"[T]reason, plain and simple": Right-wing media figures attack NY Times over bank-tracking story
SUMMARY: Numerous conservative media figures have lashed out at The New York Times and its executive editor, Bill Keller, over an article describing a secret Bush administration program designed to monitor international financial transactions, arguing that the publication of the article was a treasonous act and suggesting that the newspaper is "sid[ing] with al Qaeda" and "aiding and abetting the terrorist movement."
In the wake of a June 23 New York Times article describing a secret Bush administration program designed to monitor international financial transactions, numerous conservative media figures have lashed out at the newspaper and its executive editor, Bill Keller, arguing that the publication of the article was a treasonous act and suggesting that the newspaper is "sid[ing]with al Qaeda," "aiding and abetting the terrorist movement," and "prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president."
Conservatives have directed their vitriol almost entirely at The New York Times, despite the fact that the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) also posted articles on the subject on their web pages on the same day -- June 22 -- as the New York Times, and both published articles on it in their June 23 print editions.
The question of whether the June 23 article -- as well as the Times' prior disclosure of the administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program -- represented acts of treason or qualified as violations of the Espionage Act has been the topic of numerous discussions on the cable news networks in recent days. These debates have taken place under banners such as "Did Media Aid, Abet Enemy?" and "Are 'Scoops' More Important To Media Than Stopping Terror?" On the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough asked his viewers to take part in an online poll asking, "Should The New York Times be prosecuted for publishing stories revealing secret information about the war on terror? Are they guilty of treason?" Following are examples of those conservative media figures who asserted that Times editors and reporters should be prosecuted for revealing the program's existence:
- Melanie Morgan, radio talk show host: "I see it as treason, plain and simple, and my advice to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at this point in time is chop-chop, hurry up, let's get these prosecutors fired up and get the subpoenas served, get the indictments going, and get these guys [Keller and The New York Times] behind jail." [MSNBC's Hardball, 6/26/06]
- Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit: [R]evealing a classified program, which no one thinks violates any laws ... that has led to the capture of various terrorists, and to various terrorist money-laundering operations. If that is not treason, then we're not prosecuting anymore." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 6/26/06]
- William Kristol, editor, The Weekly Standard: "I think the Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution. ... This isn't a partisan thing of the Bush administration. This is a U.S. government secret program in a time of war, willfully exposed for no good reason by The New York Times." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 6/25/06]
Many other conservative media figures took to the airwaves to simply bash the Times for purportedly aiding the terrorists and putting American citizens in greater danger:
- L. Brent Bozell III, president, Media Research Center: "The New York Times needs to be reminded ... that on September 11, 2001, something really awful happened right down the street from the newspaper. ... And the last thing we need is The New York Times aiding and abetting the terrorist movement. And that's exactly what they're doing by divulging these secrets." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 6/27/06]
- Rush Limbaugh, syndicated radio host: "I think 80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists. If you look at The New York Times and the kind of stories they're leaking and running and the information they're getting, it's clear that they're trying to help the terrorists. They're trying to help the jihadists." Limbaugh added that he thought that "80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists." According to the latest circulation statistics, the Times sells more than 690,000 copies of its daily edition, and more than 1.1 million subscribers to its Sunday edition, via home delivery. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/27/06]
- Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: "Yet again, The New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda. Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda." ["The Media's War Against the War Continues," National Review Online, 6/23/06]
- Newt Gingrich, former House speaker (R-GA) and Fox News political analyst: "You would think that The New York Times, located on the same island where the World Trade Center once existed, would have some residual memory of 9-11. You'd think that The New York Times ... would have some sense of survival. ... [M]y sense is that they hate George W. Bush so much that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06]
- Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report senior writer: "Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? ... We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?" ["Why do "they" hate us?" syndicated column, 6/26/06]
- Morton M. Kondracke, Roll Call executive editor: "And for God's sake, The New York Times ought to look down the street and remember where 9-11 happened. It really happened in New York City, you know? And they act as though it never happened." [Fox News' The Beltway Boys, 6/24/06]
- Heather McDonald, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal: "By now it's undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives." ["National Security Be Damned," The Weekly Standard, July 3 issue]
From the June 24 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys:
KONDRACKE: And for God's sake, The New York Times ought to look down the street and remember where 9-11 happened. It really happened in New York City, you know? And they act as though it never happened.
From the June 25 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE (host): Bill, your latest issue of The Weekly Standard raises this question: Should The New York Times be prosecuted? Should it?
KRISTOL: I think the attorney general has an absolute obligation to consider prosecution here. This is not a Bush -- I love the way Bill Keller calls it the Bush administration program. This is a program of the United States government. There's no charge that it's unconstitutional, illegal. There aren't whistleblowers coming forward saying data's being misused. This seems to have been a total sort of vanilla secret program in an ongoing war on terror. This is not the Pentagon Papers, a historical document that was classified where you're probably not going to prosecute people because it's not revealing ongoing operations in a war that has stopped people from killing Americans. They absolutely -- I think the Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution, and I think Congress can weigh in here, too, because The New York Times' rhetorical defense is well, we're exposing the Bush administration.
