Incorrect.
Our guys caught Mary O. McCarthy leaking the CIA prisons story.
Posted on 06/27/2006 8:44:52 PM PDT by bnelson44
House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records.
The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.
The resolution comes as Republicans from the president on down condemn media organizations for reporting on the secret government program that tracked financial records overseas through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), an international banking cooperative.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
shouldn't they find out where the leak is coming from, first?
Go get'em J.D!!!!
They never find the leakers. So you need to get the MSM not to want to publish the leaks.
I like it, but I doubt it will pass. I would rather the AG kick their a$$.
They need to prosecute. The New York Times doesn't get to decide what is classified and what isn't. In a time of war, the NYT has assisted our enemies at every turn.
> ... asking his leaders to revoke the Times’s
> congressional press credentials.
The White House needs to do the same. Just what does
a so-called reporter have to do to get their WH Press
Pass revoked?
Heck, they needed to kick out most of those bums,
including the Gorgon Lady, years ago.
Meanwhile, are there any web sites that report on
who are the current advertisers in the NYT and other
members of the Domestic Enemy Press?
Some concerned citizen letters to the money sources
might help.
Of course, Rush could jut buy the NYT, and shut it down.
I would rather both happen :)
I hope they pass it.
Incorrect.
Our guys caught Mary O. McCarthy leaking the CIA prisons story.
Is a House Resolution comparable to a UN resolution?
How about resolving to start arresting everyone at the NYT associated with the story? Let them spend some of their money on legal fees and bail.
So would I just to see the RATS pitch a sh** fit...
A resolution with NO TEETH. Why bother? I want the NYT OUT OF BUSINESS!!
Convict and jail the writers. Then, after they meet their jail mate Bubba, work the way up the chain of 'whistle blowers', so to speak...
"Convict and jail the writers. Then, after they meet their jail mate Bubba, work the way up the chain of 'whistle blowers', so to speak..."
Exactly!
Will never happen.
Haven't you just read the lastest entry in the long list of diappointed votes by our " Elected REPRESENTATIVES " ??
The " Flag Desecration Bill " missed being voted into law due to --once again--the officials we ELECTED Based on their STANDS and their Party's ALLEGIANCE to OUR WISHES of Faithfully following the standards of the U.S. Constitution!
First the lack of support for our PRESIDENT!
The the Lack of FULL-"VOICED" support for our Troops & War!
The Lack of Support for Immigration Laws!
and the Lack of VOICE in opposing the Radicals in the media and demorat party!
Nope--we got stuck with just another bunch of aggrandizing, politcally correct welchers that has much as hurt us as would the oppposition party would have if they HAD been elected.
Easy now. It's important to do some sabre-rattling first though, scare the Times a little and get public opinion on your side. Unfortunately, most Americans believe that the Bush administration is this Constitution-shredding dictatorship. If the AG jumps out of the gate prosecuting it'll backfire.
Ohh, how nice, how about some f***ing punishment????????
Now is seems to fit both sides of the aisle.
Would your position be the same if a paper had printed the following headline stories during WWII
United States breaks German Secret Code
Allied Forces to Land at Normandy in Early June 44
U.S. Forces to drop Atomic Bomb on Japanese Mainland
In my mind the NYT story is no different than if they had ran the above headlines. However, sixty years ago the press would not dare have printed such stories, and if they had they WOULD HAVE been criminally charged with treason
The slow response will work better. Get Senators and Reps on the record. Either they slam the NY Times or else some of them will lose their offices this year.
Hold hearings. Indict later, but do indict.
I'm pretty sure the WH or Justice has something going on behind the scenes anyway.
Yep. Calling for a Times indictment right away and the MSM will just spin it as Bush being Nixonian. Cooler heads will prevail in the long run. The WH is well aware that the Times is al-Quaida's paper of record.
Thought you might be interested in this per our recent "conversation" ping.....
A public spanking for treason, not a bad deal for the Slimes. Sounds like the Repubs are weenies, afraid to take on the NY Slimes with the Justice Dept.
It was nearly 5 years ago, shortly after 9-11.
Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America´s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.
