NY Times Vs National Security

[MobBoss]

That's right. He ordered people killed, had massive vice rings across the United States, and they pinned him for not paying taxes!

You know why?

Because, by law, you have to report your earnings, no matter where they come from!

If they come from crime, you still have to report them!

And... here is the clincher....


If you report them, THE IRS CANNOT PASS THE INFORMATION ON TO OTHER AGENCIES, AS THAT WOULD BE FORCING SOMEONE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES, AND IT WOULD BE INADMISSABLE IN COURT

But you still got to report it.

Most crooks don't believe this, or they want to keep their earnings, so they never do report it.

Proof please? I think you are full of craploa on this one. So I am going to dig a bit deeper myself to see what I find.

Meanwhile I found this for your red herring:

The effort, which the government calls the “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller (1976) that there is no right to privacy in financial-transaction information maintained by third parties. Here, moreover, the focus is narrowed to suspected international terrorists, not Americans, and the financial transactions implicated are international, not domestic. This is not data mining, and it does not involve fishing expeditions into the financial affairs of American citizens. Indeed, few Americans even have information that is captured by the program — though there would be nothing legally offensive even if they did.

And unlike the last vital program the New York Times compromised — the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, which the same reporters, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, exposed last December — there is not even a facially plausible concern that the TFTP violates statutory law. The provisions germane here (mainly, the Right to Financial Privacy Act that Congress enacted in 1978 in reaction to Miller) do not even apply to the nerve center at issue, the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.

That’s because SWIFT, as it is better known, is not a financial institution at all. It is a consortium, centered not in the U.S. but in Belgium, which simply — albeit importantly — oversees how funds are routed globally. It is a messenger, not a bank. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the government uses administrative subpoenas — which were expressly provided for by Congress in the aforementioned Financial Privacy Act and the Patriot Act — when it seeks SWIFT information. That’s not just legal; it’s hyper-legal.

And with that I bid you goodnight.

 

[Neomega]

Proof please? I think you are full of craploa on this one. So I am going to dig a bit deeper myself to see what I find.

Do your own homework, I know I am right.

Meanwhile I found this for your red herring:

A link would be nice...

OH, and if any transfers came from America, 'twas illegal.

wait... hear it is!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE4ODFmMmI3ZmM5ZGE4ZDQxNmY1ODA5YTQ3NzkxZWQ=

National Review Online. Yes, you pulled that red herring out of a barrel of garbage, and tried to tell me it was a lemon poached salmon!

NRO = Neocon propaganda machine.

No thanks

Spoiler :

from the article:

There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved.

gave it away as right wing propaganda trash

But alas, as I almost bit the poached salmon, I got distracted, by your BIG RED HERRING

Wow, cover it up, hide it behind your back, pull it back out, and it is still so red, and so big! I Am so distracted!

 

[MobBoss]

Do your own homework, I know I am right.

Actually your not. Not even close. On the Al Capone front, Ness worked directly with an IRS agent named Frank Wilson. Ness didnt get any warrants for investigation of the IRS records of Capone, but rather Ness and the Treasury Department worked directly with the IRS to nab Capone. Wilson gave him the information needed to nab Capone on tax evasion as he was mandated to do as an IRS agent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

Now on tax evasion, you were partially correct in that the IRS says even income via illegal means should be disclosed however, its generally not because: because doing so would serve as an admission of guilt. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance_and_tax_evasion#Tax_evasion This would be the same as a confession of guilt, not incriminating onself on a witness stand, thus the 5th Amendment does not apply in any way, shape or form. So you were precisely wrong on that statement.

As the IRS is a government entity and tax records are government records all a court would have to do is issue a subpoena for the records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum as evidence. Note: this is not a warrant. The government does not need a warrant to investigate its own records. In fact, it is the duty of the IRS to notify law enforcement agencies of potential tax fraud/evasion.

Oh and btw, the article on the NRO was factually correct regardless of your opinion of it. If you dont trust it look up United States vs Miller yourself. You would look better if you could actually refute any part of the story as not factual - however you cant - thus you just dismiss it as propaganda. The exact same way you keep on chanting "red herring" when faced with a question you cant answer.

So, I went and did my homework..and found you wrong. Again. Can you refute what I have here, with proof? If not feel free to chant "red herring" a bit more.

 

[Neomega]

Oh and btw, the article on the NRO was factually correct regardless of your opinion of it. If you dont trust it look up United States vs Miller yourself. You would look better if you could actually refute any part of the story as not factual - however you cant - thus you just dismiss it as propaganda. The exact same way you keep on chanting "red herring" when faced with a question you cant answer.

