what am I missing here about the NYT thing?

[sable302]

Shouldn't they be going after the leaker instead of the newspaper that reported the leak?

[magellan]

1. One of the questions I just raised in another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1535093&mesg_id=1535093

It's all exceedingly stinky....

[Warpy]

2. It's a made up controversy aimed at morons to get their support

for attacking more of the press. Flushed with their recent success at getting Rather completely off the air and away from any access to media at all (unless he writes a book and finds a publisher and who reads books any more?), they are feeling invincible and unstoppable. Today the Times, tomorrow the major media as a whole. Get them to recite WH press releases or destroy them. That's the plan.

The only question is what it will take for our lapdog media to wake up to what's going on and stop convering for this bunch.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. "They came for the NYT"...

[magellan]

6. Well, that would explain why the NYT aren't really defending themselves

...as I query in my post above. But lost in all this is WHO leaked the story last year. And what that has to do with why the article is now 404. The WH is doing some serious cover-up work here, and it seems the NYT has consented to be the scapegoat.

[LittleClarkie]

17. I thought I'd heard that they did defend themselves though

saying that what they printed was not secret at all.

[magellan]

22. As far as I know, they haven't defended themselves with their 2005 article

The one they interviewed US government officials for.

[William Seger]

11. Yup, it's mainly a not-so-veiled threat to other papers

The Repugs know they're sitting on a powder keg.

[originalpckelly]

4. Shouldn't they go after the President and his advisor's for breaking

the law in the first place? These bank records were gathered without a warrant. Subpoenas may be used, but not en masse, in fact that violates a fundamental principle of our nation.

[mike_c]

5. how about "shouldn't they give the leaker and the newspaper..."

"...a medal for uncovering a crime in progress?"

WTF is wrong with Congress? The NYT has done America a service, and so did the person who leaked the info to the press. Congress was being deceived just like the rest of us. This debate about censoring the NYT is unbelievably off target.

[Chipper Chat]

7. Europe is laughing at us.

In their eyes this just pushed us below Somalia as a credible nation.

[sable302]

9. i'm just treating the story on its own terms

IF the republican congress wanted to stop a leak, go after the leak. Don't go after the guy who points it out to you. If it wasn't for the NYT, they wouldn't know about any of it anyway. The whole thing stinks.

[rocktivity]

8. And why aren't they also mad at the Wall Street Journal and LA Times

who also run the story?

:shrug:
rocknation

[sable302]

10. I think we all know the answer to that one

-nt

[madmunchie]

12. We all knew that they were following the money

from Bush's lips themself. This is such a NON story, that it is apparent to anybody that isn't ignorant. This is the type of this that makes me crazy. The WH is making another huge something out of nothing!

[sandnsea]

13. If the premise is that we're "at war"

Then should a newspaper leak military tactics that aid the enemy. That's their argument. For instance, if during WWII we were tracking Germans through gold and money transfers, should a newspaper leak that.

This is quite a bit different because they appear to just be mining all financial transactions, not just targeting specific terrorists (enemy). And obviously this is a completely different kind of fight anyway.

[sable302]

15. OMG what an argument

If this is because we are at war, then America must be the enemy.
Somebody leaked it because the whole thing stinks. The NYT rightfully printed the story and that's that.

[sandnsea]

16. Did you want to know their opinion or not?

That's their argument. I don't know why you asked if you didn't want to know.

[sable302]

19. I did want to know

I think you stated it perfectly.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Take another step back -- the SWIFT program was NOT secret

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1524858

[WinkyDink]

18. You are "missing" the fact that BUSH MENTIONED the PLAN 5 YEARS AGO.

It's been in the public domain.
The crime is that the NYT TOOK SO LONG to INFORM the PEOPLE.

[dave502d]

20. Shouldn't we just tell b* to shut up. n/t

[Jade Fox]

21. It's a desperate appeal to the Republican idiot base....

You know, the ones who've been listening to Rush tell them about the Liberal Media for years.

The question is why now? Bushco owes its existence to a compliant media. Seems like a bad time to alienate them. :shrug: