The slow response will work better. Get Senators and Reps on the record. Either they slam the NY Times or else some of them will lose their offices this year.
Hold hearings. Indict later, but do indict.
Posted on 06/27/2006 8:44:52 PM PDT by bnelson44
Easy now. It's important to do some sabre-rattling first though, scare the Times a little and get public opinion on your side. Unfortunately, most Americans believe that the Bush administration is this Constitution-shredding dictatorship. If the AG jumps out of the gate prosecuting it'll backfire.
Ohh, how nice, how about some f***ing punishment????????
Now is seems to fit both sides of the aisle.
Would your position be the same if a paper had printed the following headline stories during WWII
United States breaks German Secret Code
Allied Forces to Land at Normandy in Early June 44
U.S. Forces to drop Atomic Bomb on Japanese Mainland
In my mind the NYT story is no different than if they had ran the above headlines. However, sixty years ago the press would not dare have printed such stories, and if they had they WOULD HAVE been criminally charged with treason
The slow response will work better. Get Senators and Reps on the record. Either they slam the NY Times or else some of them will lose their offices this year.
Hold hearings. Indict later, but do indict.
I'm pretty sure the WH or Justice has something going on behind the scenes anyway.
Yep. Calling for a Times indictment right away and the MSM will just spin it as Bush being Nixonian. Cooler heads will prevail in the long run. The WH is well aware that the Times is al-Quaida's paper of record.
Thought you might be interested in this per our recent "conversation" ping.....
A public spanking for treason, not a bad deal for the Slimes. Sounds like the Repubs are weenies, afraid to take on the NY Slimes with the Justice Dept.
It was nearly 5 years ago, shortly after 9-11.
Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America´s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.
Osama bin Laden originally rose to prominence because his inherited fortune allowed him to bankroll Arab volunteers fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Since then, he has acquired funds from a panoply of Islamic charities and illegal and legal businesses, including export-import and commodity trading firms, and is estimated to have as much as $300 million at his disposal.Some of these businesses move funds through major commercial banks that lack the procedures to monitor such transactions properly.
Locally, terrorists can utilize tiny unregulated storefront financial centers, including what are known as hawala banks, which people in South Asian immigrant communities in the United States and other Western countries use to transfer money abroad. Though some smaller financial transactions are likely to slip through undetected even after new rules are in place, much of the financing needed for major attacks could dry up.
Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations.
The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them.
The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.
New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
The New York Times, September 24, 2001
www.nyt.com
I don't see any difference between the two parties except for Iraq. Both parties are selling out our country like one giant yard sale.
You know...there are ways to do things. Below is a pertinent clip from a presser after the LAST NYCrimes leak in December.
Q Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward.
And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven't ordered one, because I understand there's kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges.
Do we have a lawyer in the house?
This sounds periously close to violating Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution, which forbids any bill of attainder.
If we want to prosecute the Times under existing law that is fine, and I am 100% behind it. I doubt that voting to remove their press credentials is going to be found constitutional, and will only embarrass our side.
Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito might beg to differ.
Good idea. Make a record and let's see which demonrats condemn the NYCrimes.
Both men are moderates who have pledged to keep their faith and religious beliefs locked in a vault while at work, so how do they differ from atheists? And what have they done so far?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.