How do you feel about all the hubbub over the gov'mnt monitoring bank transactions?

lazur said:
My God, my reply was to Jag, who essentially said that the government shouldn't be able to do ANYTHING (which we'll presume includes using spy satellites, the CIA, Echelon and so on) without the public having knowledge of it.

Why don't you stop jumping into the middle of discussions between two people you obviously cannot understand, or at least didn't take the time to read and understand before hand?

And quit being insulting. You're only showing your maturity when you stoop to that level.

That's not what I was saying. You filled that in all on your own with your assumptions about me. So, thanks for jumping in on MY conversation without taking the time to read and understand what I was actually saying and then be insulting and immature to me over it. :up:

jag
 
jaguarr said:
That's not what I was saying. You filled that in all on your own with your assumptions about me. So, thanks for jumping in on MY conversation without taking the time to read and understand what I was actually saying and then be insulting and immature to me over it. :up:

jag

Then answer me this: What is there that the government could do in secret that you'd be pissed at the NYT for breaking?
 
lazur said:
Actually, when you called my analogy "dumb", you did, sir. But thanks for being so astute.


Youre welcome.:up:
 
lazur said:
As I said, people like you really concern me. In the same breath, you hold the government accountable for when we are attacked by terrorists, and also cut them off at the knees when they attempt to prevent it from happening in the future. You want them to protect you, but you don't want them to use the tools at their disposal to do so. It's like asking Superman to save a crashing airplane ... but without flying ... and without superspeed ... and oh yeah, you can't use super strength either. Good luck. Don't let us down now!

At some point, you went completely unhinged and didn't even try to understand my point of view or what I was trying to say and instead went off on some bizarre tangent about something that you have stuck in your craw that really has nothing to do with what I was discussing. Sorry I tried to have a civil exchange of ideas based on mutual respect with you, lazur. Won't happen again.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
At some point, you went completely unhinged and didn't even try to understand my point of view or what I was trying to say and instead went off on some bizarre tangent about something that you have stuck in your craw that really has nothing to do with what I was discussing. Sorry I tried to have a civil exchange of ideas based on mutual respect with you, lazur. Won't happen again.

jag

At no time did I show you disrespect. I said you concern me. Big deal, it's the truth.

Again, please tell me what the government could do in secret that you would personally be pissed at the NYT for revealing to the public.
 
Darthphere said:
Youre welcome.:up:

Even when you're wrong, you're right, right?

You called ME dumb first, pal. Then when I retort, you arch your back? Please, grow the f*** up.
 
lazur said:
At no time did I show you disrespect. I said you concern me. Big deal, it's the truth.

Again, please tell me what the government could do in secret that you would personally be pissed at the NYT for revealing to the public.

lazur, I'm not going to get into it with you if you're just going to try and make this all so personal without even really trying to listen to or understand where I'm coming from.

jag
 
I guess everyone is too busy arguing to realize that a "classified program" has it's own website and magazine.
 
Addendum said:
I guess everyone is too busy arguing to realize that a "classified program" has it's own website and magazine.

That's part of what I was saying. This wasn't a giant, classified secret by any shape of the imagination. It had just been flying under the radar and wasn't overly publicized until some of these newspapers decided to run features on it. The government shouldn't have any reason to be upset about this at all, unless they've been abusing the programs and are afraid of getting caught at it.

jag
 
sinewave said:
There are three things I don't get with this issue. 1) Why is the New York Times being singled out when the The Wall Street Journal, The LA Times and, I think, the Washington Post all ran stories on it as well? 2) If this is indeed a classified program, why did the Undersecretary of the Treasury Department agree to discuss the details of the program with the New York Times, along with several other anonymous government insiders? 3) Do people actually think the terrorists weren't aware that the U.S. government would attempt to track their funds?

All the compaining about this by the Republicans seems like a political stunt to try and gain an advantage over the Democrats in an election year.

I figured I'd bump this since I haven't received any responses on this post, yet. I'd honestly like to hear how the other side responds to these questions.
 
