[Bullitt]

The NY Times should be treated as an enemy.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The NY Times should be treated as an enemy.

As should all the MSM, Democrats, unions, Soros, etc. To treat them as simply others with differing opinions is to foolishly enable those who seek our destruction.

[plain talk]

At some point the government can not allow the press to expose secrets to our enemies. I'm not sure what could be done seeing how we have a free press. But what are the limits? Could the NYT publish the nuclear launch codes and get away with it?

[Triggerhippie]

If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear.

[used2BDem]

My God, when will this ever stop? ? ?

[Patriot Hooligan]

Always keep this in mind:

William Tecumseh Sherman

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."

[The Red Zone]

The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.

Maybe US spooks are planting these stories. "Hey terrorists, we've got little birds telling us all about you" whether we really do or not.

[KDD]

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin.

"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

The president has also repeatedly said that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role."

"Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," he added in remarks at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy.

He made similar comments in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20 2005.

Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that "all of the investigative tools" under the law "require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out."




The irony in this story is that The Executive branch of the government doesn't appear to trust our U.S. Secret Court with all the circumstances that it might run into while it secretly spies on American citizens.

In my entire life I never expected to be able to write the above sentence as a reflection of a reality of life in America.

[Hoodat]

NYTimes Sedition Broader Than First Revealed

[rebel_yell2]

To the contrary. I think that this story has doomed the Dims to minority status for at least another election cycle. "Bush bugged Bid Ladin" won't sell in Kansas.

[bcsco]

Paged through all the replies and didn't see this so I'll state it...Could it be that the NYT has discovered that its phone conversations have been monitored, thus their adamant push at this non-story? Another thread I read earlier questioned what we could do to counter these leaks. While no one in that thread really answered the premise reading it, then this thread makes me wonder whether the AG office and Dept. of Homeland Security may not be conducting surveillances to determine who is leaking this stuff. One way would be to monitor telephone conversations.

[W04Man]

I SAY AGAIN!!! Bump!

And that goes for all you liberal newspapers too!

[bray]

This book will be out in about 1 week now. Does the Old York Times mention that BJ entered The Gonzales house w/o after a judge said no to a warrent??

Merry Christmas

[stocksthatgoup]

The New York Times must think we are all dense. Of course this is a widespread program. In order to detect, to locate Al Qaeda communication we literally sift through virtually ALL world wide international connections to locate the enemy.

[Steel Wolf]

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials

That explains why Sprint had been charging me $14.26 for a 'Wiretapping Connection Fee'. I wonder if I can cancel that service and get the NSA off my back?

[wildbill]

Pretty difficult to defend against a story without a source or even the name of the telecommunications company.

If true, I assume they are 'data mining' with parameters on overseas communications.

[P-40]

No one got too upset when the NSA said they were doing over two million intercepts per hour prior to 911. Well, they got upset about the NSA not stopping 911...

[jetson]

I thought the CARNIVOR ease dropping kicked in during Clinton?

[Recovering Hermit]

Direct to you from America's very own fifth column.

[BlueStateDepression]

citing unidentified current and former government officials.

This to me means I can dismiss anything that is said after that point as bluster and nothing more than opinion.

If fact exists and someone stated them then there should be no problem putting names with those statements.

I offer that when most folks dismiss these UNSOURCED claims they will stop providing this fodder.

[Jorge]

Well, we don't need the NSA to tell us whose side the NYT is on.
Anybody can read their anti-American terrorist sympathizing poison.