Need to know

in time of war ya gotta pick a side

why to they always pick the loser side???

could it cuz they are...






















[size=+10]LOSERS?[/size]
 
Altron said:
But... Publishing things like battle plans, weapon designs, technology, etc. can be very bad for our troops.

I think the press needs to look up the word 'discresion' in the dictionary. Just because they managed to find out about something does not mean that it needs to be printed. They need to take a step back and realize that military information being known by enemy spies can put American troops in more danger than they already are. Only a fool would print information that would be harmful to the brave men and women risking their lives to defend the freedom to print that information.

Of course, if this is turning into a discussion of the illegal wire-tapping, or any other DOMESTIC issue, I am on Spike's side. My comments are in reference to the theoretical situation of the New York Times printing an article that the Enigma code has been broken in the midst of World War II.
Click to expand...

I agre battle plans, technology, and weapon designs should not be reported. There was even an incident recently where a man found the exact movement , car order, and passenger info for the president thrown in the trash BY A WHITE HOUSE STAFFER.

However if the white house is doing something illegal it should be reported whether it's a foreign or domestic issue. Discretion should be used in both cases to not endager lives but illegal activity should be reported.
 
Altron said:
But... Publishing things like battle plans, weapon designs, technology, etc. can be very bad for our troops.
Click to expand...
Except that that isn't what they published.

Yesterday, September 11, 1943, the New York Times reported that allied cryptanalysts had been, for several years, decoding top-secret Axis war messages. The Times story revealed that thousands of code-breakers working in a suburb of London had broken Germany's Enigma military codes. The vast operation, code-named "ULTRA", had succeeded in regularly reading secret military orders broadcast through the German airwaves. In addition, the Times reported that American code-breakers, in an operation called "MAGIC", had broken Imperial Japan's highly secret military code. MAGIC reportedly had successfully intercepted thousands of secret war messages from the Japanese high command to forces in the field and at sea.
Click to expand...
 
Altron said:
Breaking an enemy code during war isn't illegal. Letting the enemy know about it is.
Click to expand...
No it's not. It might show a certain lack of judgement but it was not and is not illegal.

The fact is that by 1943 any number of people already knew these codes had been broken. You can bet your ass the Germans and the Japanese knew it. This wasn't news then, it's not news now and it was and is meaningless.

It does give Gonz a lovely chance to display his righteous indignation 63 years after the fact though, don't it???
 
You're telling me that the Japs knew that we knew they were attacking Midway, but they decided to send in their 4 carrier task force without battleship protection anyway, so that we could make a surprise attack and sink half of their carrier striking power?
 
chcr said:
It does give Gonz a lovely chance to display his righteous indignation 63 years after the fact though, don't it???
Click to expand...

Have you been paying attention to the NY Times & how they are, TODAY, reporting what our government is doing to stop terrorists? This satire was used an example of the stupidity of that possibly treasonous act.

The Germans knew enigma was broken? :rofl4:
 
Gonz said:
Have you been paying attention to the NY Times & how they are, TODAY, reporting what our government is doing to stop terrorists? This satire was used an example of the stupidity of that possibly treasonous act.
Click to expand...
In other words, they haven't changed their editorial policy????
Gonz said:
The Germans knew enigma was broken? :rofl4:
Click to expand...

Within six weeks of it being broken in early 1940. No, I don't remember the book I read about it in but it was in German if that helps. You believe everything the government says, don't you? Even Roosevelt and Churchill, huh?

Altron said:
You're telling me that the Japs knew that we knew they were attacking Midway, but they decided to send in their 4 carrier task force without battleship protection anyway, so that we could make a surprise attack and sink half of their carrier striking power?
Click to expand...
Battle of Midway: June 4th to 7th, 1942

Yesterday, September 11, 1943, the New York Times reported
Click to expand...
I suspect that they figured it out in the intervening fifteen months, don't you?

*sigh* Honestly... :rolleyes:
 
chcr said:
You believe everything the government says, don't you? Even Roosevelt and Churchill, huh?
Click to expand...

If the Germans knew, why did they keep using it?
 
chcr said:
but the simple fact is if you pretend to live in a free society, then they did nothing wrong. If you want to live in the other kind of society, move to China.
Click to expand...

They very well did someting wrong. They published information that helps the enemy in a time of war. Illegal? Perhaps-depends on the DA. Highly immoral, unethical & incredibly stupid? WIthout a doubt. Considering they did it for political gain makes it worse yet.

The irony is, if the enemy does win, the first people shot will be the very ones helping them.
 
chcr said:
Except that that isn't what they published.
Click to expand...

For the record...you did see this right? SatireNewsService

Also, for the record...

part one - published September 24, 2001

New York Times editorial

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.
Click to expand...

Then, in the name of politics, they published this (limited story)...telling terrorists exactly what we're doing & how we're doing it. The LA Times & the Wall Street Journal also published that story but they haven't outed this administration at every possible step. They should also be charged, if a crime has been committted, however the difference is, they NY Times is, for all intents & purposes, the paper of record.
 
Gonz said:
For the record...you did see this right? SatireNewsService
Click to expand...
Nope, I did not. I apologize. This of course clearly makes everything else you have ever said on this or any other subject the gospel truth. I assumed that something posted in the Real World... my mistake.

Hey, I was right though. It isn't and wasn't news.
 
Ok.

First the enemy knows all the moves your army makes cause of CNN.

anywho

if you want something to remain classified, keep it OUT of the hands of the press.

IF the press can find out, than so can spies.
 
What's the old saying, loose lips sink ships? Paul is 100% correct.

Someone in the White House can't keep their mouth shut. I wonder if executive branch leaks certain information that's 'kind of a big deal but not really' just so the papers will run it so they can shift the news away from anything real that's happening and towards a "traitor" newspaper (classic misdirection). As much as W gets made fun of, he's not an idiot, and his advisors are especially not idiots. Evil/moral can be debated, but they are not stupid.

The other obvious answer is there's a disgruntled Pat Buchannon type on staff, or someone in the Pentagon, who doesn't like what's going on and is leaking info out of spite.
 
The point is that you can have freedom of the press or not. If you don't like freedom of the press then you clearly have a problem with America and it's values. What bugs me is people who spout, umm..., stuff about freedom of expression without understanding that if someone like the Times doesn't have it, neither do you. :shrug: It's mindless in my estimation.
 
I've yet to see Freedom of Expression in the Constitution either but that's another thread.
 
Gonz said:
I've yet to see Freedom of Expression in the Constitution either but that's another thread.
Click to expand...

*chcr's lack of patience with the "dim-bulb" obtuseness factor has led him to abandon this thread.*
 
correct me if i'm wrong but...

if the satire article was actually published, then the powers that be at the NY Times could have been prosecuted for treason as freedom of the press can be suspended in times of declared war (or so i remember from high school history class)
the intel the papers are publishing today isnt considered treason because the current "war on terrorism" is not a war declared by congress but some sort of temporary presidential war powers act or something like that (i cant rememebr the exact name of it)
 
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Click to expand...

to me, that reads as two slightly different meanings. congress declars war or gives the president specific statutory authorization. if they were the same thing, they would not have made specific mention of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top