common platform of advanced technology and access to shared solutions through which each member can build its competitive edge. Over the past ten years SWIFT message prices have been reduced by over 70%, system availability approaches 5x9’s reliability — 99.999% of uptime.
Sorry I couldn't resist!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDipshit, having personally extolled your unimpeachable logic and argumentation, perhaps you care to explain the logic behind your assertion that a corporation not five blocks away from the former WTC would have the INTENT to actively assist the people who destroyed it, presumably increasing the likelihood of their own destruction.
Simple...the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The left and the NYT in particular. have an irrational hatred towards Bush. Al-Qaeda obviously hates Bush, also.
The NYT knows that by aiding al-Qaeda that they will not likely be a target. Why would terrorists attack their propaganda arm.
This is much the same rationale used by Eason Jordan and CNN in their dealings with Sodamn Insane. CNN agreed to be used to propagate Sodamn's propaganda, and in return got a promise from the despot not to harm CNN employees.
Shooter242 said...
ReplyDeleteOff topic, we should all pay a lot of attention to the latest Osama Bin Laden video!
shooter242 said-
Speaking of aid and comfort to the enemy, nobody seems to have a transcript of the latest. Conjecture is that it has so many Dem talking points, Shrum is helping out OBL with his speechwriting.
Just out of curiousity if one's blood opponent uses the same rhetoric as one's political opponent, would that be treason for echoing the same sentiments? Heh.
Since the CIA determined that bin Laden wanted Bush to be elected prez and thus released a video in Oct 04, according to Suskind's sources... just out of curiousity, if one's blood opponent supports your candidate, would that be treason for voting for him?
would it be providing aid and comfort to the enemy to elect a previously illegally installed regime that serves as a recruitment tool for al queda?
"bin Laden" or the disembodied voice that claims to be bin Laden plays with you like Pavlov's rabid dog and you consistently "fetch" (felch?) for him.
so keep attacking liberals, "moran."
SWIFT in the news
ReplyDeleteAchived back to 2000
swat yourself out.
http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=58220
The NYT knows that by aiding al-Qaeda that they will not likely be a target. Why would terrorists attack their propaganda arm.
ReplyDeleteThis guy is how the term bedwetter came into common usage. He's a classic case!
"Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror".
ReplyDeleteThe "news" was the "man bites dog" story, that the US was doing this illegally. The "dog bites man" story, that the US is doing it, is not news, unless you have been in a cave for the last 20 years.
"Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror".
ReplyDeleteOBL has lived in a cave for the last 20 years and he knew it. Let me revise that. If this was news to you, you must have been braindead since birth. Did any of yer moms have kids that lived?
PhD9 said...
ReplyDeleteThe NYT knows that by aiding al-Qaeda that they will not likely be a target. Why would terrorists attack their propaganda arm.
This guy is how the term bedwetter came into common usage. He's a classic case!
So explain then the realtionship between CNN and Saddam Hussein. This is not conjecture. Eason Jordan admitted in an editorial posted in the NYT that CNN would agree to be their propaganda arm. Saddam is also quoted as saying to his associates to go to CNN if any other news outlet publishes anything negative about him or Iraq because CNN will spin it in their favor.
So why is an agreement between the NYT and al-Qaeda betond the realm of possibility?
Simple...the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
ReplyDeleteAn old Arabic saying. And they said irony is dead.
And I just got done telling someone on another thread that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
So why is an agreement between the NYT and al-Qaeda betond the realm of possibility?
ReplyDeleteAnything is possible, just improbable and it's far more probable that monkeys are flying out of your butt right now than anything else you propose.
It's without a doubt in my mind that the NYT printed the photos and descriptions of, the directions to, and the security measures for Rumsfeld's and Cheney's vacation homes as a favor for al-Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteThere is no other reasonable explanation for doing so.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo why is an agreement between the NYT and al-Qaeda betond the realm of possibility?
Anything is possible, just improbable and it's far more probable that monkeys are flying out of your butt right now than anything else you propose.
3:15 PM
As I just explained, CNN and Saddam were in bed together. Why couldn't the NYT and al-Qaeda be?
Great quote in a post about the NYT publishing the info on Cheney and Rumsfeld's vacation homes:
ReplyDeleteThere is one thing I just can't explain: why in the world does the article feature, prominently, this photograph of Rumsfeld's driveway, with the gratuitous explanation that "There is a lens in the birdhouse..."? That one baffles me.
Maybe the Times would say that the jihadis already knew about the lens in the birdhouse, since it's well known that high-ranking government officials take security precautions.
