Nothing wrong with a little state-sponsored censorship of media. Well, FOX News thinks so anyway

[Zebo]

Everyone has limits, for example do you think it would be OK to broadcast an Al Queta produced recruitment video on ABC nightly news while we are fighting them or any other time for that matter? I mean there supposed to be impartial so why not? Run the US Army recruitment adver followed by Al Queta's. Of course not!

I think there has to be heavy descression by our media and all US media should be US owned and saffed period. And anything that the justice dept feels violates the law and/or is treason should be prosecuted. Prosecution means nothing. It still has to pass a judges muster and after that a jury. Franky I hav'nt studied these leak reports or know the law enough to ascertain whats going on with the Ebanking monitoring... just providing a general outline and train of thought how we got into this mess and how to stay out of it.

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Anything that leaves your home is potentially subject to interception; hence we have legal wiretaps, the DSC1000, etc. This has beeing going on since at least the forties; it's nothing new. I can definitely tell you that filtering packets is not inherently an infringement of Constitutional rights.

Even if it were, this would not be inherently fascist. It's a law-enforcement and defense tool, which can obviously be used for good or for evil. ...

You might have a point IF this domestic spying was committed under court supervision. The Bush administration has no time for such legalities, of course, unilaterally grabbing unauthorized power and placing itself above the law. That's the point the Bush faithful like to sweep under the rug whenever they try to excuse such blatantly unconstitutional behavior.

I do have a point, a very good one: that freedom of speech and the press should not be upheld to the public detriment. I never said that I think Bush should be allowed to wiretap without a warrant, etc.; these should be criminal acts in my opinion. Liberals on this board (this means you) love to misrepresent me when I commit the sin of failing to slather my posts with huge helpings of anti-GOP hatred.

And I agree, although it might not seem like it. Censorship can be good, in some cases. 'Can' being the operative word here. What I'm failing to see is how publishing an article about monitoring people's transactions has breached our security, or put us in any danger. If someone could give me a rational reason of why that is, I'm more than willing to listen, and even *gasp* change my point of view.

Please don't take my post as flame bait, since that's not what it's supposed to be.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: GeNome

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Anything that leaves your home is potentially subject to interception; hence we have legal wiretaps, the DSC1000, etc. This has beeing going on since at least the forties; it's nothing new. I can definitely tell you that filtering packets is not inherently an infringement of Constitutional rights.

Even if it were, this would not be inherently fascist. It's a law-enforcement and defense tool, which can obviously be used for good or for evil. ...

You might have a point IF this domestic spying was committed under court supervision. The Bush administration has no time for such legalities, of course, unilaterally grabbing unauthorized power and placing itself above the law. That's the point the Bush faithful like to sweep under the rug whenever they try to excuse such blatantly unconstitutional behavior.

I do have a point, a very good one: that freedom of speech and the press should not be upheld to the public detriment. I never said that I think Bush should be allowed to wiretap without a warrant, etc.; these should be criminal acts in my opinion. Liberals on this board (this means you) love to misrepresent me when I commit the sin of failing to slather my posts with huge helpings of anti-GOP hatred.

And I agree, although it might not seem like it. Censorship can be good, in some cases. 'Can' being the operative word here. What I'm failing to see is how publishing an article about monitoring people's transactions has breached our security, or put us in any danger. If someone could give me a rational reason of why that is, I'm more than willing to listen, and even *gasp* change my point of view.

Please don't take my post as flame bait, since that's not what it's supposed to be.

They're broadcasting information about methods used to combat terrorism. One might say that the government has only to classify such information to prevent it from being spread, but sometimes it is impossible (usually when the government works with private interests.

Nobody normally has a problem with restriction of classified material, even though it is a crime if such material is disseminated in the news. Censorship of security-sensitive information achieves the same thing: it becomes a crime to spread the information.

Terrorist organizations, like most secret organizations, conduct much of their information-gathering by watching TV and reading the news, believe it or not. I have to wonder how it is in the public's best interest to publish information about how terrorists are begin tracked and captured. It seems to me that it can only breed more capable terrorists. Terrorism is a hot topic, so it's in the best interest of a news organization to report stories like this; hence we have a problem.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Everyone has limits, for example do you think it would be OK to broadcast an Al Queta produced recruitment video on ABC nightly news while we are fighting them or any other time for that matter? I mean there supposed to be impartial so why not? Run the US Army recruitment adver followed by Al Queta's. Of course not!

I think there has to be heavy descression by our media and all US media should be US owned and saffed period. And anything that the justice dept feels violates the law and/or is treason should be prosecuted. Prosecution means nothing. It still has to pass a judges muster and after that a jury. Franky I hav'nt studied these leak reports or know the law enough to ascertain whats going on with the Ebanking monitoring... just providing a general outline and train of thought how we got into this mess and how to stay out of it.

I agree that there are certain things the media should and should not do, but I don't think the government is in a position to dictate what those things are...or when they have stepped over the line, not if we want an independent media.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: GeNome

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Anything that leaves your home is potentially subject to interception; hence we have legal wiretaps, the DSC1000, etc. This has beeing going on since at least the forties; it's nothing new. I can definitely tell you that filtering packets is not inherently an infringement of Constitutional rights.

Even if it were, this would not be inherently fascist. It's a law-enforcement and defense tool, which can obviously be used for good or for evil. ...

You might have a point IF this domestic spying was committed under court supervision. The Bush administration has no time for such legalities, of course, unilaterally grabbing unauthorized power and placing itself above the law. That's the point the Bush faithful like to sweep under the rug whenever they try to excuse such blatantly unconstitutional behavior.

I do have a point, a very good one: that freedom of speech and the press should not be upheld to the public detriment. I never said that I think Bush should be allowed to wiretap without a warrant, etc.; these should be criminal acts in my opinion. Liberals on this board (this means you) love to misrepresent me when I commit the sin of failing to slather my posts with huge helpings of anti-GOP hatred.

And I agree, although it might not seem like it. Censorship can be good, in some cases. 'Can' being the operative word here. What I'm failing to see is how publishing an article about monitoring people's transactions has breached our security, or put us in any danger. If someone could give me a rational reason of why that is, I'm more than willing to listen, and even *gasp* change my point of view.

Please don't take my post as flame bait, since that's not what it's supposed to be.

They're broadcasting information about methods used to combat terrorism. One might say that the government has only to classify such information to prevent it from being spread, but sometimes it is impossible (usually when the government works with private interests.

Nobody normally has a problem with restriction of classified material, even though it is a crime if such material is disseminated in the news. Censorship of security-sensitive information achieves the same thing: it becomes a crime to spread the information.

Terrorist organizations, like most secret organizations, conduct much of their information-gathering by watching TV and reading the news, believe it or not. I have to wonder how it is in the public's best interest to publish information about how terrorists are begin tracked and captured. It seems to me that it can only breed more capable terrorists. Terrorism is a hot topic, so it's in the best interest of a news organization to report stories like this; hence we have a problem.

Assuming we in fact "have a problem", what's the solution? The commentary I'm seeing in the aftermath of this story contains a tremendous amount of bitching and very little suggestion as to how we should proceed.

 

[TITAN126]

I see what the guy is saying, but anyone who knows anything about history sould realize that a system like this can and will get out of hand. The NY Times has a liberal agenda, which is why this guy is speaking out against it. I wouldn't worry about it though. It'll be a cold day in hell before American media is censored. Even Bush isn't that stupid.

 

[GeNome]

Rainsford and Titan just posted very good points.

Rainsford..well, his post doesn't need much more explaining. Titan, though, is right. When any political party, Democrat, Republican, whatever, steps into the media, you know something is up. Now, like you've said 6000, this isn't always a bad thing. If the said media is publishing things that are potentially harmful, by all means censor it. But if the party in question happens to have a bad track record of overstepping the law, I can understand why the media (especially a relatively liberal paper such as the NYT, in this case) would expose something like this.

What I think I'm getting at is that it's all a matter of trust, or lack thereof.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: GeNome
Rainsford and Titan just posted very good points.

Rainsford..well, his post doesn't need much more explaining. Titan, though, is right. When any political party, Democrat, Republican, whatever, steps into the media, you know something is up. Now, like you've said 6000, this isn't always a bad thing. If the said media is publishing things that are potentially harmful, by all means censor it. But if the party in question happens to have a bad track record of overstepping the law, I can understand why the media (especially a relatively liberal paper such as the NYT, in this case) would expose something like this.

What I think I'm getting at is that it's all a matter of trust, or lack thereof.

Yes, and I guess that one news report isn't going to result in a massive terrorist attack, so it's best to err on the side of caution. I'm starting to think that maybe the government should just classify all such information, which would keep it out of the media and also make it illegal to spread the information on the Internet. It would require getting clearances for involved people like bank personnel in this case, but it's probably just as easy as supporting censorship of every news channel, newspaper, and magazine in the country.

 

[Drift3r]

This is complete bullshit. First of all the Whitehouse itself leaked information when ever it felt it would further their cause be it the build up to the Iraq war or to discredit or to shut people up against the Iraq war. This is just a backlash against the administration being caught with their pants down.

Not to mention that this so called "War on Terror" has no end to it just like the "War on Drugs" and all the other bullshit wars that have been declared by politicians. Sorry but this type of crap needs to be stopped now or in 100 years from now we'll end up like the morons fighting the sham wars in the book 1984. Wars which were only designed to keep the ruling elite in power and everyone else occupied against "enemy".

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
This is complete bullshit. First of all the Whitehouse itself leaked information when ever it felt it would further their cause be it the build up to the Iraq war or to discredit or to shut people up against the Iraq war. This is just a backlash against the administration being caught with their pants down.

Not to mention that this so called "War on Terror" has no end to it just like the "War on Drugs" and all the other bullshit wars that have been declared by politicians. Sorry but this type of crap needs to be stopped now or in 100 years from now we'll end up like the morons fighting the sham wars in the book 1984. Wars which were only designed to keep the ruling elite in power and everyone else occupied against "enemy".

Nope. Your hysteria is misplaced. Information is classified all the time when it relates to national security. Instead of taking an infantile attitude, you should stop and think.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Drift3r
This is complete bullshit. First of all the Whitehouse itself leaked information when ever it felt it would further their cause be it the build up to the Iraq war or to discredit or to shut people up against the Iraq war. This is just a backlash against the administration being caught with their pants down.

Not to mention that this so called "War on Terror" has no end to it just like the "War on Drugs" and all the other bullshit wars that have been declared by politicians. Sorry but this type of crap needs to be stopped now or in 100 years from now we'll end up like the morons fighting the sham wars in the book 1984. Wars which were only designed to keep the ruling elite in power and everyone else occupied against "enemy".

Nope. Your hysteria is misplaced. Information is classified all the time when it relates to national security. Instead of taking an infantile attitude, you should stop and think.

Could you specify what you are disagreeing with? He makes several points and your argument can be sumarized with "nope"

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Drift3r
This is complete bullshit. First of all the Whitehouse itself leaked information when ever it felt it would further their cause be it the build up to the Iraq war or to discredit or to shut people up against the Iraq war. This is just a backlash against the administration being caught with their pants down.

Not to mention that this so called "War on Terror" has no end to it just like the "War on Drugs" and all the other bullshit wars that have been declared by politicians. Sorry but this type of crap needs to be stopped now or in 100 years from now we'll end up like the morons fighting the sham wars in the book 1984. Wars which were only designed to keep the ruling elite in power and everyone else occupied against "enemy".

Nope. Your hysteria is misplaced. Information is classified all the time when it relates to national security. Instead of taking an infantile attitude, you should stop and think.

Could you specify what you are disagreeing with? He makes several points and your argument can be sumarized with "nope"

First, I take issue with "This is complete bullshit". The poster can't even spell "White House" correctly but presents unsupported claims that someone at the White House (who???) leaked information frequently. Or actually it may be many people, since he/she uses both the singular and plural.

The poster makes an unsupported claim about the administration being caught with their pants down (read: doing something illegal). He/she then declares grandly that the "War on Drugs" is a bullshit war without support, declares that the "War on Terror" will never end, and then goes off the deep end in comparing our future state to the book "1984".

The poster doesn't even have a good handle on the concepts of 1984 if he thinks that the point of war is to keep a ruling elite in power. In that book, the system has turned on itself; the power structure only exists to ensure future oppression, not to grant power to the elite.

Drift3r's post was full of the BS rhetoric you hate. I didn't think it was worth responding on all of these points, since he doesn't really make any good points.

Edit: In addition, you failed to comprehend what I said in my response. My entire argument cannot be summarized with "nope". My argument was a simple restatement of what I've said before: that information is often restricted by the government when it relates to national security. Your entire post can be summarized as "whine".

 

[conjur]

<ahem>

http://buzzflash.com/analysis/06/07/ana06054.html

The WSJ inadvertently provides evidence that the NYT was set up by the White House. We quote from the WSJ editorial in question:

" 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...."

We repeat, according to the WSJ, "If this was a 'leak,' it was entirely authorized...." Why would it be "authorized" for the Wall Street Journal, but not for the New York Times?