The 1st Amendment, the media and classified information

Politics International Politics
61

Please don’t allow your ignorance to speak for all of us.

Was the US Supreme Court exhibiting this bias you so ignorantly speak of when, over the Bush administration’s strenuous objections, it agreed in November 2003 to hear the cases of the Guantanamo detainees together with al Odah v. Bush. The arguments were heard on April 20, 2004 and on June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees do have access to U.S. Courts to challenge their detention.

If ignorance truly is bliss, you must be one ecstatically happy bloke… :smiley:

62

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote]Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times’ decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

…
What you’ve seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary

U.S. Department of the Treasury [/quote][/quote]

corner.nationalreview.com/post/

Makes one wonder if he sent a similar letter to the Wall Street Journal, which published the same information on the same day.

Oh, and speaking of conservatives and exposing classified information:

(quote)Just listening to Bill Kristol on Fox News saying AG Gonzales should consider prosecuting the NYT for running the SWIFT network monitoring story. But - didn’t Mr. Kristol’s magazine publish classified information just a few years ago leaked to it during the height of the Iraq war? I believe it did. As Mr. Kristol’s magazine brags below, it published excerpts from a top secret intelligence document:

(Internal quote from the Weekly Standard)
(quote) OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee....(quote)

So does Mr. Kristol as Keller’s editorial counterpart deserve to be prosecuted as well by Mr. Gonzales? Why does he think he has the authority to make that decision to publish top secret intelligence information in his magazine, while, as he is saying now on Fox, the NYT’s Bill Keller does not? Does Kristol think it should be left to his editorial discretion? Does he think that what he published served a higher cause: the public’s right to know? Or did it serve another cause he thought warranted his taking it upon himself the authority to knowingly publish top secret classified information?

I’d love to hear Keller, Kristol and Gonzales debate this point. Kristol’s actions in knowingly publishing classified information in the midst of a war speak for themselves, and his casual suggestion that the NYT should be prosecuted for doing the same does not seem consistent with his own practice(quote)

warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004464.html

(Sorry, my keyboard is wacked- have to go get a replacement)

63

MikeN:

Sorry, I am having trouble understanding your point…

Damn it Tigerman! This is not about proving arguments with facts; this is about giving each and every person their own narrative. By ridiculing Traveller’s narrative, you are esstentially denying him a voice. It does not matter whether he can prove his argument or not. The important thing is that he has a voice. He has a narrative to share. And given the dialectical construction of all true knowledge, it is important that we maximize the number of voices in any given dialogue to ensure the greatest representation of truth speak in ongoing conversations between peoples. Through effectively communicating our views and allowing others to share theirs, we are best able to ensure that objective truths are given a platform. There is no ONE objective truth and your clear subjectivist bias borders on hermeneutic reductionism by failing to appreciate that. Surely you can see this clearly, though when I use see I wish to avoid the overly visualistic approach adopted by Western philosophers traditionally. I am in no way suggesting that the visual sense is the best or only sense that should be adopted nor am I in any way suggesting the superiority of white over black, light over dark or sun over night. There is nothing heliocentric about my tropisms.

64

Fred’s channeling again.

Major Hoople? Is that you? How the hell are you? (Pardon the pun, Major.) What’s it like ‘on the other side’ anyway?

65

Please don’t allow your ignorance to speak for all of us.[/quote]

Why, when your own ignorance can speak elegantly for itself. (Doofus ipsa loquitur?)

[quote=“Tigerman”]Was the US Supreme Court exhibitting this bias you ignorantly speak of when, over the Bush administration’s objections, it agreed in November 2003 to hear the cases of the Guantanamo detainees together with al Odah v. Bush. The arguments were heard on April 20, 2004 and on June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees do have access to U.S. Courts to challenge their detention.

If ignorance truly is bliss, you must be one ecstatically happy bloke… :smiley:[/quote]

Traveller expressed his view that the majority of the SC are Republican-appointed and he seems to think it is apparent that these justices would be biased towards a line of ideology of those who appointed them. While it is not necessarily true (in my view) that Republican-appointed judges have turned out to be as predicted, there have been a couple of new appointments to the Supreme Court in the period after the cases you mention.

If you’re going to go back in history and dig about, one might as well cite other cases that involve former judges. I can just smell the outrage coming from GOPland: ‘Darn that “Marbury v. Madison” stuff! Damn liberal “activist” judges. Why don’t we do like conservative media luminary Hal Turner suggests and gun them down?’

66

[quote]House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records.

The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.

The resolution comes as Republicans from the president on down condemn media organizations for reporting on the secret government program that tracked financial records overseas through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), an international banking cooperative.[/quote]

Naturally…a partisan move. :raspberry:
thehill.com/thehill/export/T … times.html

67

Gosh, MFGR, isn’t it true that the Court that decided the case I cited is also the Court that decided the election case in 2000? Why, it certainly is. Yet, that very same Court, accused of bias by the ignorant critics, then turned around and ruled against the President in 2004.

