Jun 26 2006
President Bush to New York Times: Stop Snitchin!
Remember folks, when the government breaks the law and our media outlets report on that illegal activity - like spying on Americans or going through their financial records without a warrant - it’s the media outlets who are the real criminals, not the government!
In effect, President Bush is telling the New York Times and any other media outlets that report on his administrations illegal activities:
Stop Snitchin!
It’s not right when teenagers try to hide the truth to protect a friends or their own illegal activities, and it’s not right for the President of the United States to do it either.
Actually I belive the “snitchers” should be prosecuted. I guess I don’t really blame the media outlets in this case because they are just reporting information that is given to them. Whether they should publish the information is debatable (maybe), but I don’t blame them if they do.
Now to a related discussion … does it make it more difficult to fight the war on terror with this information being revealed? Without a doubt.
“In an interview Monday on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Keller revealed that Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has been a vocal critic of the Iraq war, also urged the Times not to print the information.” - Source
Exactly my point. You and people like the President think the real criminals are the whistleblowers who are alerting the media to the illegal activities, NOT the people committing the illegal activities to begin with.
I’ve got to agree with Dan here. If a government official is upset that some whistleblower outed an illegal operation and that the NYT printed the story, there is a simple solution. Respect the Constitution and don’t implement any illegal operations to begin with.
Sure, access to everyone’s phone and financial data definitely makes us more effective when combating terrorists. But undermining privacy and liberty is never acceptable, and anyone who claims that liberty must be curtailed to enhance security should not be trusted in any position of authority.
Even the NT Times agrees the program is NOT illegal, so there goes that argument. The [MY Times] article states: “The program is grounded in part on the president’s emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans’ records.”
From the same article …
The [MY Times] article states: “The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.”
So, which of our Constitutional rights were violated!?
“The program is limited, government officials say…” These are the same guys who said that the eavesdropping was only a limited program, aimed at international calls. Of course, we found out a little bit of how much farther it goes.
The other problem here is that, sure, it may help to catch a terrorist (it supposedly has, at least once), but sifting through the records of thousands, if not millions, innocent people to get some information on one guilty guy (maybe) is the equivalent of burning down a house to kill a flea. Seriously, where does it stop? Why not put breathalyzers on every car to prevent drunk driving, or make every Monday national urinalysis day?
As for the NY times, ask Jefferson: “…and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”
Now to a related discussion … does it make it more difficult to fight the war on terror with this information being revealed?
We’re going to ‘fight the war on terror’ in perpetuity simply because there is no single enemy or enemy state with which to fight against and defeat, nor is there any way to measure any sort of victory in the ‘war’ which would bring about it’s end. Even when we finally catch bin Laden, there will still be hundreds of thousands of terrorists out there and we’re just not going to be able to kill them all.
I say all that because I think the more and more illegal actions are justified in the name of ‘the war on terror’, the ability to shed the powers taken in the name of ‘war’ becomes more difficult. In which case we’re left with a society without freedom or liberty and under complete government control/surviellence all in the name of freedom and liberty.
So to answer your question, I don’t know. I’m sure we’re doing another five illegal things in the name of ‘the war on terror’ that are helping catch terrorists just as much as trolling through innocent civilians bank, internet, and telephone records. The people who we’re at war with aren’t stupid, and they know that we’re monitoring everything, which is why bin Laden doesn’t use banks that the US has control over or cell phones. He knows that we’re watching those lines of communication so he avoids them.
It’s funny because I always thought you (yeah boy) were more of a liberatarian who valued privacy and personal freedom/responsiblity above most things, and I come to find out that you not only don’t have a problem with the government searching your personal records, but you’re against people like me who are for the protection of personal and privacy rights. Odd.
The whole “war on terror” is a sad joke. The resources for doing this would be better spent in other ways. The US isn’t even really opposed to terrorists, just ones we don’t like. The ones we like we call freedom fighters and help train.
In which case we’re left with a society without freedom or liberty and under complete government control/surviellence all in the name of freedom and liberty.
This is also a huge concern of mine.
It’s funny because I always thought you (yeah boy) were more of a liberatarian who valued privacy and personal freedom/responsiblity above most things, and I come to find out that you not only don’t have a problem with the government searching your personal records, but you’re against people like me who are for the protection of personal and privacy rights. Odd.
No, you’re dead on - I am (for the most part) a Libertarian (by definition). Here’s why I still fall in line with libertarians - a libertarian believes when a person infringes on the freedom of others, penalties are necessary and the person violating other’s freedom(s) gives up certain rights for the protection of the rights of the masses. Here’s where you are right - life, liberty and property are the three foundations of libertarianism. If any of those three are compromised, the other two will automatically be compromised. I am, as you understand it, compromising “my” liberty by supporting this program. Right?
As I understand it, Bush’s program is limited to an international bank and the people the program tracks is based on previous information about contact with known “enemies”. Am I violating a cardinal rule and am being too trusting of our government?
Of course, we found out a little bit of how much farther it goes.
I guess I missed the article (seriously). :) Can you tell me how much farther the program goes?
sifting through the records of thousands, if not millions, innocent people to get some information on one guilty guy (maybe) is the equivalent of burning down a house to kill a flea.
Well, the problem is that by catching that “one” guy, you end up saving hundreds and even thousands of lives. So, it’s not really burning down the house to kill a flea.
As for the NY times, ask Jefferson: “…and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”
Our founders were so eloquent. For the record, I agree with that statement 100%.
I absolutely think you are being too trusting of our government, especially given the record against it so far. The phone records program is just one of many perfect examples: at first, it was strictly limited to international calls originating outside of the country. Later, it was revealed to include domestic calls of all types, though of course no actual surveillance of conversations occurred.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if tomorrow it was revealed that there was, in fact, surveillance of conversations. Although I would also not be surprised if this never hit the papers, given how quickly and cleanly they erased the original story from the media; within 48 hours of the USA Today report the NSA program was page 6 news.
This program was only the latest in a sequence of illegal administration activities followed by flat-out lies, and later by intimidation of the media outlets and government employees who reported on the crimes and lies. There have been six years worth of this pattern of behavior already. The Bush administration has done little to make me believe that it can be trusted.
Better late than never, I guess
From the article, “My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base.” — NY Times Editor Byron Calame
Well… that makes it legal then!