Man....it reeks of evil in here. Peeeewwwww! :down

jag
 
jaguarr said:
Man....it reeks of evil in here. Peeeewwwww! :down

jag

Sorry, I ate an evil burrito with extra evil on it. I'm paying for it now. :(
 
sinewave said:
Sorry, I ate an evil burrito with extra evil on it. I'm paying for it now. :(

The evil guacamole always does that to me. And if I have the evil Tabasco sauce? I'm in the bathroom with SEVERE evil the rest of the day. :down

jag
 
Over here the security forces would need a warrant to access an individuals bank account details. due process and all that guff.
 
logansoldcigar said:
Over here the security forces would need a warrant to access an individuals bank account details. due process and all that guff.

I think they're getting around it via a loophole. Basically they're claiming that they're gaining access to that information via a banking consortium, rather than the individual banks themselves.
 
The House passed a resolution condemning the media for reporting on this issue. This is getting silly.

CNN.com said:
House vote slaps news organizations

Resolution blasts stories on terrorist tracking program

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House on Thursday approved a Republican-crafted resolution condemning news organizations for revealing a covert government program to track terrorist financing, saying the disclosure had "placed the lives of Americans in danger."

The resolution, passed 227-183 on a largely party-line vote, did not specifically name the news organizations, but it was aimed at The New York Times and other news media that last week reported on a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorists.

Most Democrats opposed the measure, protesting language in it that asserts that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was "rooted in sound legal authority" and that members of Congress had been appropriately briefed on the program.

While the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal also carried stories on the program, Republicans singled out The New York Times.

"The recent front-page story in the aforementioned New York Times cut the legs out from under this program," said the Financial Services Committee chairman, Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio. "Now the terrorists are well-informed of the details of our methods and will find other ways to move money outside of the formal financial system."

The administration and the 9/11 Commission "went to The New York Times and asked them in the interest of national security not to release the details of this program," said Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "They went ahead and did it anyway."

The Times has defended its reporting, saying publication has served America's public interest. Its executive editor, Bill Keller, said in a statement after the House passed the resolution that the paper took seriously the risks of reporting on intelligence.

"We have on many occasions withheld information when lives were at stake," Keller said. "However, the administration simply did not make a convincing case that describing our efforts to monitor international banking presented such a danger. Indeed, the administration itself has talked publicly and repeatedly about its successes in the area of financial surveillance."

The resolution "condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" and "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program."

Democrats reacted angrily to the GOP majority's refusal to allow them to offer an alternative that would also have expressed concerns about the unauthorized leak of classified information but would have left out language defending the legality of the program.

"What you have done is to hijack the virtually unanimous support for tracking terrorist financing into an endorsement of the way the Bush administration has conducted itself," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, author of the alternative.

"It is a campaign document," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

"There's never been any oversight of the program," she said. "You are asking us to vote on something that we absolutely cannot attest to."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/29/intel.leaks.ap/index.html
 
Wow, how long did that take them? You know how about spending your time on stuff that actually matters.
 
Darthphere said:
Wow, how long did that take them? You know how about spending your time on stuff that actually matters.

yeah, like flag burning and gay marriage.
 
so Im right on this: the senate has passed a resolution condemning a news outlet for reporting on something that is unclassified, freely available and in the public domain?

What next ?
"Just in. the senate has passed a resolution condemnimg the weather channel for forecasting tomorrows weather. as a matter of national security, the US government would prefer it not be known if the weather in the mohavi desert is likely to be warm & sunny.....ect ect ect, security, terrorism, blah blah blah"
 
logansoldcigar said:
so Im right on this: the senate has passed a resolution condemning a news outlet for reporting on something that is unclassified, freely available and in the public domain?

What next ?
"Just in. the senate has passed a resolution condemnimg the weather channel for forecasting tomorrows weather. as a matter of national security, the US government would prefer it not be known if the weather in the mohavi desert is likely to be warm & sunny.....ect ect ect, security, terrorism, blah blah blah"


It does seem ridiculous doesnt it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,080,112
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"