[...]
KRISTOL: This isn't a partisan thing of the Bush administration. This is a U.S. government secret program in a time of war, willfully exposed for no good reason by The New York Times.
From the June 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
GINGRICH: You would think that The New York Times, located on the same island where the World Trade Center once existed, would have some residual memory of 9-11. You'd think that The New York Times, in probably the richest -- one of two richest targets in the U.S., along with Washington, D.C. -- would have some sense of survival.
MIKE GALLAGHER (guest co-host): So don't they?
GINGRICH: Instead what you have is --
GALLAGHER: Don't they?
GINGRICH: I think that -- my sense is that they hate George W. Bush so much --
ALAN COLMES (co-host): We're going to pick it up in a moment --
GINGRICH: -- that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president.
GALLAGHER: Wow.
COLMES: -- like the evidence we've been damaged, if there is any, but we're gonna pick it up in just a moment.
From the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): Here to pick apart the politics of this story is former presidential candidate Al Sharpton and radio talk show host Melanie Morgan. Melanie, what's the issue here as you see it?
MORGAN: I see it as treason, plain and simple, and my advice to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at this point in time is chop-chop, hurry up, let's get these prosecutors fired up and get the subpoenas served, get the indictments going, and get these guys behind jail.
MATTHEWS: What would be the crime? What's the crime?
MORGAN: Treason. You do not reveal secrets in a time of war. And for what purpose? Bill Keller made some sort of incomprehensible defense on his website of The New York Times' decision to unveil secrets, statewide secrets with this financial data plan. I do not understand what he's talking about. It's something about "Oh, well, the public has a right to know if there's a change of policy." What in the world does that mean? What I do know is that you cannot risk American lives who are fighting overseas at war in order to -- what? -- get a Pulitzer Prize?
[...]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Melanie -- thanks for coming on, by the way -- but let me ask you, Melanie, do you really mean treason? You mean put them in jail for life?
MORGAN: Yes --
MATTHEWS: I don't know what treason carries as a sanction, but I assume it's -- the penalties are incredibly severe, 20 years perhaps. You are saying to put Bill Keller, the editor of The New York Times --
MORGAN: Yes. Yes.
MATTHEWS: -- and his associates in prison for 20 years?
MORGAN: Absolutely. I absolutely am advocating that. What has happened is shameful. If he was ultimately the one responsible for making the decision to publish --
MATTHEWS: Well, it's his call. What about the NSA [National Security Agency]? Would you do the same in the NSA [warrantless domestic wiretapping] case?
MORGAN: Yes, absolutely I would.
MATTHEWS: You would have put him in jail for 20 years for that?
MORGAN: Yes I would, yes, because when you break the law, you break the law, and the press, the media in this country has got to learn one thing, that they have to operate under the same laws and the same rules and regulations that all the rest of the American citizens do.
From the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: I've got a lot of questions to ask you, but I want to start with our poll question. I'm sure you'll have a quick response to this. Is The New York Times guilty of treason?
COULTER: Oh, the polls -- you don't have the answers yet? You're asking me?
SCARBOROUGH: I'm asking you. Do you think the -- were you voting in a poll tonight --
COULTER: Yes, they are.
SCARBOROUGH: Why?
COULTER: Yes, they've done far less than Ezra Pound or Tokyo Rose did, and they were prosecuted. Ezra Pound went to prison for treason for radio broadcasts not even in this country. He certainly wasn't revealing classified programs to the enemy. He was just giving broadcasts that encouraged the enemy, and he was prosecuted and tried for treason. Unless this country is going to say that, "Oh, well, since Jane Fonda sat on a Viet Cong tank, that's it." We don't prosecute for treason. It's going the way of, you know, antiquated torts like alienation of affection, and it's just something we have on the books but we never prosecute for.
Yes, yes, revealing a classified program, which no one thinks violates any laws, no abuse of power, it's a third-party administrator of these transactions, that has led to from suspected terrorists going and, you know, money laundering, that has led to the capture of various terrorists and to various terrorist money-laundering operations. If that is not treason, then we're not prosecuting anymore.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Well, I'll tell you what? We'll put you down as a yes.
COULTER: Yes.
From the June 27 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: That could take me right to The New York Times. The New York Times, ladies and gentlemen, is doing everything -- it may as well be published. I think 80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists. If you look at The New York Times and the kind of stories they're leaking and running and the information they're getting, it's clear that they're trying to help the terrorists. They're trying to help the jihadists.
[...]
Well, if you want your sleeper cell to sleep safely -- if you want your safe house to be really, really safe, then I suggest you read The New York Times. In fact, I think The New York Times should start running ads and get some jihadists and get some terror members and have them say, [speaking with accent] "I saved my sleeper cell thanks to The New York Times."
From the June 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
BOZELL: Again, The New York Times needs to be reminded -- I think they forgot that on September 11, 2001, something really awful happened right down the street from the newspaper. And since then, the United States has been engaged in a global war against these damn terrorists. And the last thing we need is The New York Times aiding and abetting the terrorist movement. And that's exactly what they're doing by divulging these secrets.
actually explained how the revealing of this other secret plan aids or abets the terrorists? There was nothing specific revealed as to the mechanics of the program and it's reasonable to say that the "jihadists" who funnel moneys around are aware their bank accounts are probably monitored anyway. And if this did aid the terrorists, in that this revelation has tipped them off that they shouldn't funnel money through this bank or that; we have succesfully denied them a way to push money around.
What MMFA illustrates nicely hear is the march in lock-step all these propagandist take once given the order from Rove, et al. Don't you dare speak out or even question the motives of this criminal administration. If you do... they'll get ya. I just hope people have stopped listening to these liars. Hard to ignore though when so many of them repeat EXACTLY the same thing... the average Joe thinks "hmmm...must be true"
sorry...mixing my homophones.
Here's three more questions we must ask these Fox Opinion propaganda inducing, Bush can do NO wrong cheerleaders, those of you in here that think that this is somehow bad business when the media finally finds the balls to do the right thing.........
1) Do you........for even a second.....believe that ANY terrorist......is so stupid or ignorant that they wouldn't already KNOW that the Bush regime......er administration does everything that the NYTimes reported on?? Like it was ever a secret in the first place!!
2) If the NYTimes is...as you say....commiting treason.......then what about Karl Rove leaking the name of a CIA agent to Robert Novak? Isn't this treason??
3) Why is the government...and you seemingly willing to trample the very nature of what our country stands for......liberty, truth, decency at every turn....all in the name of fighting terror?? Do you not realize that by making freedom take a back seat to fighting terror......undermines the whole point of being free in the first place??
We all want to be safe....but we all want to be free...first and foremost....unless you are neo-conservative.......believe that God put W in the WH so he can try and destroy his creation.....you know....the WORLD!!
If the government is allowed to prosecute the NYTimes for doing the job it was intended.....unlike Fox that seems to think its job is to protect liars and those that truely seem hell bent on destroying our nation......
Then every man and woman that has died the last 240 years will have died for nothing more than a few individuals personal needs and wants over that of the rest of us wanting to keep the Constitution the way it was intended!!!!
Any one that can dispute this post I BELIEVE.....doesn't love this country! Doesn't love what it stands for!
Dammit......this isn't about Bush or Clinton, Left or Right, Dem or Repub, Religious or Atheist..........
It's about an open and trustworthy government, and a media doing the right thing!!
If any treason has occured.....it was Karl Rove outing Valerie Plame.....and Dick and George and Rummy and team attacking and starting a war in a country that had ZERO to do with 9/11, ILLEGAL NSA wiretappings, a rubber stamp of a REPUBLICAN Congress, torture of human beings (yes.....even IF they are bad guys........we are America.... this kind of crap is expected from North Korea or China.....NOT HERE!!)
Ok.....I went off quite a bit.....but what can a moral decent person like myself do when my so-called leaders and some of my fellow Americans act the way they do?
" ) Do you........for even a second.....believe that ANY terrorist......is so stupid or ignorant that they wouldn't already KNOW that the Bush regime......er administration does everything that the NYTimes reported on?? Like it was ever a secret in the first place!! "
Just how smart do you think they are? You're talking about people that blow themselves up in order to kill women and children. They probably have a brain the size of a small pea. Personally, I don't think any of them graduated HS, probably not even elementary school. Why do you think they are so easily swayed into following a cult that wants them to kill themselves? That is kind of funny, though. You make it seem like they sit back with a cup of coffee while reading the NYT's just to get the latest news on what Bush and his cronies are up to.
Forgive me for not remembering the name but I remember seeing a documentary on one of the discovery channels identifying who commits suicide attacks. It had to do with the palestinian suicide bomber problem.
A few of the people were right out of high school or some equivalent, most of the others were going to some sort of higher education or college/university in the area. Two things they pretty much all had in common:
unswerving faith towards their religion
some sort of post-depression due to a traumatic event which was found to make the person more susceptible to brain-washing techniques.
Michael Barone asks the question, “But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?” And the answer seems to be that if we had to depend on the media for “protection” we would end up with our rights being eroded by our own government, we would be unable to trust absolutely anything espoused by our own government, we would be betrayed and lied to by our own government, we would live in a nation that defies the rule of law rather than exemplifying it, a nation guilty of war crimes; in short, we would be right where we are right at this moment in our nation’s history. So, perhaps if the media starts doing its job, we might actually be protected from some of THESE abuses.