Wow..it's simply amazing that the left holds these idiots at the NYT up as demi-gods.
This says it all:
ReplyDeleteDear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:
Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)
Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.
Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.
And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.
Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq ,
And dipshit wins by a nose, overtaking anonymous at the wire in a spectacular photo finish.
ReplyDeleteGo dipshit!
Are you out of your mind, dipshit? Have you REALLY drank so much of the Kool-Aid that you think for a second that ANYONE in this country would believe that they could gain the favor of these lunatics in any way?
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing sometimes how much people can twist themselves into such wild logical contortions to maintain their fragile worldview.
Dipshit must be the Major's brain on drugs.
ReplyDeleteThere are those of us who sincerely want to see the USA burn itself out in an extended spasm of moral and financial bankruptcy. We think nothing would promote the cause of justice more effectively than for the USA to conclusively demonstrate the self-destructive rapacity of corporate imperialism.
ReplyDeleteBut our best efforts to publicly expose the USA's shameless greed, hypocrisy, and racism look hopelessly pale compared to the disgrace and ruin the Bush cabal has brought on this country. They've looted the treasury, despoiled the military, shredded the Constitution, and alienated its former allies. At the same time, they've revealed the US government as a fraudulent criminal enterprise, a corrupt facade propped up by Orwellian deceit and corporate propaganda.
We could not imagine a more insidious mole than George Bush, or a botched coup that could have more effectively ripped the heart out of the US beast, squandering its investments in demoralizing futility. It's become a wicked international joke and pariah among rogue states and banana republics, capable only of wreaking great havoc and destruction in the wake of its blundering collapse. Sic semper tyrannis.
What a silly, ridiculous, desperate little rant. It's HIGH-STARE-UCKLE:
ReplyDeleteThere are those of us who sincerely want to see the USA burn itself out in an extended spasm of moral and financial bankruptcy. We think nothing would promote the cause of justice more effectively than for the USA to conclusively demonstrate the self-destructive rapacity of corporate imperialism.
But our best efforts to publicly expose the USA's shameless greed, hypocrisy, and racism look hopelessly pale compared to the disgrace and ruin the Bush cabal has brought on this country. They've looted the treasury, despoiled the military, shredded the Constitution, and alienated its former allies. At the same time, they've revealed the US government as a fraudulent criminal enterprise, a corrupt facade propped up by Orwellian deceit and corporate propaganda.
We could not imagine a more insidious mole than George Bush, or a botched coup that could have more effectively ripped the heart out of the US beast, squandering its investments in demoralizing futility. It's become a wicked international joke and pariah among rogue states and banana republics, capable only of wreaking great havoc and destruction in the wake of its blundering collapse. Sic semper tyrannis.
From dipshite at 3:36pm:
ReplyDelete"This says it all:"
Sorry, dipshite. I believe Bart posted the same letter earlier in the week.
Its also completely unimpressive as either a legal argument or as an assertion that the Times story was in any way either illegal or damaging.
yankeependragon 4:23 PM,
ReplyDeleteStill waiting [2:48 PM] upthread...
F.L.Y. said...
ReplyDeleteyankeependragon 4:23 PM,
Still waiting [2:48 PM] upthread...
4:30 PM
Don't hold your breath F.L.Y.
Since I don't subscribe to NYTSelect, I'm not sure if this is what the dipster (@8:57) is referring to regarding Rumsfeld and Cheney's vacation homes, but could it be this article? If so, it seems clear that it is the FAA that identified their vacation home locations by declaring the area a no-flight zone.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the dipster is off its game.
You actually expected Congressmen to have read the Constitution AND know the definition of "treason". Hoping for a little much aren't you.
ReplyDeleteSince I don't subscribe to NYTSelect, I'm not sure if this is what the dipster (@8:57) is referring to regarding Rumsfeld and Cheney's vacation homes, but could it be this article? If so, it seems clear that it is the FAA that identified their vacation home locations by declaring the area a no-flight zone.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the dipster is off its game.
5:06 PM
It's not behind the NYTSelect wall...LIAR. It's right there in plain black and white for everyone to see...LIAR..
Looks like the dipshit is not quite off his game, doesn't it?
I wonder why the NYT chose to print info (including color pictures so there would be no mistaking them) about the vacation homes of two people that al-Qaeda has vowed to murder.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't they print info on Pinchie's or Keller's. I bet theirs are pretty darned nice, too.
f.l.y.: Personally, until the NY Times story I had never even heard of SWIFT
ReplyDeleteJust about everyone who has ever dealt with an international wire transfer knows about SWIFT. Anyone who is in the least bit knowledgeable about international financial transactions knows about SWIFT.
