It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by zenlover28
Becky, please..as if the whole world doesn't know they were doing this...including terrrorists.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
the only treason I see are those wanting security over freedom
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by thermopolis
The times has violated several sections of the anti-espionage act.........
Can I ask in what way you feel the Times did so?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by grimreaper797
the only treason I see are those wanting security over freedom
And the only treason I see are those wanting profit over security.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
thats business....they own the politicians too so I dont see the point your making.
Originally posted by thermopolis
There is no difference in what the NYT's has done in telling of the banking data and printing that the US had broken Japans code in WWII.
Originally posted by jsobecky
There is a world of difference between knowing that something is happening and releasing specific details about.
Originally posted by thermopolis
A Consitutional Law expert from the South Texas school of law, did a long interview this morning on the subject. I will try to find a transcript. He made it very clear...............
Originally posted by marg6043
Yes they own politicans too but more so who are those that are benefiting from owning the politicians.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
2) "Terrorists" are criminals, not "enemy states"... as such, I'm not clear how constitutional law relating to war powers would apply.
Originally posted by thermopolis
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
2) "Terrorists" are criminals, not "enemy states"... as such, I'm not clear how constitutional law relating to war powers would apply.
This is one of the biggest problems...........criminalization of war. This is not a TV movie. Terrorist are not "criminals" with any rights under the constitution.
However, the NYT's is criminal and should be dealth with accordingly.
Originally posted by thermopolis
There is no difference in what the NYT's has done in telling of the banking data and printing that the US had broken Japans code in WWII. Japan knew the US was listening but didn't know we had the details.
PEARL HARBOR - MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES
"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944
President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.
FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by -
- denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI)
- on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on
- having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet.
The US was warned by, at least, the governments of Britain, Netherlands, Australia, Peru, Korea and the Soviet Union that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. All important Japanese codes were broken. FDR and Marshall and others knew the attack was coming, allowed it and covered up their knowledge. It's significant that both the the chief of OP-20-G Safford and Friedman of Army SIS, the two people in the world that knew what we decoded, said that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
3) Several countries are now examining the possibility that international law was broken, especially lawmakers in Belgium who feel local banking laws were broken.
The complaints allege that the activity was undertaken without regard to legal process under Data Protection law, and that the disclosures were made without any legal basis or authority whatever. The scale of the operation, involving millions of records, places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than legally authorised investigation.
www.privacyinternational.org...[347]=x-347-538985
"This is something we're looking into," Anne-Marie Hayden, spokesperson for the privacy commissioner's office, told the newspaper.
"Any time personal information of Canadians is obtained by a foreign government in circumstances that may not provide the same privacy protections that exist in Canada, we have concerns."
CIA may have accessed Canadian banking records
Originally posted by thermopolis
Terrorist are not "criminals" with any rights under the constitution.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
3) Several countries are now examining the possibility that international law was broken, especially lawmakers in Belgium who feel local banking laws were broken.
Now there's a nice point to be raised.
Originally posted by spacedoubt
A move made by a NEWS outfit, to actually BECOME the news.
Originally posted by thermopolis
hang'em high............
the Regime's hate campaign has now burst into the media mainstream, where calls for Times editors to stand trial for the capital crime of treason are routinely being aired, along with scarcely veiled exhortations for mob violence against the press.
...
Make no mistake: the Bush Regime intends to silence all dissenting voices and suppress all politically harmful information in the American establishment. ... What they cannot tolerate -- and increasingly will not tolerate -- is any institution, organization or person in a position of genuine influence on the American power structure to undermine the presidential dictatorship that the Regime has established.
...
And thus the current trial balloons in the media about charging the NYT with treason. These are serious threats; but just in case they're not enough, we're also getting the increasingly open call for violence against Bush opponents, for the "outraged public" to "take the law into their own hands." These calls are couched -- for now -- as "concerns" about "what might happen" if Bush's opponents continue their "provocations;" they are being phrased -- for now -- as warnings of a fate that the commentators hope will not come to pass. But as the Regime's position grows more precarious, these "concerns" will give way to incitements.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by spacedoubt
A move made by a NEWS outfit, to actually BECOME the news.
What made news was the president's response. The original story would have been but a blip had the president not had such a vitriolic reaction to it. And according to Duzey's post above, his reasons may be becoming more clear...