Rex Kickass

Viagra was one of the prescription medicines that he was carrying. The bottles were not prescribed to him, but rather his doctor - by his lawyer's own admission. He has a history of prescription drug abuse. If we're gonna be tough on drugs, we should be tough on things like this.

What in IROIran's 26 year history would lead you to believe that Iran is acting in any offensive capacity as a state. Have they funded terror organizations to further their policy goals? Yes. But going nuclear - or providing similar technology as a state to NGO terror groups is a big jump from paying for bombs and mortar shells. It's also the end of the state's existence - and I'm sure that the people in charge in Iran realize that - and won't use their technology so recklessly. The game is as much in play for the people who run Iran as it is for the people who run North Korea.

Clearly, these scientists are biased.

Southsider, North Korea and Iran have the same game. My feeling is that Iran is working for nukes in a purely defensive measure. By all accounts, there will most likely be a semi-permanent US presence in the Middle East, and Iran feels threatened by it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 02:33 PM) Isn't this the "Clinton did it too" defense that gets blown off when used by a Republician? I thought we weren't supposed to use that as a valid arguement anymore? Nope, I am saying if you tar one, you should tar them all. QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) It's my understanding that the NYT journalists were the ones who obtained the classified information from the informant(s). They were the ones who decided to use this information. The fact that the (liberal) LA Times and (conservative) WSJ got ahold of the information (via the NYT) and published stories to keep up with their competitior is a moot point. Your last two questions are so ridiculous that I won't bother answering them. What seems to be getting lost in this discussion is the fact that the Times were THE FIRST to obtain the (illegal) information and THE FIRST to decide to print it, despite several weeks of pleas from the White Houst not to. For all we know, the NYT may have intentionally leaked it to the WSJ and LAT. The LA Times and the NYT story broke at the same time, on Friday. Im not actually sure that the NY Times story made it in print on Friday, but rather on the web instead about mid morning. The LAT and NYT are owned by different companies.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 01:36 PM) ^^^ The calls for treason charges are a bit out of line, IMO, but it's very clear that the NYT is doing everything it can to undermine the Bush administration. There is no compelling "public interest" to dislcose the federal government's tracking of the financial records of terrorists, given that the action is perfectly legal (financial transactions are not priviliged) and that Congress is well-aware of it. Subpoena the authors at the Times and force them to disclose the scumbags who leaked the info - that's pretty much all you can do. It's unfortunate that the far-left cares more about undermining the current administration than protecting American lives. :headshake What about the reporters at the Wall Street Journal and LA Times that put the story to bed at the same time? What about the people reporting on the report? What about us for talking about it?

They still are using it as a bargaining chip. The language used seems to suggest that Iran is no longer interested in talking with the US over such matters. It doesn't mean that Iran is giving the rest of the world community the cold shoulder.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) I don't think he ever compared the two. He just lead off his article with some hyperbole. You looked at that and since you're so "grounded" chose not to continue reading. If you stop reading everytime someone exaggerates the first line of their article, then you probably aren't finishing too many articles. That's a column, not an article. I'd hardly consider anything coming out of a Limbaugh's mouth to be "news."

This may actually be a violation of his "not guilty" plea.

Again, what specific information is altogether shocking or surprising? That something is called SWIFT?

Please tell me what specific evidence that the terrorists will be able to use from this specific article?

I would like to know exactly what part of "The government colludes with business to watch transactions between several thousand unnamed banks for several thousand unnamed persons of interests" clues anyone into any method of intelligence gathering?

Newspapers don't kill people. People kill people.

What's so bad about the article? What did it reveal that was so wrong? What was so surprising about it?

The L.A. Times article ran Friday. The New York Times article ran Friday too. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:49 AM) Bumped Fixed for ya. Nuke, have you read the article in question?

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:42 AM) All I said that it wasn't selling secrets the first time I read it I though it said selling secrets. I still don't like the fact they are spreding this info in their bid to sell more papers. They are reporting the news. And they were the third paper to report on it. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:44 AM) You said it better than I did. LOL!!! What are you talking about?! Its you that has no answer for comparisons between this treason and the hypotheticals we have talked about here. You have no answer to the question if you've read the article? Clearly, you haven't. So why should I bother arguing about it with someone who won't scratch deeper than Tony Snow's talking points? It's like you're being fed outrage over something you don't understand the context of... didn't that happen somehwere else a few months ago? I don't think it was in the US.... but somewhere.... oh where was that again?

So you're saying that this isn't treason? It's not what you said it was three pages ago? What is it then? It looks to me like political posturing. Deflecting your shortcomings by scapegoating something printed in a newspaper. I seem to recall someone else doing that a few months ago.....

Minors, have you read the article in question?

Nuke, have you read the article in question?

Has anyone here, besides me, read the article? I'm getting the impression that the answer is "no." Which is probably a good thing, because when I read the article, I didn't understand the big deal. I didn't see what was so secret. The government is looking through a system to track specific financial transactions by specific people through literally thousands of financial institutions. Because of what the service they are monitoring actually is, there is a loophole in US law that makes this kind of surveillance legal. However, there was some debate about that at first and some questions remain as regard to invasion of privacy within the bodies who conduct the investigation - as well as the partner businesses who keep a representative present during the searches to make sure no inappropriate searches are performed. If anything this article puts the administration in a general positive light - because it worked to address privacy concerns to make sure that the actual information was handled responsibly. The crux of the article seems to me to be whether or not privacy concerns were well handled.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:00 AM) Are you kidding me? Of all the things in Nuke's post and you point out that it was the 3rd paper to publish it. I personally don't care if they are the 1st,10th or 2000th it is still treason. This type of behavior is also like lets say the NYT got the Plans for the Manhattan project and posted them on the newspaper and gave a copy to Japan. Minors, have you read the article in question? QUOTE(minors @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:05 AM) You are so far out of the realm it isn't funny. You think it OK to spill secrets to the terrorists I am just tired of all these liberals trying to defend these thugs. We didn't declare war on Vietnam either so that means 58,000 people weren't killed either? I think when someone attacks you on the homeland they declared war on you. I also think you would be in the verrry slim majority of people thinking we are not in a war. We didn't exert war powers in the US to fight in Vietnam.

Kap, have you read the article?

Nuke, have you read the article in question?

I love how everyone mentions the New York Times and neglects the LA Times, and the more conservative Wall Street Journal gets a pass... And now those who say they want to defend our freedom are calling for restricting the press.

How is it cut and dried treason when they were the third paper to publish the story?