The point is, it is very foolish to blather as Traveller did, as the USSC has shown time and time again to rule as it sees fit, very often in opposition to the party with which it is deemed by “popular” wisdom to be more ideologically in tune.

The same Court that was accused of being biased in favor of the Republicans by so many ignorant critics after “giving” Bush the presidency in 2000, is responsible for quite a few decisions with decidedly liberal slants. That court wrote sodomy into the US Constitution; affirmed that affirmative action was constitutional, citing a broader need for “diversity”; refused to rule on whether “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was constitutional; and ruled that campaign-finance reform laws do not restrict free speech… and then in 2004 that same Court, against the arguments put forth by the Bush administration, ruled that terror suspects, homegrown and foreign, are entitled to challenge their detention in an American courtroom.

Thanks for playing. Now, run along. :smiley:

68

“You forgot denial ain’t a river in Egypt. Try to keep up with the conversation. Now, back to the kiddie pool.”

Honestly, Tigerman. I really do not think that you have MFGRese down quite yet. Do step up to the plate and make a bit more effort. Now, there’s a good boy.

69

Is the warm weather keeping all you guys inside? :smiley:

70

Traveller and mofangongren don’t know squat! Always posting from a position of ignorance… :smiley:

71

Traveller and mofangongren don’t know squat! Always posting from a position of ignorance… :smiley: [/quote]

Really? Oh, so then what part is it of my post that you disagree with? The part in which I say it is not necessarily true that Republican-appointed judges turn out as predicted, or the part in which I state that there have been a couple of new appointments to the Supreme Court in the period after the cases you mentioned?

Please either demonstrate that Republican-appointed judges turn out precisely as predicted or that Alito and Roberts were appointed prior to November 2003, prior to April 20, 2004 or prior to June 28, 2004. Chop-chop, my good man! Please report straightaway, as these should be easy questions for you to answer.

72

Haha, mofangongren… watch out behind you as you backpeddle… you might trip over the tattered remains of your thoroughly shredded assertions… :laughing:

Come now, mfgr. I correctly commented on Traveller’s ridiculous statement regarding the USSC, and you rushed to his defense. You also asserted that I was somehow ignorant about the makeup of the USSC. What comment did you direct at me? Yes, it was “(Doofus ipsa loquitur?)”.

Haha, you and Traveller both look foolish now. :smiley: Is that egg I see there on your face? :laughing:

73

As you can tell, I had a different view from Traveller’s. Strangely, your response to Traveller was to dredge up court decisions that did not have the input of Roberts or Alito, and so, yes, I did think you must have been ignorant as to the makeup of the current SC. It was far better for me to charitably presume you hadn’t read up on current events than to assume that you were intentionally ignoring the addition of two justices appointed by Bush.

Now, please either demonstrate that Republican-appointed judges turn out precisely as predicted or that Alito and Roberts were appointed prior to November 2003, prior to April 20, 2004 or prior to June 28, 2004. Please report back straightaway or else I’ll have to assume that the “Tigerman” moniker comes from one giant yellow stripe!

74

Assume away, mofangongren. Assume to your heart’s content.

You and I both know that you were foolish to jump to Traveller’s defense and that my reasoning was sound.

And the FACTS, not any assumption, support my contention. :laughing:

75

As you haven’t been able to demonstrate that Republican-appointed judges turn out precisely as predicted or that Alito and Roberts were appointed prior to November 2003, prior to April 20, 2004 or prior to June 28, 2004, I have no choice but to nail your pelt against the wall again. Sorry, but eventually it will scab over and heal.

VERY GROSS image removed…blech

76

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

[quote]Come now, mfgr. I correctly commented on Traveller’s ridiculous statement regarding the USSC, and you rushed to his defense. You also asserted that I was somehow ignorant about the makeup of the USSC. What comment did you direct at me? Yes, it was “(Doofus ipsa loquitur?)”.

Haha, you and Traveller both look foolish now. Is that egg I see there on your face? [/quote]

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

77

Not sure what he means by “backpeddling”, although if he’s peddling stuff, I’ll have to pass. If he’s got a Freudian wish to have his back paddled, I’m afraid I also cannot be of assistance. I don’t know Chinese medicine well enough.

I take Tigerman’s inability to find any factual fault with my earlier statement as “backpedaling” on his part … unless he wants to insist that Alito and Roberts were on the Supreme Court back in 2004 or thereabouts.

78

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: What a come back! That must have taken quite an effort. Unfortunately, most of the rest of us know how to read so, er…

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

That’s right. It really IS Tigerman who is backpedaling. How droll! How rich! How amusant! Talk about alternative realities. The 60s must MUST have been good to you MFGR.

79

Fred, do you support Tigerman’s assertions that the Supreme Court has not changed since 2004? I’m curious because I figure you might have read up on the addition of Alito and Roberts. Do you support his novel idea that judges appointed by the Republicans have always worked out as predicted?

80

haha nice try MFGR. Why don’t you respond to Tigerman’s questions regarding your assertions.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: