About Those Treasonous Media Leaks Of Our National Secrets D

[hybot]

<b>Permanent link to <a href="http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/06/about_those_tre_1.php">About Those Treasonous Media Leaks Of Our National Secrets During A Time Of War: Didn't We Execute The Rosenbergs For Less?</a></b>

<b>Excerpt:</b> The Rosenbergs where executed for a lot less - they were tried for espionage when we weren't in the middle of a war.

[zen_less]

Um, no. The Rosenbergs wer executed for passing *secrets* to the *enemy*. This program was not a secret, it has been reported on numerous times (e.g., http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec01/funds_12-4.html
from 2001) and the information was being passed to *us*, who are affected by it. Save your execution fantasies for those qho are really deserving of it.

[Richard]

Hello "Zen-less," or better named, "clueless."

The existance of the program was known, not the sources and methods, details which provide the terrorists knowledge of exactly how and where we are getting the information to get them.

Even the NYT said this in Kellers original response and in the article itself - otherwise, the NYT would not have published the info in the first place.

As for your comment "... and the information was being passed to *us*, who are affected by it," your are absolutely one hundred percent correct. Yes, it is "us" who are affected by it. Our lives, our loved ones fighting the terrorists around the world. And, as happened to those killed on 9/11, you and I, and our loved ones, are in danger of being killed by Islamic terrorists, our enemy, and who are now much more informed thanks to the NYT, and subsequently, because of them covering the story, the LAT and WSJ.

BTW, I apologize for calling you clueless. I should have pointed out that being both better informed and "wide awake" to the dynamics of what is really going on in the so-called WOT (which is really a war against Islamofascism and Islamists), makes for a more balanced understanding of the NYT's agenda.

The NYT has greatly increased the likelyhood of you and I being killed by terrorists, and to an even higher degree, placed my son and others at greater risk of being killed in Iraq.

[bobdevo]

The NY Times revealing US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions is in reality a huge non-story.

Similar information was incorporated into the report of the UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group to the UN Security Council in December 2002, and is still available on the UN Website.

Paragraph 31 of the report states:
<blockquote>The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.</blockquote> Suggestions that SWIFT and similar transactions be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism have circulated for quite some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices in 1995.

Once again, administration apologists attack the Constitution and its guarantees of freedom of the press because the press prints commonly available information; information any terrorist would already be factoring into his plans. I always thought conservatives were in favor of less government intrusion, but then many cherished childhood myths die to disillusionment.

Information on surveillance of bank transfers has been public for four years; the idea that terrorists are <i>aided</i> by the Times story is simply preposterous. Let those making such allegations empirically demonstrate one untoward result of the Times story.

Rather than treason, this is one more desperate attempt by the Bush Administration to deflect attention from increasingly deteriorating conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continuing inability of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to competently perform their duties of office.

_________________
<i>"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex"</i> -Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Richard]

[bobdevo]

richard: <i>Given your comments . . .you just lost your argument</i>

Geeze, richard, where I come from telling the truth wins arguments. No one has been able to demonstrate any empirical harm; the information is stale news since 2002; both Iraq and Afghanistan are deteriorating.

Or would you care to make the argument that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are <b><i>demonstrably</i></b> competent?

_________________
<i>"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex"</i> -Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Richard]

Bob,
The argument comment has to do with your agenda on your sleeve - since I take your comments at face value and accept your comments as being what you truly believe to be true.

I disagree with you, significantly. We obviously have different world views, only one of which bears a reflection of truth.

What is true is that we are at war, a determined enemy is trying to kill us, and that those of us that recognize the real enemy, and it's not us, will ultimately have to carry the day for those that believe the enemy is other than the Islamists - but America.

Like it or not Bob, the current administration is responsible for administrating the war, not those that are sitting outside the administration and our military.

If you've ever been in a firefight, you know that all plans go out the door the moment the other guy gets a choice, and he does. Mistakes are made in war, and the winner is always the guy, unit, army, and nation that makes the least, and adjusts the most.

That Bob, just happens to be the way things really are. We obviously disagree here, but unfortunately, if I'm wrong - we're both dead, and al-Qaeda wins. Then it's Friday prayers for all of us.

[TGintheUSA]

If you believe in the death penalty so wholeheartedly, than maybe you should be executed, since you're calling for the murder of journalists. You lunatics have no respect for the first amendendment, what, with your flag burning amendment and your constant attacks on anyone in the media who dares disagree with you.

The FACT is, this WASN'T EVEN A SECRET!!
Do a little reading:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/

[Richard]

TG,
No, perhaps you should read the whole post.

