Exactly what law did the New York Times break?

[techs]

I was just wondering what law the New York Times broke when it reported the government was secretly monitoring all financial transactions?
I know that the Federal Government can declare certain programs secret.
But if Congress never passed a law specifically enabling the government to monitor transactions how could the Times have broken the law by revealing it?
And if the Federal Government had the authority to monitor these transactions and the authority to keep them secret than HOW WOULD THE NY TIMES KNOW IT WAS A SECRET???
I really don't get it.

 

[dahunan]

I am more concerned with what crimes our government might be breaking by thinking they can do all of this in secret. What next.. snatch human beings off the streets and lock them in some prison in Cuba without ever charging them with a crime and not allowing them to leave?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: techs
I was just wondering what law the New York Times broke when it reported the government was secretly monitoring all financial transactions?
I know that the Federal Government can declare certain programs secret.
But if Congress never passed a law specifically enabling the government to monitor transactions how could the Times have broken the law by revealing it?
And if the Federal Government had the authority to monitor these transactions and the authority to keep them secret than HOW WOULD THE NY TIMES KNOW IT WAS A SECRET???
I really don't get it.

Executive privilege versus the First ammendment

 

[mylok]

no law was broken (except maybe by the person who leaked it). this is just red meat for the right wing base (those damn liburals). If they broke the law then the AG will charge them right? So if the NYT is not charged then I guess no law was broken. It will be funny to watch the right wingers when their boy wont bring charges.

 

[her209]

Shouldn't Robert Novak be charged with disclosure?

 

[ajf3]

My opinion is that going after the times is just rhetoric...

If they really want to put an end to this, find the source, charge him with treason and execute him. That'll plug up future leaks to the media like you wouldn't believe.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ajf3
My opinion is that going after the times is just rhetoric...

If they really want to put an end to this, find the source, charge him with treason and execute him. That'll plug up future leaks to the media like you wouldn't believe.

"I am not going to comment on an ongoing investigation."

(rinse, repeat)

 

[piasabird]

This is no different than releasing the name of a CIA Agent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is no different than releasing the name of a CIA Agent.

Interesting statement. Would you care to back that up?

 

[BBond]

The New York Times broke no law. They simply commited the newly defined crime of telling the truth about the bush administration's crimes.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is no different than releasing the name of a CIA Agent.

Except her identity was a classified piece of information, while this program was not.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BBond
The New York Times broke no law. They simply commited the newly defined crime of telling the truth about the bush administration's crimes.

The truth is a lie! Traitors! <-- notice spittle coming off my tongue right there?

 

[BBond]

What really sickens me is the fact that the New York Times actually discusses which stories they should or shouldn't run with the current administration. Someone please explain to me how that type of activity jibes with a supposed "free press".

"Hello, White House? This is the New York Times calling to get approval for the stories we'd like to run today."

Land of the free my a$$. The news media under the bush administration has become a propaganda outlet that rivals the former Soviet Union's Pravda.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: BBond
What really sickens me is the fact that the New York Times actually discusses which stories they should or shouldn't run with the current administration. Someone please explain to me how that type of activity jibes with a supposed "free press".

"Hello, White House? This is the New York Times calling to get approval for the stories we'd like to run today."

Land of the free my a$$. The news media under the bush administration has become a propaganda outlet that rivals the former Soviet Union's Pravda.

Why is it that every time you actually have a legitimate point, you have to ruin it with ridiculous hyperbole? "Rivals the former Soviet Union's Prada..." :roll:

 

[raz3000]

The "Government Knows Best Act"
--from The Simpsons

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: BBond
What really sickens me is the fact that the New York Times actually discusses which stories they should or shouldn't run with the current administration. Someone please explain to me how that type of activity jibes with a supposed "free press".

"Hello, White House? This is the New York Times calling to get approval for the stories we'd like to run today."

Land of the free my a$$. The news media under the bush administration has become a propaganda outlet that rivals the former Soviet Union's Pravda.

Why is it that every time you actually have a legitimate point, you have to ruin it with ridiculous hyperbole? "Rivals the former Soviet Union's Prada..." :roll:

For the same reasons that you make illegitimate points then defend the current administration with ridiculous hyperole.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: BBond
What really sickens me is the fact that the New York Times actually discusses which stories they should or shouldn't run with the current administration. Someone please explain to me how that type of activity jibes with a supposed "free press".

"Hello, White House? This is the New York Times calling to get approval for the stories we'd like to run today."

Land of the free my a$$. The news media under the bush administration has become a propaganda outlet that rivals the former Soviet Union's Pravda.

Why is it that every time you actually have a legitimate point, you have to ruin it with ridiculous hyperbole? "Rivals the former Soviet Union's Prada..." :roll:

What do you think it resembles?

Sure doesn't sound like a Free U.S. to me.

 

[mylok]

again, if they broke the law then Bush's AG will bring charges right? anyone wanna bet? I bet there will be no charges. They did not charge Scooter with the original charge and we all know the right says that makes him a hero.

 

[dannybin1742]

If they really want to put an end to this, find the source, charge him with treason and execute him. That'll plug up future leaks to the media like you wouldn't believe.

whats the big deal with what they did, its not like it was new news, it just had never been on the front page of any paper, as olberman said, this stuff was on the internet in the form of the swift project, bush talked about it more than 7 times in speeches sine 2001, the red just want to be mad at someone, where was the outrage from the right when the the whitehouse purposely outed cia agent valerie plame?

 

[GeNome]

I just found this article through a link conjur posted in another thread. From the article:

""Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a 'leak,' it was entirely authorized...."

So, in defending themselves, they're also defending the Times.

 

[Jaskalas]

We have a right to know about the federal government over stepping its authority and violating the fourth amendment.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
We have a right to know about the federal government over stepping its authority and violating the fourth amendment.

And the first Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: techs
I was just wondering what law the New York Times broke?

See Art III - Sec 3 of the constitution.

you're welcome.

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: techs
I was just wondering what law the New York Times broke?

See Art III - Sec 3 of the constitution.

you're welcome.

How is this "...or in adhering to our enemies, giving them aid or comfort," prey tell?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: techs
I was just wondering what law the New York Times broke?

See Art III - Sec 3 of the constitution.

you're welcome.

Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines the act of treason. What would you call conspiring and acting to cause the armed forces into a war that costs thousands of American lives and wounding tens of thousands more Americans?

What would you call it when that war drains the military and financial and resources of our nation to the point where we are unable to defend ourselves against any new, real external threat, or deal adequately with serious domestic emergencies?

When you're through with that, tell us what you'd call intentionally disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative for political gamesmanship as an act of retribution against her husband whose only "crime" was disclosling the truth about the administrations lies about Saddam's alleged attempts to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger?

Since you're so willing to site the Constitution, try the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The New York Times is "guilty" of the same crime as Joseph Wilson. They told the truth about the Bushwhackos' lies. In this case, it was their illegal surveillance of American citizens without bothering with such Constitutionally mandated niceties as a warrant.

There's lots of treason going on, but it's all centered at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500. :|