Close Topic Options

Bush Condemns New York Times? - Page 3

Since you have no problems with this and you CAN'T see what privacy you don't have, I'll lay it out for you. ANY international call or domestic call (considered possibly terrorist) can be listened in on out side of any law. They are bypassing the law. The law passed to allow this to happen you are talking about is FISA, which still requires a warrant, but with looser requirements. They use NO WARRANTS what so ever. So they essentially need answer to no one for why they are listening on your phone line. In fact, all the laws you keep referring to allowing this REQUIRE a warrant. They have admitted they are doing it without a warrant which makes it against the law period! Court cases have been thrown out because of this stuff, and all calls involve at least one American phone! The government must be required to follow the law they are supposed to enforce! The same goes for every single spy program they have, all of them REQUIRE warrants to make sure there is a valid reason to be doing this activity, to prevent the Big Brother of George Orwells 1984 from happening, its called checks and balances. With out needing a warrant, and under the Patriot Acts sweeping powers, the president can have anyone tapped, followed, taken, held, not charged all under the guise of terrorism and domestic terrorism. Being able to bypass the laws of checks and balances in the name of safety and security is to give the president uncheck powers he shouldn't have! What have I been saying and what are you not reading here that you still are asking me what liberties and privacies am I missing? How about the right granted by the constitution that protects me from an over bearing government? And now you are ok with those checks and balances, the very laws you say are in place, just being bypassed? Then the paper reveals it and they are the traitor? Put yourself in the bad situation. All these powers are supposedly to protect us from terrorism and only during the war on terror. When exactly does this war end? When are all the terrorist going to be gone and not a threat, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? So in thirty years, what measures will they being doing to make sure we aren't terrorists if they can do this now? I'm sorry, no offense intended, but you have to be very short sighted and closed minded not to see the possibilities of where this can lead to. I will continue to support the NYT for doing the first thing right I can remember in my lifetime. What liberty and privacy have I lost when my phone, financial, personally life can now be spied on by the government with out warrant? Well, if its not evident, I don't know what else to say. I guess you don't mind if the government tracks every move you make, but I do. And again, you just don't understand that the Patriot Act allows them to deem anyone a terrorist, especially under new sections approved in this springs last renewal of the Patriot Act.

Times York Condemns Bush

The US has been listening in to international telephone calls for decades. There were, and are, strict controls on what the people listening in can and can't do with what they hear. ONLY specific situations will apply.

I can ALMOST agree with the first two exposes, except that they make it much more difficult for the US to find terrorist cells in the US. But their last expose, where they even said themselves that they were only exposing it for the money, is what really makes them traitors.

For the first two, a case can be made that the government was exceeding lawful actions (although it is not a proven case for me). The third one cannot. It has no effect on any law abiding citizen in the US, or in other countries, unless they are transferring large amounts of money, or many, many small amounts. It was, and is, perfectly legal, by any and all standards.

And, the NYT admits that that program was tremendously effective, and had resulted in the capture and prosecution of several terrorist cells in several different countries.

What the NYT has done has weakened our alliances in Europe, has emboldened the terrorists, and has hurt our country directly.

I don't know when the war on terror will end. Perhaps when countries like Iran and Syria stop sending lots of money to the terrorist groups. However, we no longer have the means to find and disrupt those cash flows. Perhaps it will end when Hezbollah and Hamas stop sending young men and women into crowded markets with bombs strapped on them, or Al-Qaeda stops bombing trains and subways. Whatever it takes.

And, remember, we went into WWII with only one real objective - stop the militaristic dictatorships of Germany, Italy, and Japan. We were willing to put forth whatever effort it would take. We knew that the desires of those dictatorships were very bad for the world in general, and the US in particular.

Now, we are in a war that is just as important. But thanks to the NYT and other media, nobody is willing to sacrifice anything. A large percentage of the US population wants us to cut and run. The US doesn't care if a few dozen more Israeli youth die in a disco, or if another subway is bombed in London, as long as we can watch Desperate Housewives and American Idol.

I have heard a lot of panic talk from the Left about the horrible USA PATRIOT ACT. However, the few details that I have read have been gross distortions, starting with the libraries who screamed that the FBI was going to be coming in and grabbing all their records.

I, personally, haven't paid any attention to what was approved this last spring. That is because the constant panic statements from the media and the Left have completely numbed me to subject.

I guess that with the way the Left and the media have treated our military, terrorism, and the fight against terrorism, I have reached the point where if something makes them mad, I have to assume it is a VERY GOOD thing. So far, nothing I have seen or read has prompted me to change my mind in any way.

