Freedom of speech is one of are most sacred of the Constitution.So why is there so much static considering that the president said it in a press conference?
2006-07-12 10:50:49 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
If what you say is true about loose lips and aiding an abetting isn't the administration guilty of TREASON based on prior performance?
2006-07-12 13:18:42 · update #1
yes.
for a few reasons.
1) US intellegence already knew that terrorist were no longer using traditional banking, Hokstera knew this when it was revealed in congressional intellegence hearings.
2) SWIFT makes no effort to hide it cooperatess with the US government in tracking.
3) In Europe a SWIFT number is always disclosed.
4) The president is in no way hampered from pursuing banking information using warrants.
5) The president in press confrences in the past has openley stated that they would seize and track financial transactions of the terroritst...he even made refrence to banks.
6) The presdient swore to uphold the constitution, not try to override it and expand his presdiental power.
7) The amindstration use leaks to NYT all the time, most recently in the Valery Plame scandal, remember Judith Miller
8)The wall street journal also released the info........no one is talking about that paper why?? why ???
9) The free press is the fourth estate, the last check on a system where the executive legilative and judical are controlled by one party........
the press if silinced or diminshied would destroy the last check and balance.........
This could have been done legally with warrents.......they lied, they overreached, they violated the constitituon...the press made sure we knew.....
the end.
2006-07-12 10:54:40 · answer #1 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In this instance we are talking about aiding and abetting the enemy.That is what printing that information did.They,the terrorists will now change they'er modus opperandi.making it harder to track and find them.The press conference was held after the info. was printed and was a condemnation for doing so.The "freedom of the press"is what you should have referred to. In this case I beleive it was a treasonous act,in a time of war, to give pertinate information to our enemy.
2006-07-12 11:03:49 · answer #2 · answered by thetdw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they were wrong.
Freedom of the press, like all other rights, also comes with a responsibility. They try to pass it off as a necessity for them to remain "competitive".
They have tipped our country's hand on upsetting the terrorist organizational financing dealings.
Imagine how D-Day would have turned-out had the NYT blabbed our plans 3 days before the attack???
2006-07-12 10:55:37 · answer #3 · answered by J.D. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sept.24, 2001 - Bush outlined the entire scheme to track and cut off Al Quaida funds by tracking bank transactions, at a NEWS CONFERENCE. Two days later, the Sec of Treasury outlined how this could be accomplished, at a NEWS CONFERENCE. Al Quaida ended using banks immediately. Five years later NY Times reports it .............. GET REAL!!!!!!
2006-07-12 10:58:10 · answer #4 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a terrile idea to go into as much detail on this program as the NY Times did. Pres did not go into detail, also if all terrorists knew how'd we catch the mastermind of the Bali bombing,you think he wanted to get caught?
2006-07-12 11:02:01 · answer #5 · answered by Kennyp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they were. We have allowed ourselves to fall into the viper pit to catch the vipers.It leads to becoming what you profess to stand against i.e-undercover officers turning,politicians stealing and compromising their offices,presidents lying and then moving ahead as if they are just and right. Peace. Peace.
2006-07-12 11:39:18 · answer #6 · answered by wildrover 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. Our freedom of speech guarantees freedom of press. I think it was another secret our government was hiding. Bush says it's ridiculous that they revieled it, but I think it's just an excuse because he doesn't like the NYT because they're so liberal. :)
2006-07-12 10:54:57 · answer #7 · answered by Jacques 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Times state that it was my right to know, but I didn't even want to know! Why was it the terrorists right to know? Why don't they give out some terrorist secrets?
2006-07-12 10:57:29 · answer #8 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which is exactly why they should not have printed it, idiot. They are called terrorists for a reason. Remember 911?
2006-07-12 10:54:16 · answer #9 · answered by Dave B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's basically just a targeted attack on the NYT; in reality, it has nothign to do with national security.
2006-07-12 10:56:13 · answer #10 · answered by extton 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