Most might say it "seems" a perfect fit for your buds. But for some reason, you didn't. Hmm, I wonder why? What would prevent gworld from saying a bad word about terrorists? I agree that when you finally broke down, after well over a thousand posts defending the actions of terrorists; attacking America, Christians, Jews and anything but the actions of terrorists, that under duress, you finally offer that they are "a piece of shit and assholes!" was nonesense. I thought it was nonsense then and I still do.
So, wouldn't committing acts that make other countries not want to ally with us be considered treason, since it furthers the efforts of those already against us? In such a case, who would be committing treason here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldiers_investigated Would it be the god fearing woman raping murderous (yet honorable) soldiers who committed the acts (if they did, I mean, I know it's only alleged at this point)? Or would it be the AP for allowing others to hear about it? I mean, if nobody knows about it, then it can't really hurt our image. I mean, by the definition of treason given, doesn't that make anyone who makes America look bad to other countries an enemy of the state, since it weakens our foreign support in times of war? -Michael
Which of three conditions would you apply to the scenarios you've described? In the case (the link provided), I can't see where any of the three would fit even remotely. It seems to me (at least) it serves a purpose, based upon the commentary it's coupled with, but not for reasons of defining treason. Would you submit that an individual or organization that intentionally discloses details of a secret government program that had congressional oversight and was used to fight the enemies of our country is an honorable thing to do? Should the NYT receive a Congressional Medal of Honor for their valiant service to our country for doing such? If the NYT had committed treasonous acts, such as this, under a Democrat led administration, would it still be acceptable?
Of course they would condemn it if it was under Clinton's administration. But they can't be reasonable about such things; anything related to Bush must be terrible, criminal, evil, blah, blah, blah. I get so sick of hearing criticism that is not backed up by evidence, ideas or logic. The ultra-liberals just want to make hateful accusations and not defend their ideas.
Well, it was a 2 parter... first, I think that if that is the entire definition of treason, then "giving them aid and comfort" is way too broad, since "making them feel better" could be a definition of comfort, not just making sure that they have a roof over their heads and a soft bed (which, although it sounds weird, is where i think the definition came from). Secondly, the question was who was to blame, the person(s) committing the crime, or, if treason is extended to be a tarnishing of America's image in war time, the press? If you do extend it, then we become much closer to a police state and to having only government controlled media outlets. Each step that leads us closer must be examined with extreme scrutiny. Merely plodding forward, accusing each and every transgressor as a criminal because what they say makes you look bad, is a sure path to destroying the infrastructure of freedom of speech. -Michael
I would suspect terrorists would "feel better" knowing details of a secret classified program that was being successfully used to curtail their finances. I can't imagine though, that anyone would actually need to hone in on a definition of what would be considered treasonous. I don't recall this question, perhaps it's newly introduced or I overlooked it, which is possible. I don't believe "tarnishing America's image" is listed. But I'm pretty sure it would cover disclosing details of a secret government program that had congressional oversight that was used to fight the enemies of our country. Am I to conclude this is something you support? If so, what other secrets would you like the NYT to disclose. And since they have proven in the past (I provided a link previously) that they have specifically given information to a group of people about an impending arrest for terrorist financing here in the US, they put agents at risk by doing so. I'm trying to imagine "who" would think these are good things to do? I'm not aware of any discussion for extension, nor any that suggest a police state. But I must admit I don't sit around on alex jones website watching for the latest conspiracy theories either. There is no "each and every" here, there is the NYT (and any other papers that followed suit). I'm not worried about your perception of "looking bad." I do not formulate my positions based up the latest fads or fashions. Freedom of speech is not in question. Exposing national secret programs that have congressional oversight that are legal and used to fight enemies of our country. If you support the NYT in giving our enemies details of programs used to go after them, then that tells me a lot about your character. Now, back to the questions I asked, that you chose to avoid: Would you submit that an individual or organization that intentionally discloses details of a secret government program that had congressional oversight and was used to fight the enemies of our country is an honorable thing to do? Should the NYT receive a Congressional Medal of Honor for their valiant service to our country for doing such? If the NYT had committed treasonous acts, such as this, under a Democrat led administration, would it still be acceptable? No comment?
That's what is really disturbing. That liberals do not possess the mental reasoning capabilities to separate what's good for their country vs. supporting Bush. This isn't a "Bush" issue, this is a national security issue. One can very easily be against the NYT's treasonous activities without having to support Bush in the least bit. If this is how the left (which has thoroughly infiltrated the democrat party so much that there's barely a line left to draw) would deal with a national security issue, it says a lot about the harm they would do to our country if elected into office. And they wonder why they can't win an election.
GTech, I take it that neither logic, tolerance or diplomacy are high on your priority list? How is one to engage in reasoned discussions with a person that focuses on personality and emotion rather than principals and issues. To wit, this thread is presumably about whether or not NYT engaged in treasonous actions by "outing" the govt's examining of financial transactions. Within that discussion, where is there room for statements like, "Liberals do not possess..mental reasoning capabilities..."? Spend some time over here - www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ - and then come back. Discusssions would be much more productive if you were to improve your logic a bit. Ad Hominem (first on the list) is a good place for you to start.
His logic was obvious in most cases. Tolerance for ? (I see him not being to tolerant of childish answers in some places.) What part of letting the enemy know your plans has anything to do with diplomacy? (seriously asking, so don't take my dry, short sentences as being demeaning, I really want to understand what you are saying to gtech.)
You are free to take what you wish. I don't base my positions on popular fads of "hate/blame America first," nor do I make them to win a popularity contest amongst weak minded people who are afraid to stand for what they believe in. If you are ashamed of the position you take and believe it's fashionable for the NYT to expose details of a secret and legal goverment program with congressional oversight to the enemies of the US, then that speaks volumes about your character. I have no tolerance or use for people who would sell my country out. There is no honor in doing so and there is no honor of men who would support such a decision. There is no diplomacy involved in selling out one's country. It is a clear and simple decision. Sell your country our, or not. Support that action, or not. It doesn't require shades of gray, lengthy discusions, "what if" scenarios or moral equivalence. It isn't about Bush or democrats vs republicans. It is a national security issue and while (at least one) continues to suggest all they did was mention the program as a weak defense, it went much further. So, just to be clear, if you think the NYT should sell our country out by exposing secret legal programs in order to give aid and comfort to our enemies by letting them know details; I consider that treason. And if that's what you, or anyone else wants to support, then stand up and be proud to be traitors like real men and stop hiding behind wussified shades of grey to justify your desire for America's failure. There, I think I've made "my" position quite clear. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Who will be next to stand up and make their position clear? Who will set their pride (what little they may have) aside and stand up like a man and say they support treason?
I don't think anybody replied to me, so I'll reply to myself. I was reading some articles about the situation, and it seems like the Bush Administration is just verbally chastising them. Are there any plans of actually taking the New York Times to court for treason? If not, then you guys are just blowing a lot of hot air in here.
I doubt anyone realisticaly expects it to happen. While I don't think the NYT should reveal secret things like this; its really the fault of whoever leaked it to the times in the first place. Every reporter I've seen on TV have said they would have reported it too, I don't really blame them. My problem is in the people in the CIA, FBI or whatever agency is responsible in leaking these things out. Let's see..if you cannot racially profile, if you track international calls to probable terrorist cells, and you cannot track international wire transfers; how are you supposed to find terrorist cells in the country? Ask people at random if they wanna blow something up?
I regret disclosing my age to this group, but I feel I need to jump back in the debate I started, regardless of my age. I'm sure the Bush Administration is plenty busy right now; and we, as citizens, can't force them to go any faster. Chastising them is probably the first thing that needed to be done... Actually, Sen. King only accused the editor of treason, not the entire New York Times. I suppose my title was a bit misleading, but it affects the entire newspaper company, since all in all, they together permitted it to be published. In the past, they haven't been any better either, which is why I say the entire company is probably treasonous. Mine too. Then again, sometimes it is not purposefully leaked, or purposefully allowed to be leaked; the media sneaks in using clever methods sometimes and unethically learns about it. Granted; that's a scary thought, but I really don't know how they did it. I don't fully understand your questions here, but IMO you should ask the guy that organized the campaigns to do this; they'd know better than I would. Generally, tracing phone numbers and sources of wire transfers and transactions can lead to a location.
My, my, my... Is it established that this is treason, or is it an opinion being proclaimed as fact? If all of the attacks on your fellow US citizens are based on the "fact" that NYT was treasonous, then that fact needs to be clearly established. Proclaiming it so is far different than making it so! Were the founding fathers patriots, insurrectionists, traitors or rebels? Perhaps the distinctions are not as clear as you would like to believe? Were the leaders and soldiers of the South that fought for the right to secede from the Union rebels and traitors, or patriots willing to fight (and die) for what they believed in? Were those that reported Mai Lai traitors? Are those that protest at the funerals of our service men who fell in action in Iraq, proclaiming their death to be God's retribution for our Nation's tolerance of homosexuality, patriots? Are politicians that knowing lie and that are ultimately convicted of corruption worthy of being called leaders? Will casting aspersions, fomenting discord and encouraging animosity serve to bring our citizens together in fulfilling their destiny? It is not about honor and pride and woosies. Those that are unwilling or unable to confront shades of grey and challenge their own belief systems are often trapped in a small and frightening world. Make your case that it is treason. Enter into an open debate. Quit proselytizing. Come down from the pulpit and interact with, rather than preaching to, your fellow citizens. In packing houses there is a critter known as a Judas goat. When the lambs are brought to slaughter, the Judas goat is used to lead them up the ramp. The goat is smart enough to exit the chute before the slaughter area. For the lambs it is too late...
Would you to like to defend the NYT's treason? I would love to hear why you think it's patriotic to expose secret legal programs with congressional oversight to the enemies of our country. What other secret programs would you like the NYT to disclose to our enemies? Would you, yourself, participate in this sort of treason? So you are not man enough to put forth your position, choosing instead to attack mine (which I have no problem with). Where mine is clear, yours is filled with ambiguity, shades of grey and attempts for moral equivalence. For none of the examples you introduce for moral equivalence deal with the issue at hand, that the NYT disclosed details of a secret legal program with congressional oversight to the enemies of our country. Nor was it the first time. I have no illusions that you would be man enough to put forth your position. After all, I'm sure you are ashamed to support treason and the only way to compensate for that is to call my position into question.
Don't forget that this isn't the first time the NYT has done this. Dec 2001, NYT gave a tip to the Global Relief foundation (a foundation that was found to be a front for money laundering for terrorists) that it was about to be raided by the FBI. NYT reporters failed to cooperate in who told the GRF that this was about to happen. Seems the NYT has a habit of trying to undermine anti-terrorist activities here.
Do you also consider the government actions a treason too? Do a search in Google for the following: money laundry financial reporting .gov Look at the first result which is in PDF files: U. S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment December 2005 Department of the Treasury Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) Office of Terrorist Financing & Financial Crime (TFFC) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation (CI) Small Business/Self Employed Division (SB/SE) Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Criminal Division Asset Forfeiture Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System United States Postal Service (USPS) United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) read detailed explanation of different programs in 81 pages. http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/js3077_01112005_MLTA.pdf May be you think that terrorists who do this kind of transaction, don't know how to use Internet and are only waiting to read NYT? The government is not upset about terrorists knowing about these type of programs since they already know it, they are upset because media is informing the average Joe about how much of their life is controlled on daily basis.
Loyalty toward one's Country is a very different thing than blind allegiance toward the leaders of that Country, would you not agree? By your very limited definition of the term treason, we would have to conclude that our Country was founded on treason - created by traitors to the British throne... We would have to conclude that those that broke the shackles of Spanish rule across Latin America were all traitors... We would have to conclude that those that overthrew Dutch and French Colonial rule in Southeast Asia were nothing but traitors. Treason, as you use the word, is very much a matter of perspective, defined by whatever group happens to be in power. Within the limited scope of your use of the term, NYT did in fact willfully refuse to comply with the wishes of the current regime in Washington. That, however, does not meet the generally accepted legal definitions of treason. "The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers." I would suggest that NYT, after careful consideration, pursued a course of action intended to benefit the United States, and that therefore their actions do not constitute treason. You want me to defend the NYT's actions? There is no need in this discussion. You are making the claim of treason. The onus is on you to support that claim. If you are unable to establish that claim as true, then we have no need to discuss the events is terms of treason. If that is the case, then we might be able to engage in a productive discussion (minus the inflammatory rhetoric) of the NYT's actions.
Republicans just need a boogey man to yell about on tv to distract people from stuff like http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13647425/ Another 66 people blown up in Iraq yesterday http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...5jun25,0,4970736.story?coll=la-home-headlines Around 50,000 Iraqis dead so far since we invaded, and no end in sight OMG THE NY TIMES IS TREASONOUS !!!!