You are not in touch with the facts - read the whole post.

And no, I am not in favor of the death penalty. Think - satire. I call your attention to the following excerpt:

[bobdevo]

Richard:

<i>"if I'm wrong - we're both dead"</i>

Richard, we do see this differently. I'm not afraid of the big, bad wolf, nor am I afraid of al-Qaeda. Their best efforts have resulted in 3,000 deaths in the US.

We kill that many people every month on the road, and the government response is to ignore enhanced safety features and up the speed limit.

We kill that many people every month with handguns, and the government's response is to do away with the ban on assault weapons and allow arms sales at flea markets.

According to the AMA, between 5,000 and 10,000 Americans are killed every month by medical errors in hospitals, and the government response is to put caps on damage awards for malpractice.

Meanwhile, 3,000 get killed in a one-time fluke, and the government wants to throw the Constitution out the window, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and invade Iraq without justification. Can that be considered an appropriate response? I think not.

Every American is far more at risk from his next-door neighbor's SUV than from any towelhead running around South Jerkistan.

_________________
<i>"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex"</i> -Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Richard]

Bob,
I'm afraid you are being terribly naive, with little regard for the problems we are facing with those "Towel Heads" you refer to.

Only one of us is right. Unfortunately, your perspectives are shared by so many on the Left, and the rest of us have to fight for your freedom to believe whatever you chose to believe.

For now, we'll have to agree to disagree. It's obvious that until you or your family dies or looses their freedom to sharia, you'll never believe otherwise. As with Europe when much of it slept while Hitler advanced his ideology, we have the same problem here in America.

I may write to engage and raise a little hell now and then, but I'm an experienced international scientist with a lifetime of experience in the Middle East and Europe - I'm not speaking without some insight. Hope to see you join the fight against the "Towel Head" ideology, but it looks as though that will have to wait.

BTW - several Muslims write under the name Richard at Hyscience and Freedom's Zone, and Hyscience and FZ are the annonymous hosts for Muslim bloggers all over the world. These are all moderate Muslims, and they have very different views of the threat than your own. They are frankly, scared to death of the jihad ideology, and the threat to our lives and freedoms that we face from it.

[wwmfjd]

The US government has always - particularly since the end of the second world war - kept secrets from their constituents. Agencies do this to enhance their competition against other agencies, individual office-holders prote it in order to make their political lives easier, and -most significantly - corporate moles do it to keep us stupid so they can steal our money. The Bush administation exemplifies in spades this latter paradigm. They are the ones who need to stand to account for treasonous act after treasonous act.

Al Queada has left us alone since 9/11 because Bush quickly and fully conceded to Osama's single demand of us - that we remove our soldiers and bases from land that he considers to be holy - Saudi Arabia. That these military assets were moved to Iraq to unseat the regime of Osama's secularist enemy (Saddam) and to destabilize the country to a degree that the Shi'ite majority in that country (infidels, as far as Osama is concerned) could not assume firm control, well I guess our government just threw those favors in gratis.

The endless secrets are so we can't tell which of their fairy-tales are bogus, and we end up petrified by all of them, willing to spend our grandchildren's future so that...something won't happen! Americans - starting with you people - need to grow a national backbone and let some good, cleansing light into our government. Its the only way to attain real national security.

[Richard]

Using your extremely naive and unlearned position, we should have simply published all of our battle plans in WWII, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

My friend, you are so very wrong, and your logic and extropolations from misplaced and inaccurate facts have the uncanny ring of those in all previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that refused to recognize the rising darkness of the Islamists.

Unfortunately, it is quite obvious that nothing I nor anyone else can say will have any effect whatsoever upon your view through a glass that will always be half-empty.

However, your comments are always worth listening to, by someone.

[harry]

Dear wwmfjd:

I will just add to your post that Al-queda has left us alone, because our elite forces (CIA, etc) killed about 40,000 of them in less than 60 days in Afghanistan shortly after 911. I guess you could say their attrition rate has overcome their ability to project their terror initiatives around the world. I suspect we have exceeded parity with Al-queda's ability to recruit versus our ability to kill them.

My apologies, if the media did not shine their light on this little tidbit. It seems the American media has an aversion for wholesale killing ... reminds them too much of death camps, I suppose.

Lastly, on a more personal note, I was wondering if you ever wore the uniform of country? Since you mentioned the notion of backbone, I was just curious what part you may have played in our nation's security.

With Aloha,

[Richard]

Harry,
Semper Fi!