I'll get back to the tax thing in a minute... but


NRO =/= reputable.

and this line

There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved.

Not factually correct.



your red herring is very shiny, and very big and red all around.


Now some would call it magenta or maroon, but i say it is BIG AND RED. Some say it's salmon or cod, but no, it's just a big red herring.

 

[MobBoss]

Not factually correct.

Prove it. With some links preferably.

Btw when you said this earlier: If you report them, THE IRS CANNOT PASS THE INFORMATION ON TO OTHER AGENCIES, AS THAT WOULD BE FORCING SOMEONE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES, AND IT WOULD BE INADMISSABLE IN COURT

This was very incorrect. Its not forcing someone to testify against themselves,but rather disclosing such illegal money on your taxes is regarded legally as making a confession to a crime, which is quite legal for a person to do and perfectly admissable in court. IRS agents are indeed mandated to "pass on" information regarding tax fraud to law enforcement officials and it is directly admissable in court. If it were not, no one would be guilty of tax fraud or evasion.

 

[Neomega]

Prove it. With some links preferably.

Btw when you said this earlier: If you report them, THE IRS CANNOT PASS THE INFORMATION ON TO OTHER AGENCIES, AS THAT WOULD BE FORCING SOMEONE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES, AND IT WOULD BE INADMISSABLE IN COURT

This was very incorrect. Its not forcing someone to testify against themselves,but rather disclosing such illegal money on your taxes is regarded legally as making a confession to a crime, which is quite legal for a person to do and perfectly admissable in court. IRS agents are indeed mandated to "pass on" information regarding tax fraud to law enforcement officials and it is directly admissable in court. If it were not, no one would be guilty of tax fraud or evasion.

hmmm, you are right.

regarding the IRS, I was wrong. Regarding the IRS

regarding your red herring....


Nope

 

[Neomega]

Prove it.

Sure

NRO Right wing propaganda machine say:

There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved.

No conceivable eh? Well it seems like it may be violating the 4th. Seems concievable to me.

Proof... there ya go, I gave it, no links required.



Your Belgium question, I would classify that as a hmm....




hmm.....

rhodia herengus

more commonly known as a red herring

or as the French eloquently say, harengs rouges


NYT talked of the tracking of the American currency trading.

Need approval from court to do so, if it is legal.

IRS, maybe not... if earnings are illegal.

BUT



Trading currency is not illegal, therfore governemnt cannot just come in and secretly track them all.

Soz, thats the constitution for ya sometimes.


See... I ain't answering your question about whether they can track foreign accounts, because the disturbing thing about the NYT article is, not all of these were foreign tracking... some currency trades occured here in the US.

To discuss what the CIA etc can and cannot do outside of American borders, would be what the Spanish would call, a arenques rojos

 

[blackheart]

I've skipped the last 6 pages and will jump right into this. Let me put this in words that make business sense.

The New York Times is a company with stockholders. It is not a government program nor a nonprofit organization, therefore as in line with conservative view on government, it has no social responsibility except that to its stockholders by making profit. And printing groundbreaking and controversial stories would help boost its circulation, visibility, and advertising power, therefore earning more profit.

 

[MobBoss]

The New York Times is a company with stockholders. It is not a government program nor a nonprofit organization, therefore as in line with conservative view on government, it has no social responsibility except that to its stockholders by making profit.

Contrary to your opinion, pure profit is not the sole basis of conservatism. I humbly disagree that the NYT has no social responsibility other than that. It most assuredly does.

And printing groundbreaking and controversial stories would help boost its circulation, visibility, and advertising power, therefore earning more profit.

I am more than willing to bet that running such a story as it did on SWIFT lost profits as opposed to made profits. When 60%+ of the population thinks you were wrong and should be punished, advertisers start to pull back, subscriptions get cancelled and all sorts of badness ensues.

No...this paper didnt make any profit by running this story.

 

[blackheart]

Contrary to your opinion, pure profit is not the sole basis of conservatism. I humbly disagree that the NYT has no social responsibility other than that. It most assuredly does.

What social responsibility does the NYT have then and if they are defined, how does printing this story conflict with those responsibilities?

I am more than willing to bet that running such a story as it did on SWIFT lost profits as opposed to made profits. When 60%+ of the population thinks you were wrong and should be punished, advertisers start to pull back, subscriptions get cancelled and all sorts of badness ensues.

No...this paper didnt make any profit by running this story.

