Collusion Between Al-Journalism and Government Traitors

You are the one who didn’t read the article. Let me take you by the hand and break it down for you:

Step 1: First report the horrendous claim and make it seem as if it is coming from a knowledgeable “official” deep inside the Pentagon and make it seem as if it’s a formal admission from the Pentagon. They do this early on because most people only read a few sentences beyond the slug:

“BEIJI, Iraq - Five U.S. soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three relatives, an American military official said Friday, describing the latest allegations of abuse of Iraqi civilians.”

Step 2: Simultaneously legitimize the source by saying he/she is an official, release more juicy details, and then state the rubber-stamp disclaimer they always make about the condition of anonymity:

“The soldiers also allegedly burned the body of the woman they are accused of assaulting in the March incident, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.”

Step 3: Now they have their most knowledgeable and all knowing good Samaritan whistle-blowing “Deep Throat,” to place the heads at the Pentagon in a tight spot, knowing full well they can’t comment on an investigation that hasn’t even started; and knowing full well that their predictable “sparce” statements create the illusion that the Pentagon is hiding or covering something up. So they call the Pentagon and ask them to respond to the claims of their source:

“The U.S. command issued a sparse statement, saying Maj. Gen. James D. Thurman, commander of coalition troops in Baghdad, had ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged killing of a family of four in Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad. The statement had no other details.”

Step 4: Recap on previous and other related investigations leaked by anonymous “officials” as a way to build their ongoing propaganda campaign that solicits self-loathing about the Military and U.S. foreign policy. After all, many people in journalism are led to believe that our country is on the wrong side of humanity.

“The case represents the latest allegations against U.S. soldiers stemming from the deaths of Iraqis. At least 14 U.S. troops have been convicted.

The United States also is investigating allegations that two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. Marines in the western town of Haditha on Nov. 19 in a revenge attack after one of their own died in a roadside bombing.”

Step 5: continue a virtual back and forth, point and counter point, between their “Deep Throat” and the heads in the Pentagon, designed to legitimize the source as an “official” and undermine the Pentagon, knowing full well the Pentagon can’t say anything in their defense until the investigation is over. Continue to mix it with previous stories and keep repeating the anonymous source as an "official" without repeating the qualification that it's an anonymous source.

By the time the investigation is over and the official report is out, nothing will be reported and the conclusion will be complicated, and nothing like the juicy anti-Military statements reported by the anonymous source everyone remembers.

It becomes malpractice when the Watergate incident becomes the wet dream of journalists and the standard of journalism applied to everything when Republicans are in office.

 

To be perfectly honest, if we were fighting WWII and I was part of that fighting, feeling fully justified, I still would not think anything was given up by that newspaper article. Seriously, they know full well we'll be examing bank records. That's elementary.

 

How often would you say this happens, in proportion to the number of allegations of rape, torture, overwhelming use of force against civilians, etc?

 

Elementary, yes, that we're looking into their finances.

But naming the financial agency itself and going into detail about who it has helped capture?

If it's as elementary as you say, then why print it at all? If it's obvious that we're looking into their finances, why is it a story, let alone worthy of headlines? Why print something that may help Al Qaeda in any way, be it perceived to be elementary or not?

If you had a known child molester living in your neighborhood, would you leave the gate to your yard open a crack even if you had a gun, surveillance cameras, and warning signs that stated as such?

 

Hi Hap

I'd be happy to give you my thoughts on this matter. But first I'd like to throw a general question out there. How many who have posted in this thread or who are following it have actually read the article in question?

What seems to have happened is this. The reporters were investigating this story and were ready to go to press and asked the administration for a comment, or at least told them 'this is what we have and we are going to go with it'. The administration asked them not to go with it, but the NYT said 'we're going ahead'. At that point Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, was forced to comment.

Now why did they NYT decide to go with the publication of this article? Well, the NYT describes this program as a 'significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records' in that it did not rely on individual warrants to examine specific transactions, 'instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas'.

Let's consider the next statement in the article:

" 'The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling,' said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable"

I admit this is a little disingenuous on the part of the authors. The wording is manipulative; if a former counterterrorism official is making the pronouncement, then it must be valid! This official, who is expressing this idea that the program might be troubling, 'considers the program valuable'. This is pretty much lip service. Throughout the article, the authors make reference to 'highly placed officials' and 'senior authorities' who are expressing doubts about the legality of this intelligence gathering program.

'Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization'.

I like that 'some'..

The authors repeatedly state that concerns were voiced from within the current administration about the ramifications of this program. So they're trying to paint this as a cover-up in the making. They go on to say that Swift officials, who at first (immediately post 9/11) were cooperative, began to express concerns over legal liabilities. The privacy laws applying to international transactions are described as 'murky'.

"Several people familiar with the Swift program said they believed that they were exploiting a ''gray area'' in the law and that a case could be made for restricting the government's access to the records on Fourth Amendment and statutory grounds. 'There was always concern about this program,' a former official said".

There is a lot of innuendo in this article. Having said that, my sense of it is that it is informed by the same fears engendered by the current administration's somewhat cavalier attitude towards privacy issues in particular, as reflected by the NSA deal that preceded this. This all started at the UN, when the US said that it was going to act unilaterally whether it had UN approval or not, and other countries could either like it or lump it. Gitmo is an example of the same kind of thing. I have heard people say that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. That is a dangerous simplification. I am not going to bother trying to summarize the arguments for protection from illegal surveillance. If you do not agree with these laws, you are not a libertarian. Fine.

My big question about this article is this - what in the hell is the big deal here? Does anyone seriously think that the terrorists do not know that if they send money through the international banking system, the US authorities may see the transaction? This whole idea that Osama Bin Laden read this article and was able to fine tune his plans, thus making it easier for him to kill Americans, is baloney, imo. There is nothing in this article that would provide a terrorist with anything!! It is a serious mistake to underestimate one's enemies. Does anyone really believe that these terrorists do not have access to wealthy people and entities who know about the swift system and can advise them about the possibility that their transactions will be surveilled? Is not Osama himself a product of a wealthy Saudi business family? Does anyone seriously believe that he is/was unaware that international money transfers are cleared through central agencies, and that post 9/11, the U.S. would be surveilling every possible source for information?

Furthermore, let us take the example of a terrorist who was not aware that international money transfers are cleared through the SWIFT system. How many of this type are using international banking to move money around the globe? To me it is almost impossible that anyone this unsophisticated wouldn't't be using the 'hawala' (hope I have that right) system of money transfer.

Bottom line is this. One member here posted a picture of the grotesquely burned bodies lying in the debris of a terrorist attack, and said 'This is what the liberals and NYT are shooting for' or something like that. I think that kind of statement is more irresponsible than the NYT actions here. The NYT evidently balanced the potential damage to U.S. counterterrorism efforts with the probative value of exposing another effort on the part of the Bush administration that may push the boundaries of what is legal. I am beginning to understand something. The hard right here at ET are not representative of the majority right in the USA. I can't believe that there aren't others on the right who would agree that they do not want their privacy intruded upon, and they do not want any government to operate outside the boundaries defined by the right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted surveillance.

This article was about the NYT's ongoing effort to undermine the administration by pointing out their alleged abrogation of the rights of citizens. To say that they are working hand in hand with the terrorists and the Dems to destroy the country... well, I am not going to bother with my description of that, since you asked me a polite question.

Is all this playing politics? Is the main motivation of the NYT to depose the Republicans, so that their Dem friends can win the next election? If this is the case, it is no worse than the same kind of politicking we see from the right. I don�t believe that either party has the moral high ground when it comes to playing politics. It's all part of the game.

The final problem is this - is the U.S. at war right now? There is no consensus in this and that is why it doesn't really matter what I think about whether this would be treasonous if the U.S. were at war. So regarding your question about what I would think if we were at war well, it's a tough question. I don't see this as a war of sovereign against sovereign in the old sense (WWII). Maybe in the case of WWII this would be treasonous but I highly doubt that anything like this would have been published at that time. This is a war of western values vs. Muslim ones. Certainly there is no question in my mind that this is not even remotely treasonous in its present context and I think the (imo) over-reaction we are seeing is a result of the fact that the 'war in Iraq' is going badly, for the current administration and for the young Americans who are dying as a result of our presence there.

 

"This is a war of western values vs. Muslim ones."

Is that what you tell the 6 million Muslims living in America, enjoying "western" values?

 

Could you please do everyone the favour of editing your posts to increase the readability of the thread? Could you not be bothered with the few mouse clicks it would have taken to edit my long post down to the part you were citing?

I assumed that after 126,567 posts you'd have figured this out.

Thank you.

 

Of course, I read the article. Unlike you, I didn't read into it.

You obviously have an ax to grind with journalism in general; which is fine. You're certainly well within your rights to harbor whatever animosities you like. Just like I am well within my rights to make fun of you for doing it.

Your little "Five Step Method of Delusional Conspiracy Analysis" is hilarious. Thank you for sharing it with us. It sheds a lot of light on your train of thought about how you approach reading comprehension.

I have listened to talk radio and watched FOX news as well. What you are doing falls right in line with their campaign to discredit the validity of their competitors. What's truly amusing is that you ascribe to the notion of enlightenment as bashing the journalistic sources of one by getting suckered into the propaganda of another.

Allow me to redefine your approach into a more realistic methodology that is utilized by those of us who are truly independent thinkers and consumers of printed information:

Step 1: What you are reading comes from a source that is in the business purely for the sake of turning a profit.

Step 2: The source of the news that you are reading is in competition with other news sources, who are also in the business purely for the sake of turning a profit.

Step 3: The financial survival of the source is solely dependent upon it's viewers and/or the commercial sponsors of it's content.

Step 4: There are only a limited number of potential viewers and/or subscribers. The only means by which one source outperforms another is to entice those that read or view other sources to renounce their competitors and switch to their service. Denigrating and discrediting the competition is acceptable.

Step 5: All news and current events are the same. The only thing that distinguishes one source from another is the medium and format. Consumer preference for one medium and format over another is dictated by personal tastes, opinions, and convenience as it applies to their daily lives.

As an example, the source in question of this particular article is a free content website with free news bites equivalent to Cliff's Notes (because their average consumer is there for something else, could actually care less, and/or has a short attention span). The article shares space with free email, free messenger service, free online radio, free financials, horoscopes, personals, maps, and, of course, shopping. The majority of their target audience currently use their search functions to find out about fireworks, Superman, Angelina Jolie, World Cup, baby names, and Britney Spears. The content about GIs raping and murdering Iraqis is there so they don't have to leave the site, but, judging from the available content for this particular target audience, they could give a shit.

The only "wet dream" I see is yours in thinking that you have some monopoly on the truth or that you have come across some revelation of the existence of a conspiracy. In reality, the only thing I'm actually hearing from you is the regurgitation of propaganda consumed by you from your preferred choice of media. Personally, I prefer to get my news from a source that isn't bitching and moaning about what their competitors are doing or thinking.

 

Good questions. Why do newspapers still exist at all? Maybe the crossword?

 

I can understand why you didn't want to deal with your own quote, as it makes you look so bloody foolish.....

LOL...