Comments on: Peter King wants NY Times prosecuted

By: Moonage

Moonage — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:00:41 +0000

What does this have to do with “an occupancy”?

By: MM

MM — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:18:22 +0000

Too much intrusion into the privacy of citizens deserves to be reported. Quit hiding behind a war (that is now an occupancy) that shouldn’t have taken place to begin with.

By: Moonage

Moonage — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:50:23 +0000

Well slap me stupid ( or preferably just let me buy you a beer. ) I had too many things going on at the same time. I use word association to remember a lot of people ( especially that incredibly long French name you blog under ). For you, it was always Genghis Khan. ( You know him as the guy who scored lots and lots of babes, he must have been “dirty” a lot. ) Unfortunately, this time I apparently forgot to transpose the D.

I’m not really of the camp that they actually revealed anything to the terrorists. Zarqawi was apparently pretty internet savvy. However, I am of the camp that they could care less if they had helped him in the name of selling more ads. And, under the law, intent is all that matters. Proving it’s hard. In their case, they’re apparently pleading insanity.

By: Dirty Dingus

Dirty Dingus — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:10:42 +0000

Gingus? Its Dirty Dingus you Loon

It may or may not have been well known in terrorist circles that the US Govt is tracking financial transactions but I can’t see how shouting out loud serves anyone other than the terrorists.

I’d like to see the NY Times go bust and the sooner the better because I agree they didn’t care about anything other than propping up falling revenue/circulation

By: Moonage

Moonage — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:49:37 +0000

I don’t believe everything I read on the internet. However, I’m less inclined to believe everything I read in major media these days. I try to expose both sides to any issue, that’s why you’re here. However, my issue has been with the New York Times reporting, not necessarily this one particular issue. The issue, in a bigger sense, is how does the public check what the media is doing? Blogs are fine and good, but we still don’t have the exposure print and broadcast media do. And, as has been well noted, people are more inclined to pick and choose what blogs they want to be exposed to, whereas broadcast and print media are blaring their headlines on every sidewalk and television set in the country along with the internet. So, the “people” factor is certainly limited. In this case, I think it’s fairly obvious from the New York Times rebuttal they didn’t even take national security into consideration. So, who do they answer to if their only real consideration is political or selling ads?

By: Moonage

Moonage — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:45:03 +0000

The links issue has been corrected, please stick them here again if you wish Michael.

By: Michael Hampton

Michael Hampton — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:41:17 +0000

I cited and linked to both those articles at Homeland Stupidity, since it appears the links got filtered out…

As for the Times, I’ve certainly seen plenty of bias from them, but nothing at all to indicate they didn’t act in the public interest — or at least think they were doing so.

I could probably go on for hours deconstructing Malkin, Hewitt, et al, but I haven’t got the time for it right now. Maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet…

By: StormWarning

StormWarning — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:03:37 +0000

The SWIFT program was well known by people, at least those people in the filed of counterterrorism for a number of years. Having said that, I question the reporting practices of the NY Times (and I also question Cong. King's focus on this issue...he's got a re-election coming up). Reports of US Monitoring of SWIFT Transactions Are Not New: The Practice Has Been Known By Terrorism Financing Experts For Some Time U.S. Government Terrorist Financing Initiative Involving SWIFT (updated)

By: Moonage

Moonage — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:48:50 +0000

My point is not whether or not the Times actually did any damage or not. It was whether or not THEY perceived it as doing damage. It’s their intent that needs to be investigated. If their intent was a misguided effort at keeping the public informed, then they’ve done their job. If it was anything else, Peter King is correct to have them investigated. Even if they truly did not jeapordize national security, their intent was not in the best interest of national security. The Chicago guys that just got busted for planning to blow up the Sears Tower never actually jeapordized national security. But, their intent was to do so. Same thing.

As for us keeping the press in check, that’s exactly what I’m trying to do in my own very small way.

By: Michael Hampton

Michael Hampton — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:16:48 +0000

The damage to the national security was done when the UN published this three years ago. You think al Qaeda isn’t watching the UN watching them?

Most telling to me was the Times executive editor Bill Keller’s recounting of their conversations with Bush administration officials regarding the story. If his telling is anywhere near accurate, then the publication of this story is likely to do little if any damage to national security, and might actually help.

As for who keeps the press in check, we do.