oldreliable67

You're getting your threads mixed up. This thread is about a specific instance in which the NYT and a couple of reporters tipped two alleged terrorist funding organizations that they were being investigated.

The other thread ("New York Times: Guilty Of Treason") has more to do with the point of your comment: the obvious was that we were tracking terrorists finances; that had been trumpeted by the admin since 2001, when the admin was hectored by the NYT to do so.

The not-so-obvious was exactly how we were going about doing it. Thanks to the NYT, they now know several things that they did not previously know. Go to the thread and read what those things are.

Calm2Chaos

Am I to assume hangingis still out of the question....

__________________
From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
--Thomas Jefferson--

aquapub

Of course, the irrefutable facts we are providing help too.

__________________
They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax ‘businesses!’ So unless you buy something from a ‘business,’ like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ‘business,’ don't worry ... it's not going to affect you. -Fred Thompson

aquapub

I smell something.

aquapub

Actually, if you look back on the thread you are mistaking this one for, you will see that the only person acting like an indictment determines the validity of the charge is your friend, Caine.

Again, way to think it through.

Also, here is proof that there HAS been discussion of indicting the NYT.

"The most troubling development for the press may be Gonzales's suggestion that, for the first time, journalists could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime for unauthorized receipt and transmission of national defense information."

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT. June 12, 2006. "Curbing the Press." By: Liz Halloran, Scott Michels.


Wrong on all counts.

aquapub

Again, I know liberals have this aversion to reading, but if you check out the intro, this is a different topic.

And this bs about the other papers releasing the paper at the same time was addressed and corrected in that thread. The NYT was the first, and the other papers followed their lead, like they always do.

And the program caught numerous, even major, terrorists, so apparently this assertion that they knew all about the program is bs too.

Additionally, I posted (on post #31) which things were not public knowledge until the NYT ran that story. So you have already had this spin corrected too.

Way to think things through.

Ever consider having some integrity and STOPPING perpetuating misinformation that's already been corrected?

And finally, you think a paper needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy is NOTHING? And you don't get why people like Ann Coulter call liberals the treason lobby?


Again, wrong on all counts.

aquapub

Actually, I think the Constitution specifically mentions the death penalty in reference to treason.

aps

Have you spoken to a terrorist who said, "oldreliable, I had no idea that the United States was doing this"? Somehow I doubt it. Thus, you cannot say that, "[T]hey now know several things that they did not previously know." You don't know that for a fact, although I know it strengthens your argument if you say such.

Calm2Chaos

Yet your more then willing to assume they knew everything, I find that highly improbable

oldreliable67

My speaking with a terrorist about this wasn't necessary. The CIA and other intel agencies in the west have done that for me - witness the capture of several terrorists as a result of this program. The program's success speaks for itself.