Friday, June 30, 2006

Bush chose not to stop the publication of the Times story

I found this comment in Greg Sargent's column in the Huffington Post very interesting.

The administration had been in discussions with Keller trying to persuade the Times not to run the story. Before it was published, Keller declined and gave them advance warning. They did nothing.

If the administration thought the story would truly hurt the nation's security, they would have gone to court to enjoin its publication. If they actually thought they could succeed in court.

The fact is that they knew there was nothing illegal about what the Times did, and all the screeching about prosecuting Keller and the paper is bs. What the MSM should do is tell the administration to put up or shut up, and explain why they took no legal action to prevent publication of this story. By: NewtonMinnow on June 30, 2006 at 12:56pm

Think about it. Given the power that Bush has claimed (and given) time and time again under the Patriot And the ability to go to court to block this, why didn't they?

Because when it ran they could blame the media. I think that would be a good question from the press to Tony Snow.

"You were in discussions with the NY Times (and the WSJ and the LA Times) about this story. If it was so dangerous why didn't you just go to court and block it under your powers of the Patriot Act?"

Greg Sargent's current story about Morgan's call for Keller's death is here


Blogger Interrobang said...

I just completely changed the course of a thread on Morgan over at Eschaton, by posting an excerpt of her bio from SourceWatch. Damn, I'm good.

Some of the arguments about the NYT story are so crazy they're actually hysterically funny. "Nobody knows about SWIFT!" Huh? What? You never sent a wire transfer or received one? Sheesh... They only give you like a ten-page form to fill out, and one of the pieces of information you need to know is the (duh!) "SWIFT code" for the bank to which you're sending the wire...

I'm a nobody from nowhere, and I know that. The wingnuts need to get out more. They might learn something.

11:20 AM  
Blogger spocko said...

Cool! You Rock !?

11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the UN "should" die too. From

Curious Al Qaeda operatives didn't have to wait for the New York Times to reveal that the US was using SWIFT to track financial transactions. They could have downloaded this PDF back in December of 2002. "Third report of the Monitoring Group established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1363 (2001) and extended by resolution 1390 (2002)"

"31. 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."

12:06 PM  
Blogger betmo said...

because the bigger story here is the repubs looking to take out the times. they want the times and any other 'real' journalists to go away and if they have to do it this way- hey they will. this story has been around in some capacity since i think 2002. now it is a problem because the times is a problem. has nothing to do with the actual story- it is another smokescreen issue.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we're on to you brian. a criminal investigation has been opened and is in progress. due to your activity crossing state lines and hacking non-profit websites, the feds are on to you too. stay tuned

5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>we're on to you brian. a criminal investigation has been opened>>

I hope it's an ivestigation of Brian Sussman who incites hate crimes!

7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no spocko. the criminal investigation is on you for fraudulent tortious interference with a business and using the internet to comitt those crimes. it's illegal. the other illegal activity you appear to be connected to is hacking. hacking non-profit websites. shame on you too spcko you hypocrite.

11:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home