Did New York times hurt war on terror?

[Spider-Bite]

After 9/11 Osama vowed to change our way of life. we all know he opposes democracy and supports dictatorships.

well I personally belive that New York times helped the war on terror. here is how. In a democracy if you don't like what your government is doing then you have the right to vote for somebody who will not do that. New York times really helped protect our democracy from Bush who was acting like a dictator.

and not only that, but the NYT really did not disclose anything that was a matter of national security. think about it.

WE ALREADY KNEW THEIR PHONES AND BANK RECORDS WERE BEING MONITORED. WE KNEW IT. YOU KNEW IT. I KNEW IT. AND ALQUIDA KNEW IT AS WELL.

Anybody who ever thought about it knew this. The fact that they were being spied upon was no secret, no shock, no surprise. In fact Alquida uses code words throught the internet and phone specifically because they do know our government is listening in.

The only part nobody knew was that Bush was hiding from the Fisa court judges who he was spying on. for some reason he doesn't want them to know. those judges are in place to make sure he ONLY uses it to protect the country, and not for corrupt reasons. That's the part we didn't know, and that was the secret we were told. That has no bearing on national security at all. It's not like knowing that Bush is hiding it from the judges hurts our ability to fight terrorists. Alquida could care less about our Fisa judges.

In fact if it wasn't for the New York times than Alquida would have won. They would have changed our way of life, tore down our democracy, and replaced it with a dictatorship.

 

[deemar325]

It didn't help and the NewYork Times should know better.

 

[StorminNorman]

Yay for loaded quesitons!

 

[deemar325]

The choices on the poll are trite and unfair.

This thread is a joke.

 

[Spider-Bite]

It didn't help and the NewYork Times should know better.

It helped preserver our demoracy, but no it didn't help the war on terror. neither did my smoking a cigarette just now, but that doesn't mean I should know better.

I'm glad the New York times reproted this. the voters deserve to know who supports it and who doesn't when choosing their candidate. otherwise it's no longer democracy.

Nobody is debating whether we should spy on the terrorists. and it was already publicly known that we were spying on them. It was. Bush had even previous to that disclosure, said in his speeches, yes we are agressively spying on the terrorists, but every time we tap a phone we have the warrants.

the only part they told us that we didn't know was that he didn't have the warrants.

 

[Spider-Bite]

The coices on the poll are trite and unfair.

This thread is a joke.

how do you figure? that is the real question at hand. alquida already knew they were being spied on, the only part they didn't know was that bush kept the judges in the dark.

 

[deemar325]

I'm conflicted on the warrant issue, but if it means more terrorists are compost I'm for it.

 

[Gogo Bananas]

This issue isn't tapping suspected terrorists phones, it's tapping anybodys phone without a proper warrant which is exactly what they were doing.

 

[deemar325]

how do you figure? that is the real question at hand. alquida already knew they were being spied on, the only part they didn't know was that bush kept the judges in the dark.

Do they need to know that?

 

[deemar325]

This issue isn't tapping suspected terrorists phones, it's tapping anybodys phone without a proper warrant which is exactly what they were doing.

If you have nothing to hide, what does it matter?

So the Feds know you talk dirty to your girlfriend, big deal.

 

[Spider-Bite]

okay to clear things up here you go.

the president is allowed to spy on terrorists. even obligated by the oath he took when he became president. Our government was spying on alquida back before Bush was even president.

There are people in place to make sure he only uses this for national security reasons. These people are called Fisa court judges. By federal law the president has to get a warrant to tap phone lines. however sometimes the information might be time sensitive, and they don't want to miss their opportunity, which is why the law grants them a 72 hour time period. I they are in ahurry to tap the phone, they can tap the phone and then acquire the warrant within 72 hours of tapping the phone, and the judges arre available 24 hours a day 7 days a week specifically for the president.

these judges are there to make sure the presidnet doesn't abuse his power. for some reason bush has been hiding what he was doing from them. he didn't want them to see.

Everybody knew the preisdent was spying on terrorists. that wasn't some big secret. The secret was him hiding his actions from the Fisa court judges. Alquida knowing that the judges can't see what he is doing does not help them in any way, because they already knew they were being spied on anyways.

 

[Spider-Bite]

okay to clear things up here you go.

the president is allowed to spy on terrorists. even obligated by the oath he took when he became president. Our government was spying on alquida back before Bush was even president.

There are people in place to make sure he only uses this for national security reasons. These people are called Fisa court judges. By federal law the president has to get a warrant to tap phone lines. however sometimes the information might be time sensitive, and they don't want to miss their opportunity, which is why the law grants them a 72 hour time period. I they are in ahurry to tap the phone, they can tap the phone and then acquire the warrant within 72 hours of tapping the phone, and the judges arre available 24 hours a day 7 days a week specifically for the president.

these judges are there to make sure the presidnet doesn't abuse his power. for some reason bush has been hiding what he was doing from them. he didn't want them to see.

Everybody knew the preisdent was spying on terrorists. that wasn't some big secret. The secret was him hiding his actions from the Fisa court judges. Alquida knowing that the judges can't see what he is doing does not help them in any way, because they already knew they were being spied on anyways.

 

[deemar325]

okay to clear things up here you go.

the president is allowed to spy on terrorists. even obligated by the oath he took when he became president. Our government was spying on alquida back before Bush was even president.

There are people in place to make sure he only uses this for national security reasons. These people are called Fisa court judges. By federal law the president has to get a warrant to tap phone lines. however sometimes the information might be time sensitive, and they don't want to miss their opportunity, which is why the law grants them a 72 hour time period. I they are in ahurry to tap the phone, they can tap the phone and then acquire the warrant within 72 hours of tapping the phone, and the judges arre available 24 hours a day 7 days a week specifically for the president.

these judges are there to make sure the presidnet doesn't abuse his power. for some reason bush has been hiding what he was doing from them. he didn't want them to see.

