Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story

CFLarsen

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
42,371
Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story

President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."
Click to expand...

Yes, that's understandable. Nobody likes their dirty laundry aired in public. But:

"Certainly nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But the New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live," Snow said. "And whether, in fact, the publication...could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans."
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone pressing charges. Has any law been broken?

If not, how is this not an attempt of government censorship?
 
I don't think I see much of a problem with the government tracking financial transactions; I don't see how you could have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such transactions since, obviously, the various financial institutions involved would be keeping records, and it doesn't seem a significant infringement on personal privacy. I'd be open to arguments to the contrary, though.

Of course, I also see no problem with the NY Times revealing the existence of the program, as Bush and other Republicans apparently do.

Finally, I find hilarious the arguments that revealing the existence of these programs somehow aids the enemy, or reveals to them anything they didn't already know. If terrorists are so stupid that they don't realize we can listen in on their phone calls and track their financial transactions, you'd think they'd be a lot easier to catch.
 
CFLarsen said:
If not, how is this not an attempt of government censorship?
Click to expand...


Because no charges have been pressed. Unless/until someone gets into legal trouble for printing what they printed, then Bush's words are just more hot air from a politician, no government censorship. Until his words become policy, they remain just words, not different from yours or mine.

Edited for spelling
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
I don't see anyone pressing charges. Has any law been broken?

If not, how is this not an attempt of government censorship?
Click to expand...

Well, because no charges have been pressed. :)

Bush has every right to get up there and say the NYT shouldn't run a story. He can rant and rave, call them terrorist-supporting communists, whatever. It's sleazy, and it's unsettling, but it's his right. Until he actually tries to punish them for running the story, or tries to prevent them from running similar stories, he hasn't abused his authority.

Likewise, the New York Times is free to fax Bush a photograph of every NYT reporter flipping him the bird.
 
CFLarsen said:
Excuse me, but isn't that a wee bit naive?
Click to expand...

No. It may be interpreted as a CALL for censorship, it may be considered an expressed DESIRE for censorship, it may be lot of things, good, bad or otherwise. But, it cannot be censorship until someone actually tries to censor someone. Naivete hasnothing to do with it, just the definition of censorship.
 
But back to the point, why blame the NYT? They aren't the ones who violated the trust of a security clearance.

Go after the person who told them. They are the one(s) who actually violated the law.
 
pgwenthold said:
But back to the point, why blame the NYT? They aren't the ones who violated the trust of a security clearance.

Go after the person who told them. They are the one(s) who actually violated the law.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the point. Why the NYT? Why not the source?
 
pgwenthold said:
But back to the point, why blame the NYT? They aren't the ones who violated the trust of a security clearance.

Go after the person who told them. They are the one(s) who actually violated the law.
Click to expand...
The NYT could be held responsible for violating the Espionage Act, particularly since they were requested to not print the article.

As to whether the terorrists were stupid enough not to know we could be tracking their finanacial transactions, apparently they were that stupid because the article specifically mentioned some successful results. They probably knew we were tracking them, but they didn't know the specifics. Now they know the specifics. That's the difference.

I'm surprised that some people don't seem to be aware that there's a balance between security and liberty. They go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. In this case, security trumps liberty and the public's right or need to know, particularly considering there was proper oversight of the program. This was a stupid move on the part of the NYT. A bit of our security has been jeopardized for a fistfull of dollars and a partisan talking point. That's just sleazy.
 
Apollyon said:
The NYT could be held responsible for violating the Espionage Act, particularly since they were requested to not print the article.
Click to expand...

Oooh, they were requested. Did the administration say please?

In fact, the person who leaked the information not only was requested to not reveal it, they were prohibited by law from doing so.

And still, there is a need to blame the press?

The press didn't leak this story.

When is Bob Novak going to arrested for violating the Espionage Act?
 
Apollyon said:
I'm surprised that some people don't seem to be aware that there's a balance between security and liberty.
Click to expand...

(inserting a Ben Franklin quote here would be too obvious, so I will not even bother)

The problem in this case is that we don't have to sacrifice liberty for security, if the people who are responsible for our security would do their job properly.

The NYT is not to blame if some moron with security clearance violates that clearance. They are the ones who are putting us at risk, not the newspaper.
 
pgwenthold said:
Oooh, they were requested. Did the administration say please?
Click to expand...
What's with the snarkiness? There's no call for that.

In fact, the person who leaked the information not only was requested to not reveal it, they were prohibited by law from doing so.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and that person or persons could very well be subject to prosecution if it's determined who the leaker(s) was/were.

And still, there is a need to blame the press?

The press didn't leak this story.
Click to expand...
Just like Freedom of Speech is not truly "free," and comes with some responsibilities, so does Freedom of the Press. Like it or not there are restrictions on those freedoms.

When is Bob Novak going to arrested for violating the Espionage Act?
Click to expand...
Probably never, or else Fitzgerald would have indicted him by now. Unless you can prove that Fitzgerald is willingly letting people off the hook, one must assume he determined that Novak didn't break any law.
 
pgwenthold said:
(inserting a Ben Franklin quote here would be too obvious, so I will not even bother)
Click to expand...
If you do quote Franklin, please quote him properly. The left tends to completely abuse it and so frequently misquotes his statement about liberty and security. When the correct and entire quote is made evident, it pretty well proves out my statement. ;)
 
Anyone have a link to the NYT story that is the focus of all this ruckus? Do they say who their source was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom