New York Times April 17, 1775 "Secret Lantern Signals of Colonists Revealed"

THE NEW YORK TIMES April 17, 1775 HEADLINES

ONE IF BY LAND TWO IF BY SEA

SECRET LANTERN SIGNALS OF AMERICAN COLONISTS REVEALED

SECRET CODE WILL WARN COLONISTS OF MOVEMENT OF ENGLISH REGULAR SOLDIERS

CONSPIRATORS INCLUDE PAUL REVERE, OTHER "PATRIOTS" AND A GROUP OF CHRISTIAN MINISTERS

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014587.php - go there and see the mockup of the front page....You know they WOULD have published this!

Mockup or link credited to Les Baitzer in Powerlineblog (it appears that he either produced this or if he didn't he sent it in to Powerlineblog)
 
1) Wow, how original.
2) It's a sure thing that if something is unoriginal and mildly snarky, millions of people will copy and paste it about.
3) The entire "NYT commited treason" meme is based on people repeating information without doing any research because it fits with their worldview and biases. (I am not saying that I happen to disagree with that worldview OR do not hold the same bias)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/28/BL2006062801268.html

Maybe I gave you guys too much to read?

Here's the salient part:

Bush administration officials have been lining up to condemn The New York Times for revealing a program to track financial transactions as part of the war on terrorism. But if the Times’ revelation about a program to monitor international exchanges is so damaging, why has the administration been chattering about efforts to monitor domestic transactions for nearly five years?

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, many journalists — including this one — were briefed by U.S. Customs officials on Operation Green Quest, an effort to roll up terrorist financiers by monitoring, among other things, "suspicious" bank transfers and ancient money lending programs favored by people of Middle Eastern descent.

I interviewed Marcy Forman, director of Green Quest, at her Washington offices in December 2001, when I was a writer for Government Executive magazine. Our meeting was sanctioned by Customs' public affairs office, and came at a time when the White House was eager to talk about all the work federal agencies were doing to hunt down terrorists. Forman told me the kinds of people, transactions, even locations that the government was targeting. (These are details, it should be noted, that the recent Times piece did not reveal.) Among the potentially sensitive items Forman told me, which were published

Got it now? :rolleyes:

Anybody who thinks that international terrorist masterminds haven't already known for years that bank transactions are being surveilled, is more than just a bit gullible.

Those who think the New York Times revelation of this very old news constitutes treason, really need to get a life.

People who run around making false accusations of treason, and demand that the government take action against the alleged "traitors"---are far more dangerous to our liberty than a free press.

Next breaking news - people in Iraq are using AKs.
 
What? You mean that any domestic banking transaction over $10K has been forcibly reported for years? And all SWIFT transfers?

Gadzeus, who'd have thunk it? :rolleyes:

Blame the NYT and WSJ for reporting old news, if you'd like. But revealing clandestine TWOT secrets? I think not hardly.
Rich
 
The other day I went to do a electronic transfer of a little over $1100.00 in cash and was required to provide proof of identity for cash money... Dont know if it was company policy or government regulations tho...
 
If it wasn't secret why did the times headline call it secret? Why were there many references in the article to the secrecy and classified nature of the program? I think it was no secret that we were tracking financial doings of terrorists. I do think that exactly how we were doing so was and should have been secret. Using some peoples logic, it would have been fine to publish plans for D-day invasion based on the assumption that "the Germans gotta know we are going to invade sometime" Sources and methods. ERIC
 
Exactly. It's the who and how aspects that are the problem here. Not needed within the article and placed for no reason other than the Time's antagonism towards Shrub specifically and conservatism in general.

Regardless, the link was good for a laugh and that's really the point.
 
Ruger-
Poor analogy. Very poor.

Please provide specifics for the "secret" information that was "leaked" by the Times (and the Wall Street Journal, by the way).
Rich
 
Rich, I'm not saying I know of any parts in particular. I'm asking, if this was not secret why did the NYT itself, in this article, and in the headline of this article say it was a secret? Why did they state that it was classified info in the article? I also fail to see any fault in my logic. Just because they know we are doing something doesnt mean there arent details that are secret This was my point. ERIC
 
BR-
Did you know that Predator Drones can fly half way around the world and back, non-stop? That their service ceiling is over 50,000 feet? That they can carry in excess of 4,000 lbs of fuel and 3,000 lbs of missles? I didn't. The information is all "classified"

Did you know that the Barrett 50, in use in the SandBox, has a demonstrated kill range in excess of 2,400 meters? I didn't.

Did you know that the Germans have a "classified" silent submarine, powered by fuel cell technology? That they're about to fit it with surface to air missles? I didn't.

Know how I found out? I watched a History Channel "exclusive" with some former Navy SEAL last night. He covered these "secret" weapons, including interviews with the Predator designer, Ronnie Barrett and the German Sub Commander.

My point...just because info is "classified" does not mean it is stamped "Top Secret". Just because someone dscusses these in order to sell newspapers (and TV Shows) does not make them a traitor.

Rich
 
I did not say anyone was a traitor. I simply dont understand how the NYT says its a secret over and over in their own article then some say it ws never secret. That astounds me. I can only conclude that there was no legitimate reason to print this other than to take a swipe at the admin. which is what has been said since the story ran.
 
Big Ruger,
What tactical information could the terrorists glean from reading this story? Do you seriously think they don't realize we're tracking funds?
It always comes back to this. The terrorists always assume that the guy at the other end of the line is compromised. It's part of their security procedures. They don't discuss substantiative info over the phone because they assume the other guy is tapped. They don't communicate openly on the internet because they assume we're monitoring the websites. And they definitely don't wander down to the local Wells Fargo with a check from "Al Qaeda, INC." made out to "Hakim's terrorist cell in Fargo, ND".

It doesn't matter to them whether the monitoring is legal or illegal. It matters to us because the terrorists aren't the only people being monitored.
So what are they going to change about their behavior in response to this story? Nuthin'. Because they're already taking all the precautions they can.
All this whining about the NYT is a cheap diversion and I ain't falling for it.
 
What do you think the typical internet meme-passer has to hide, as demonstrated by the widespread embrace of "NYT TREASON!!!11"?

What is wrong with their position that they have to grasp at hyperbole like this to muster their morale?

I am no longer able to tell the two parties apart when it comes to behavior and discernment. :(
 
Jeez, I give up! You guys just wanna fight about something. I never said anyone was a traitor, I never disputed anything in Slash's post, and I sure as hell Dont care about the NYT. I simply pointed out that they 1. must have believed it was a secret, or 2. knew it wasnt but used that language to hype their story. Thats all
 
Big Ruger-
Everything you state in the previous post is true. I understand that you didn't use the word "traitor"....I did, but I didn't ascribe it to you. Others in the press have accused the NYT of such. I've no love for the NYT and couldn't care less if they relocated to Paris.....but I find it interesting that those who attack them for this piece mumble thru the words "Wall Street Journal" while doing their "aiding and abetting" paint job.

Personally, I think this has been a very good, rather polite debate.
Rich
 
Big Ruger,

How many headlines have you read that have little or nothing to do with the story/article that's actually published?

I can't say for you, but I personally have read many. So why do they do it? To sell papers. Gets the reader hooked. It's hype and that's all it is.

Remember their motto: If it bleeds, it leads!

Of course, those that are accusing treason, simply ignore the greater context of how papers publish, in order to make their own hype seem credible.

Same game, different player...
 
Back
Top