Everybody knew the preisdent was spying on terrorists. that wasn't some big secret. The secret was him hiding his actions from the Fisa court judges. Alquida knowing that the judges can't see what he is doing does not help them in any way, because they already knew they were being spied on anyways.

I understand that, but it's petty arguments. It's out now Bush and his people made some missteps, but it's all for one goal. The erradication of terrorist activity.

 

[StorminNorman]

Basically the way I see it is that the New York Times was asked by leaders of both parties to NOT report his information because it could hurt National Secruity and the NYT reported it anyway.

That is quite simply dangerous and the NYT needs to be punished.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Do they need to know that?

I need to know it. everybody American needs to know this. How do we know that Bush isn't using this to find out who is on the verge of busting him for doing something else illegal? Your expecting us to simply take his word for it. Most politicains are corrupt. The president is most certainly corrupt. and now him and other republicans want to press charges agains the New York times? As soon as the government controls what the news can and can't tell you, it goes completely evil on your ass.

What if Clinton used this to try and find out who was on the verge of proving he had an affair with Monica?

What if? the preisdent was going to rig elections, and use this power to find out who knows what about his plans?

Bush claims to want to spread democracy throughout the world? well New York times helped spread democracy throughout the United States.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Basically the way I see it is that the New York Times was asked by leaders of both parties to NOT report his information because it could hurt National Secruity and the NYT reported it anyway.

That is quite simply dangerous and the NYT needs to be punished.

as soon as the government controls the press it goes completely Saddam on us. it happens every time, because the govenrment is no longer in check. leaders are no longer held accountable, and absolute power makes a person really evil every time. Iraqis weren't allowed to criticize Saddam's actions without punishement, and now the NYT isn't allowed to crticize Bush's spying program either?

do you see the connection?

 

[Spider-Bite]

I understand that, but it's petty arguments. It's out now Bush and his people made some missteps, but it's all for one goal. The erradication of terrorist activity.

spying on terrorists is to eradicate terrorist activity. but the only possible reason for hiding his actions from those judges is because it isn't being used against terrorists, therefore it's not all for one goal.

 

[deemar325]

I need to know it. everybody American needs to know this. How do we know that Bush isn't using this to find out who is on the verge of busting him for doing something else illegal? Your expecting us to simply take his word for it. Most politicains are corrupt. The president is most certainly corrupt. and now him and other republicans want to press charges agains the New York times? As soon as the government controls what the news can and can't tell you, it goes completely evil on your ass.

What if Clinton used this to try and find out who was on the verge of proving he had an affair with Monica?

What if? the preisdent was going to rig elections, and use this power to find out who knows what about his plans?

Bush claims to want to spread democracy throughout the world? well New York times helped spread democracy throughout the United States.

You got a point there, but any wrong doing on the adminstration's part will be discovered and handled eventually.

I have faith is all, you could be totally right.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Where is the option: "The New York Times is a ****ty paper."

 

[StorminNorman]

as soon as the government controls the press it goes completely Saddam on us. it happens every time, because the govenrment is no longer in check. leaders are no longer held accountable, and absolute power makes a person really evil every time. Iraqis weren't allowed to criticize Saddam's actions without punishement, and now the NYT isn't allowed to crticize Bush's spying program either?

do you see the connection?

There is a difference between not being able to criticize Bush and reporting information that could harm the security of the nation.

The issue is not that they criticized Bush, its that they reported what both parties saw as information that could harm National Security.

 

[deemar325]

There is a difference between not being able to criticize Bush and reporting information that could harm the security of the nation.

The issue is not that they criticized Bush, its that they reported what both parties saw as information that could harm National Security.

I agree.

 

[StorminNorman]

I need to know it. everybody American needs to know this. How do we know that Bush isn't using this to find out who is on the verge of busting him for doing something else illegal? Your expecting us to simply take his word for it. Most politicains are corrupt. The president is most certainly corrupt. and now him and other republicans want to press charges agains the New York times? As soon as the government controls what the news can and can't tell you, it goes completely evil on your ass.

What if Clinton used this to try and find out who was on the verge of proving he had an affair with Monica?

What if? the preisdent was going to rig elections, and use this power to find out who knows what about his plans?

Bush claims to want to spread democracy throughout the world? well New York times helped spread democracy throughout the United States.

You would have a point if it was just Bush and Co. asking the NYT not to report this. Republicans and Democrats agreed that reporting this was a bad move.

 

[Spider-Bite]

There is a difference between not being able to criticize Bush and reporting information that could harm the security of the nation.

The issue is not that they criticized Bush, its that they reported what both parties saw as information that could harm National Security.

congress didn't even know about it. a couple democrats who don't have the balls to stand up for what's right are pandering. yeah that's for sure. but it's mostly republicans.

how did bush hiding his actions from the judges harm national security? the terrorists already knew they were being spied on anyways.

 

[Spider-Bite]

You got a point there, but any wrong doing on the adminstration's part will be discovered and handled eventually.

I have faith is all, you could be totally right.

I belive that all of our preisdent's have done things wrong behind the scenes. I also belive that most of the time we will never hear about it.

 

[Spider-Bite]

You would have a point if it was just Bush and Co. asking the NYT not to report this. Republicans and Democrats agreed that reporting this was a bad move.

actually republicans and democrats agreed that reporting this was a good move. It was a non partisian opinion shared by most dems and most republicans. His own party was furious with him over this.