Bush Condemns New York Times? History & Civil Business Politics

You understand that you are indeed, by your own words, allowing your bias to effect what your opinions about real issues are? You made a straight out statement that the NYT did it for money. That is obviously your opinion about a paper you consider leftist and a traitor. The fact is that you don't really know if they released it for money or for patriotic reasons. Remember that they held onto knowledge of this phone tapping story for an entire year at the request of the president and they got lambasted for not reporting the news. Can't have it both ways, but they got smacked when they held on and smacked when they immediately released it. So if in one instance they hold on to a story because the government asks them to and the next they print it, what are they, government lap dogs (as they were first accused of six months or so ago) or traitors (as they are accused of now)?

Then you state that you don't even listen to what adds up to you as leftist propaganda. And you are numb to "panic" talkers. So instead of doing something about it, you right it off because the right wing says its panic talk and thus now if they scream wolf, when it really is you wouldn't hear or believe it. But see, panic talk is only panic talk if its not true and its very true. The money spying thing has actually been used against known terrorist for decades, but never against AMERICAN CITIZENS without warrants. The laws are there to protect us and insure that the government cannot do what ever they want. They have simply bypassed these laws under the Patriot Act and ignored any law that requires justification. And between, since you don't listen to the "leftist" "panic" talkers regarding the Patriot Act, you should know that three sections where ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court such as search and seizure of citizens with no warrant, in a law suit by the ACLU (yes, I know you probably don't like them either, no right wing conservative does.). Recently, two of the three where put back in when congress met in a unpublished session and the news mentioned it for about two seconds. Glad the media stood up on that one! I listen to independent media as well as the occassional (once a week) party line (rep and dems) radio broadcast and get a healthy dose of fox news at work. You have to investigate every claim or you can't be truly informed about whats going on.

Page 3 Times York Condemns Bush

Now this little action by the New York Times just goes to show (if anyone didn't already know) that they have a distinct bias against Israel, towards Islamofascists such as Hezbollah.

https://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/...-hezbollah.html

In this, we see that the New York Times published a series of photographs, showing how horrible it is in Lebanon, where the Israelis have bombed certain areas. Take a good close look, first at the picture of the "dead" man. Notice that there isn't any dust on him, yet he is supposed to have been killed in an explosion. He looks extremely clean to me. You might also notice the way his left arm is tightly held to his side, tight enough to hold his hat in place.

Now, look on to some of the other photographs, set in the exact same area. You will see that in ALL 5 of the other photos, the same man is displayed, only he is very much alive.

There is no way that an experienced editor could have missed this. So, we must assume that the New York Times is so intent on embarrassing Israel (as well as President Bush) that they are willing to publish obviously posed footage.

One more thing. I worked in disaster relief after hurricane Elena, on the Mississippi Gulf Coast in 1985. After 5 minutes, I was dirty, sweaty, and miserable looking. All those guys working on the "rescue" efforts look very, very clean. At least to me.

Does the NYT think that EVERYONE is stupid?

Times York Condemns Bush

I agree with you, the New York Times is back to its shallow ways. What it should have done was publish the dialogue I watched on C-Span live. In a nut shell, the Israel Prime Minister of Defense was asked how he could distinguish between the Hezbollah and the residential area that is all of southern Lebenon. The Minister of Defense said, and I quote from his lips to my ears, "All are hezbollah, man, woman, child, we make no distinction, we kill anything that moves!" Bet you won't see that in the New York Times or any US paper for that matter. I don't want to get into the Israel issue in this thread but to say that US papers almost never cover Israel in a light of truth or honesty, even supposedly liberal papers temper it because we love Israel in the United States.

Bush Condemns New York Times?

CHINA JAILS NEW YORK TIMES RESEARCHER FOR FRAUD

Jailed New York Times researcher Zhao Yan was given a three-year sentence for fraud in Beijing early Friday, his lawyer has told the Reuters news agency.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006...-china-nyt.html

Bush Condemns York Times - Page 3

I am surprised there is much debate about the semantics of this pathetic war between Israel and Hezbollah. Yes, Hezbollah illegally captured some Israeli soldiers (heaven forbid) and sparked a so called war! But the reality is that Israel has murdered several hundred Lebanese civilians for a crime they have not committed.

Hezbollah is laughing right now because Israel had pretty much justified their violent incursion through more violence. I'm sorry, but until paranoid Israel realises it can't have peace through war, it is going to have more mortar attacks. Of course, every country that dares bomb Israel, even though the Lebanese never bombed them, will pay a much higher price. The US backs everything Israel does through weapons technology and UN support. Bush telling Israel it has overstepped the mark should be a significant moment in history. We wait and see.

Message Edited! For spelling

Edited: konquererz on 30th Aug, 2006 - 7:36am

Bush Condemns York Times Politics Business Civil & History - Page 3

NY Times to charge for net services

The New York Times will start charging for full access to its articles on phones, tablet computers and the Internet, in a bold plan that risks alienating readers of its popular news website. Ref. Source 8