Why? Because just about every international money wire goes through SWIFT.
Put that together with Bush's public statements that his people were following the money trail of the terrorists, it would be extremely stupid for some Al Qaeda operative dealing with international money transfers not to assume that the US government could find out about their transactions through SWIFT.
And please save me the line about publishing operational details. How the US were able to access the information is irrelevant. The knowledge that they were doing everything they could to access it - proclaimed by the President himself - is what counts.
Oh, and no one has been as helpful to the terrorists in helping to dismantle our freedoms than this president.
Funny how the dipshit ignored the only salient point of information in the post in declaring himself "on his game," namely, that a federal agency disclosed the location of these vacation spots and the Times merely reported it, rather than Times investigative reporters maliciously seeking the information themselves to tip off terrorists as the dipshit is trying to portray it.
ReplyDeletedipster calm down. The article I linked to was from The International Herald Tribune, dated December 19, 2005. The location of the vacation homes is not a secret. That the article you have been referring to is not in NYTSelect, well I apologize for saying that. It doesn't mean that the FAA didn't identify the location. Seriously, all the people who live there know that Cheney and Rumsfeld own homes there.
ReplyDeleteIf it makes you feel better to call me a liar, then who am I stop you.
OMG! Do you think there might be Islamofascist agents in the hallowed halls of our congress?
ReplyDeleteHere is a list of Islamofascist agents/dupes in the Senate, who voted to pull the rug out from under our fighting men and women in Iraq, to deny them the victory they have worked so hard to achieve, and thus enable the terrorists to resume their attacks on the American homeland.
Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Hillary Clinton, Kent Conrad, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Blanche Lincoln, Robert Menéndez, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Barack Obama, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Kenneth Salazar, Paul Sarbanes, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Ron Wyden, James Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee
Let's imagine an America where the press is subject to the demands of the Government. This appears to be what the right wants.
ReplyDeleteAs Paul Waldman pointed out, we are not talking about the sixty-some people who died in a bomb blast in a Baghdad market today, because we are so busy defending ourselves against charges of treason for believing in a free press.
ReplyDeleteWe should be talking about Bush’s most recent claim of how things have really turned around there since his heroic five-hour visit, and what absolute nonsense that claim was.
This entire issue is just another gigantic straw man argument so that Bush supporters don’t have to talk about the real world and what a mess they’ve made of it. Instead, we’re talking about their imaginary fantasy world where the majority of people and the press are traitors rooting for terrorists. A charge that’s not only absurd, but obscene.
Let’s talk about what the hard-core Bush supporters really want: State control of the media. Over at the State Controlled Network, Foxists were calling for an office of censorship to punish and monitor the media. All journalists who don’t behave like Baghdad Bob in singing the praises of what a “magnificent success” the war in Iraq is, and how wonderful Bush is will suffer the consequences.
I’m not criticizing H.G. for this post – it was necessary and well worthwhile, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger issue: that this “war on terror” as implemented by Team Bush has simply become incompatible with democracy and our Constitution.
“Kill Keller” week is almost over, and it’s time to get back on the offensive, holding these anti-democratic thugs responsible for what they’re doing to this country.
So 40% of the senate are traitors.
ReplyDeletePlease get the republicans to run on that platform, really please.
You have to love the right-wingers sometimes.
ReplyDeleteThey read "aid and comfort" and apply the most vague possible standard to the words, ignoring, not even disputing, the contents of the post itself explaining how the consitutional definition of treason, having been written hundreds of years ago, uses verbiage that sounds innocuous today but has been understood universally and interpreted to require, as any capital crime should, very stringent requirements.
In the minds of these people, since they believe that The Terrorists are afraid of Bush, anything said or done that makes Bush look less than The Great Leader that he is provides "comfort" to The Terrorists, and as such, the people responsible for such utterings or actions are traitors who should be put to death.
I wonder how the Bill of the Rights could possibly have any meaning under this interpretation of the treason clause.
Have we really gotten to this point in the United States where we actually have to discuss whether to hang political dissidents?
Bwahahaha! It's HIGH-STARE-UCKLE:
ReplyDeleteMARK LEVIN, Genius
Mark Levin, NRO:
Congress and the Court are systematically stripping the presidency of war-making powers. Congress demands that the president get court approval before intercepting enemy communications (we call that intelligence gathering) and the Court demands that the president get statutory support from Congress before he can use military tribunals to try terrorists.
And yet, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court have any explicit constitutional authority to make these decisions.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power . . .