Osama bin Laden originally rose to prominence because his inherited fortune allowed him to bankroll Arab volunteers fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Since then, he has acquired funds from a panoply of Islamic charities and illegal and legal businesses, including export-import and commodity trading firms, and is estimated to have as much as $300 million at his disposal.Some of these businesses move funds through major commercial banks that lack the procedures to monitor such transactions properly.
Locally, terrorists can utilize tiny unregulated storefront financial centers, including what are known as hawala banks, which people in South Asian immigrant communities in the United States and other Western countries use to transfer money abroad. Though some smaller financial transactions are likely to slip through undetected even after new rules are in place, much of the financing needed for major attacks could dry up.
Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations.
The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them.
The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.
New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
The New York Times, September 24, 2001
www.nyt.com
I don't see any difference between the two parties except for Iraq. Both parties are selling out our country like one giant yard sale.
You know...there are ways to do things. Below is a pertinent clip from a presser after the LAST NYCrimes leak in December.
Q Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward.
And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven't ordered one, because I understand there's kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges.
Do we have a lawyer in the house?
This sounds periously close to violating Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution, which forbids any bill of attainder.
If we want to prosecute the Times under existing law that is fine, and I am 100% behind it. I doubt that voting to remove their press credentials is going to be found constitutional, and will only embarrass our side.
Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito might beg to differ.
Good idea. Make a record and let's see which demonrats condemn the NYCrimes.
Both men are moderates who have pledged to keep their faith and religious beliefs locked in a vault while at work, so how do they differ from atheists? And what have they done so far?
Weird that theHill.com would get the title wrong - its a resolution, not a bill.
At least by now; the NYT"s reporters who cover the White House; should have had their credentials pulled - for duration of 'investigation'(. ..assuming of course; there IS one. . .)
And by now. . .the Feds should have already locked and barred their doors after the first printing of the 'Classified' disclosures; and they should stay locked; until the investigation is complete;
. . .and all the guilty participants in this Treason, have met full Justice.
What America pays in 'lives' alone; what sacrifices are made everyday, by our soldiers; and their families. . .
. . .should make this. . .not too much to ask - or expect . Right?
Good point. A bill of attainder is essentially a legislative act that singles out a person or group for punishment without a trial.
I'd rather have punishment, capitalist punishment, by reducing demand for their propaganda, via trial in the court of public opinion and trial under existing legislation.
A bill condeming someone for some act is not a bill of attainder and it is done all the time. It is not binding.
What would be binding is the revoking of their press pass, and if you don't know if they are working for the enemy, then it is grounds to revoke their pass.
The bill of attainder discussion concerned the idea of legislating the revocation of the NYCrimes' press credentials. That would be a dumb idea. I like the idea of making a record, via resolution, of who will go on record condemning the NYCrimes and who will not.
There is not a bill being proposed to remove the press credentials. Press credentials are established by a standing committee made up of people who already have credentials in the press gallery. In other words MSM. There is NO WAY they would revoke the NYT's press credentials. Unless the house rules change. And that is what D.J. is trying to get done. It doesn't take a law to change a house rule.... it is a long shot, but it is possible... not likely to happen, but possible.
It is now a daily intelligence report to Bin Laden and Al-Queda.
Time to send in a squad of Special Forces to arrest Sulzberg and Keller, and send them down to Gitmo with the other terrorists.
House rule? I'll take your word for it.
"...a resolution today condemning The New York Times "
Like the times gives 2 craps about a resolution. Nail the bastards to the wall . Tell them , reveal the source of the leak or someone will spend the better part of their adult life in jail.
We here on FR must push to flood the advertises who work with the times to take their business elsewhere. We need to compile a list of advertisers and their contact info. I'd like to shut that rag down for good.
BTW , Murtha had NO COMMENT on this situation. He was one who was asked to speak to the times about NOT printing the story. Guess he's up late tonight trying to spin his story. The Times claims that one of the people who were sent to ask them NOT to print didnt really push the issue..here's our chance to publicy slam Murtha. We also need to get a count on who condems the Times (traitors ) and who won't . Many of the Dems wont condem them and will thereby loose a LOT of votes next time around. The Times itself said the program was necessary and working to catch terrorist..They really blew it this time and we need to take advantage of this ASAP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.