Well since we don't have figures detailing the revenue of the NYT following printing of stories, it's all a guess. But unsurprisingly the NYT existed after printing the SWIFT story, and I conclude that it has gained a reputation for breaking secret stories and such that few other new organizations can.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why are the Wall St. Journal and LA Times not being denegrated also? They both revealed the program along with the NYT.

I assume because the NYTs broke the story first.

I beleive all three papers broke the story on the same day. The WSJ had an editorial last week saying that the Journal News divisions was independent of the Journal Editorial division, so the editors didn't have any control over what was printed.

Rove is just out to get the NYT and create campaign buzz; the hypocritical fascists, dismantling freedom one step at a time. May they burn in hell.

 

[Berrie]

From the IRS's own website: "Internal Revenue ServiceThe IRS is the US government agency responsible for tax collection and tax law enforcement.

I must admit I don't know that much about American Law but if it resembles a bit to Belgian Law I would say that the IRS is not really a part of the government.
A government agency is an independant organ that deals with a certain task of the government. It works by the laws set by the legislator, but it preforms its tasks independately.
An agency is not the same as a departement. Big difference!

 

[Mastreditr111]

I beleive all three papers broke the story on the same day. The WSJ had an editorial last week saying that the Journal News divisions was independent of the Journal Editorial division, so the editors didn't have any control over what was printed.

Rove is just out to get the NYT and create campaign buzz; the hypocritical fascists, dismantling freedom one step at a time. May they burn in hell.

Oh SHUT UP with the Fascist BS! It is illegal to reveal classified programs, and that law has been around pretty much forever. Just because someone has finally dared to stand up to a media establishment and enforce the law after we forgot about its existence doesn't mean they are restricting freedom of speech or free and independent media. It certainly doesn't mean that they are fascists who are trying to extend their own power.

 

[Mr. Do]

Some people have used this as an excuse to suggest bringing in an "Office of Censorship" though, which should repulse every freedom-loving American (And human, in general) out there. Fortunately, no-one advocating such an office is in any position of real power, as far as I know...

 

[Mastreditr111]

Office of censorship- H**L NO!!!!
Some responsibility and integrity from the journalist community would be mush obliged, however.

 

[blackheart]

Office of censorship- H**L NO!!!!
Some responsibility and integrity from the journalist community would be mush obliged, however.

The same can be said for the government. Don't do anything bad and the journalists won't have anything to probe.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Oh SHUT UP with the Fascist BS! It is illegal to reveal classified programs, and that law has been around pretty much forever. Just because someone has finally dared to stand up to a media establishment and enforce the law after we forgot about its existence doesn't mean they are restricting freedom of speech or free and independent media. It certainly doesn't mean that they are fascists who are trying to extend their own power.

I think I touched a nerve. Two things are quite clear: one, you don't understand the role of the press and two, well...that would a major troll.

 

[Mastreditr111]

OK it really pisses me off when someone calls the political party that I supported fascist. The press, while free, has no right to jeopardize people's lives by revealing CLASSIFIED (legal) government programs. It never has, and never will. It has just gotten away with doing so thus far because it is too powerful in politics for either party to be willing to restrain it. Now one finally has, and they are being bashed not only by the press but by private citizens who really ought to know better.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Lots of stuff lately on the radio about the NY times breaking the story on the Fed Program to track terrorist financial transactions. Seems there is a call from some for the Justice Department to investigate the NY Times and for the Government to hold the Times accountable for running a story that may significantly impact our national security.

From what I understand this particular program was very effective and terrorists had virtually no clue they could be tracked by such methods. There can be hardly any doubt that the NY Times story on the program gives our enemies knowledge that they can use to avoid such tracking now.

The question is how far is too far where national security is concerned. At what point does a media outlet like the NY Times actually violate national security concerns by running such a story and in turn, what should be done to the NY Times as punishment for same?

It may be the interests of national security not to run a story on terrorist tracking methods but it is so far past the fuzzy line that tomorrow we may consider highlighting government blunders a threat to national security.

 

[malclave]

I must admit I don't know that much about American Law but if it resembles a bit to Belgian Law I would say that the IRS is not really a part of the government.
A government agency is an independant organ that deals with a certain task of the government. It works by the laws set by the legislator, but it preforms its tasks independately.
An agency is not the same as a departement. Big difference!

In the U.S., a government agency is part of the government. To be honest, I don't know the exact technical distinction (if there even is one) between a department, and agency, a bureau, and so forth.

Within the organization of the U.S. government, the I.R.S. is within the Department of the Treasury.