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
From f.l.y. at 4:30pm:
ReplyDelete"Still waiting [2:48 PM] upthread.."
For what, precisely?
I did not mention SWIFT before last week, for the very simple reason it was not necessary.
Did I *know*, definitively, that the Administration was monitoring activity through there before last week? No, although I am unsurprised and unbothered by this.
This is a perfectly logical target for such monitoring, particularly in light of President Bush's own declarations back in October 2001.
Given those same bolivations were made quite publically, I'd be equally unsurprised if Al Qaeda and its allies weren't excerising greater caution than before in its money transfers, avoiding SWIFT and its like.
Additionally, given the details of the few cases where this 'monitoring' has actually netted someone (the Bali bomber for example) have not been made public, there's nothing to say these arrests were accomplished by monitoring SWIFT or other financial conduits alone, or if there were other aspects to those cases.
Finally, what little we know about the program itself suggests there is nothing necessarily or illegally invasive about the monitoring itself. We don't know what software or criterion are being used to flag particular transactions for investigation. Indeed, the most disturbing aspect of this has been the lack of Congressional oversight of the program itself, but given the habits of this Administration this isn't all that big a surprise either.
In short, no I never mentioned SWIFT before last week. However does our lack of knowledge constitute 'evidence' the NYT, LAT, and WSJ committed an actionable offense or an actual breach of national security?
I'm unconvinced, and no-one here has presented either an argument or evidence that withstands serious scrutiny.
Clear enough?
OK, enough of this BS with these cretins...
ReplyDeleteFrom Paul Waldman @ Media Matters:
The events of the past week provide one more demonstration that progressives must begin to fully appreciate the importance of the media in our political life. Look what happened: Conservatives began a coordinated attack on a news organization, and suddenly we weren't talking about Iraq or about anything else, we were actually debating whether The New York Times should be prosecuted for treason.
And journalists could barely summon the energy to defend not just their colleagues, but their profession -- let alone the citizens they are supposed to serve. At the same time that they were being subjected to this assault, they continued to view the political world through a lens created by the very people battering them mercilessly.
In recent editions of our weekly wrap-up, Jamison Foser has been making the case that, as he wrote back on May 26, "The defining issue of our time is the media." Conservatives obviously understand this fact. Perhaps soon progressives will come to the same understanding.
Have we really gotten to this point in the United States where we actually have to discuss whether to hang political dissidents?
ReplyDeleteIf Karl Rove says so, yes... It keeps us from discussing Iraq and and every other failure of Bushco in particular and conservatism in general.
I suppose the best thing to do is discuss whether to string them up or shoot them since they have actually committed war crimes, as per international law, while if anyone in this country had committed treason, they's already be arrested and in jail.
yankeependragon 6:29 PM,
ReplyDeleteSo, that would put you in the NO previous knowledge of the SWIFT program prior to the publication of the NY Times story category.
Do you really believe terrorists hiding in caves would have known about SWIFT prior to the NY Times story when most Americans didn't, including yourself?
maggot with wings... Do you really believe terrorists hiding in caves would have known about SWIFT prior to the NY Times story when most Americans didn't, including yourself?
ReplyDeleteI think it's gonna be a yes. This is one case where the innocent did have something to worry about. Privacy.
“Do you really believe terrorists hiding in caves would have known about SWIFT prior to the NY Times story when most Americans didn't, including yourself?”
ReplyDelete1. Job 1 for the cockroach terrorist is to keep from getting caught.
2. Job 1 for most Americans is living well.
3. Bin Laden’s latest video, if authentic, suggests a level of communications more sophisticated than what most Americans have.
If I were accused of being a 'traitor' because I made comments unfavorable to this inept arrogant Bush Administration, which I do already on a daily basis btw, I would immediately get in my accuser's face and insist they take me to trial on it, otherwise I would sue them for slander. Being charged as a traitor is a serious offense, and if they accuse me without evidence then they are bearing false witness against me and should be called to task for it.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of treason, I have a couple of questions that maybe some of you might want to address.
ReplyDelete1) On April 30, 1995 President Clinton issued an executive order barring American companies from doing business with Iran as a way to prevent it from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and weaken its ability to support terrorism. In lieu of this, is there standing to charge Dick Cheney with treason for initiating business dealings with Iran beginning in February 2000, in his role as CEO of Halliburton, in direct violation of this order?
It is my understanding that the law does not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by non-Americans. I am also aware that Halliburton’s business dealings with Iran were initiated through Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary that is registered in the Cayman Islands, clearly in a concerted effort to circumvent the law. However, according to a CBS 60 Minutes report there is no office of Halliburton Products and Services in the Cayman Islands, no employees at the site, and any mail directed to the subsidiary there is re-routed to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. It would therefore seem clear that Halliburton Products and Services is in fact run by Americans (out of Houston), or at least was at that point in time, and accordingly Halliburton’s business dealings with Iran under the watch of Dick Cheney were in fact in violation of a law designed to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and weaken its ability to support terrorism. Can Dick Cheney be charged with treason for this?
2) Who can initiate a charge of treason? Can anyone do that? Can I do that?
Good catch, anon @ 5:06 with link to:
ReplyDeleteTwo hawks a-nesting,
under a no-flight zone
By Elisabeth Bumiller International Herald Tribune
MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005
HG:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that prosecution for the crime of treason should be used sparingly. Treason ranks with murder as one of the ultimate offenses.
I am certain the NYT is guilty of violation of the Espionage Act and the COMINT criminal statutes, but treason is another thing entirely.
The intent of the NYT was a partisan desire to cause political damage to a President of the opposing party, even if the disclosures would incidentally give aid an comfort to the enemy.
However, does this rise to the level of intent to prove treason?
If you are at all serious about the law on this subject and not simply trying to score political points, I would recommend an unpublished law review article entitled "Treason, Technology, and Freedom of Expression" by Professor Tom W. Bell.
http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/
Treason&Tech.pdf
Bell reviews the cases upholding treason convictions against citizens who worked disseminating propaganda for the Axis during WWII and finds that the same arguments upheld in those cases could be very easily used to convict those who provide propaganda for free to the enemy.
For our purposes today, Bell also notes that the intent element can be proved indirectly using something akin to a reasonable person standard, to wit, would a reasonable person have known they were providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Bell notes:
Even though the “adhering” element speaks to a mental state, a defendant charged with treasonable expression cannot escape liability by claiming that he intended, ultimately, to help the U.S...The court in [Chandler v. United States and later in Best v. United States] explained, “’In the law of treason, like the law of lesser crimes, every person is assumed to intend the natural consequences that he himself know[s] will result from his act.’”
Therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, a criminal jury can assume that the NYT intended to provide aid an comfort to the enemy if the jury finds that the natural consequences of disclosing top secret intelligence programs would provide such aid and comfort.
Perhaps, proving the element of intent against the NYT under the treason provision of the Constitution is not as difficult as you might suppose.
The point of my post was not whether or not the law could be stretched in order to prosecute the Times for treason. The point was that the charges of treason against the Times violate the common sense intent and meaning of the Founders' definition of treason.
ReplyDeleteBell makes the EXACT same point in the "The subversion of the treason clause's original meaning," in addition to his arguing that the treasouns expression holdings from the WWII propaganda cases now make the law unconstitutional.
In other words, you basically just linked to a far better researched and expert account that says the same thing I said.
ReplyDeleteHG:
ReplyDeleteI never said that Bell did not have the same concerns and a similar point of view as you. However, the reason Bell is concerned is that the current law does arguably expose publishers like the NYT to liability for treason.
The problem with your original intent analysis is that it speaks very generally about protecting opinions, not disclosing the top secret facts of an intelligence gathering program to the enemy or Bell's concern of publishing enemy propaganda.
Moreover, the original intent analysis gives no instructions how to actually apply the elements of treason like intent.
The Courts applied general criminal law principles to the element of intent which remove the juvenile rhetorical defense of "I don't think that revealing secrets to the enemy will hurt our national defense." This is similar to a thief saying that he didn't believe taking the money was actually stealing. If a jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the natural result of revealing secrets to the enemy provides aid and comfort to the enemy, then the NYT or other similar leakers have the intent to commit treason.
Bell wants to change the current law to limit treason to those actually hired by the enemy. However, that begs the question of exactly what is the practical difference to national security between an al Qaeda spy or the NYT revealing the same exact information?
HWSNBN is totally confused:
ReplyDeleteI am certain the NYT is guilty of violation of the Espionage Act and the COMINT criminal statutes, but treason is another thing entirely.
The intent of the NYT was a partisan desire to cause political damage to a President of the opposing party, even if the disclosures would incidentally give aid an comfort to the enemy.
Which (even if true, which is hardly obvious here) makes it not a violation of 18 USC 798.... The troll HWSNB better go scraping up some malum prohibitum statutue rather than taking on the formidable task of "proving" mens rea here where he has already asserted that the requisite mens rea does not in fact exist.
Better trolls, please.
Cheers,