One question I often ask people, and for which I rarely receive any kind of a meaningful answer, is this: “What really changed, on a global or national scale, from 9/11 to 9/12?” This is not to belittle the losses of those who were directly affected by the atrocity that occurred that morning. My point is that these terrorists have been doing their thing for years, long before Bush became president. Usually there has been a long gap between their attacks, just like we are seeing now. They strike, and then there is a lull, until they strike again. Bush, and especially Cheney, like to say “it’s no accident we haven’t had a strike in all this time.” I don’t know how may times I’ve had to take an antacid after hearing Cheney’s smug voice making that statement. But the truth (remember that concept?) is that we seeing the same pattern that has always existed with these terrorists. The single most significant change has been the Bush administration’s abuse of the 9/11 tragedy to further its own anti-American agenda.
I may wear out this comparison, but the effects of what this administration is doing can be seen in Orwell’s novel, “1984”, in which we find a society that is supposedly endlessly at war with some other nation, and therefore citizens must give up virtually all control, all kinds of rights and freedoms, to be secure and safe from these perpetual enemies, real or imagined. This administration is the single biggest threat to our security as a SOCIETY, that society being one like the Founders envisioned. There has been no bigger threat to our national values since 1776, than the threat we are presently facing from this administration.
Bush is not a “war president” in the true sense of the phrase. His only claim to that phrase is through his illegal invasion of Iraq. He is perhaps an “Illegal War president”, but not a “war president.” His claiming of that title is blasphemous to all true war presidents before him. We are not “at war” with terrorists, we must instead protect ourselves against those crimes as we would against any crimes of that magnitude, and that is protection that does not include warring with nations that are no threat to us, nor does it involve removing citizen protections that are an inherent part of our national fabric. Each little step backwards in Bush’s erosion of our Founders’ vision further erodes us as a culture, as a people, as Americans. Let’s decide whose “treason” is more costly and deadly to us, that of the NY Times, or that of this administration…
You are a hundred percent correct. The terrorist already were aware that is why they started moving their money in much more rudimentary ways a long time ago. And if the terrorists had any doubt early on then Bush’s repeatedly coming out and saying we were tracking their money trail certainly would have alerted them. The only news the Times broke was that the administration wasn’t bothering to go to the courts to get authorization. They were operating without the checks and balances that makes our system work. The terrorists don’t give a hoot about that issue but the American people and congress and the courts should.
law stops them from monitoring overseas financial transactions.
There are no warrants to get. Period.
My understanding is there are Supreme Court precedent as well as international law that could apply. My point was that it was not news to the terrorists but it was of interest to the American people and congress. It may turn out they were within their rights so why are you so worried about the legality of the issue being investigated. If it was a democrat in power wouldn’t you want oversight? Oversight is all we are asking for we do not live in a dictatorship and our checks and balances ARE what make our democracy unique.
L. Richard Fischer, "a Washington lawyer who wrote a book on banking privacy and is regarded as a leading expert in the field," expressed concerns about the program:
Such a program, he [Fischer] said, appears to do an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation.
Hmmm, now who do you think knows more about this Leatherguy or a leading expert in the field. I think I will go with the leading expert given Leathers track record of not knowing what he is talking about.
Bottom line. If there is even a question of official wrongdoing it needs to be made public. Lack of transparency is the death of democracy. The idea that terrorists will be taken by suprise that we are looking for their funds is inane. The fact we have caught people means NOTHING. We catch murderers and embezzlers too and everyone knows those things are illegal and people look for murderers and embezzlers.
Leatherhelmet (BOR)! What else is new?
The proposal to monitor overseas banking was put forth by the NYT itself in an editorial (reported many places), so at least right after 9-11 they thought it was a good idea.
As with many things, timing is important. According to Tony Snow, at least one terrorist was caught with data obtained fromt this monitoring. So at least it worked for a time.
To me, it seems the NYT is intent at hindering Bush administration accomplishments at almost any cost. I fear what is next: Revelations about specific defense weaknesses?
It seems we are always hearing the phrase, "if only one life can be saved by..." followed by seat belts / helmets / condoms or whatever. I wish the media in general and the NYT in particular would think about saving some US military lives, rather than getting "scoops".
The problem is not with the program to monitor. The problem was with the implimentation. Some feel they did not go through the proper channels and see no oversight of the program. This isn't a partisan issue. This is an issue of do we as Americans living in this unique democracy of checks and balances want that system to be perverted by an executive branch that now feels they do not have to respect the system of checks and balances and oversight? This new system they have created will not end with Bush so remember if they set precedent that says they do not need oversight or permission then future administrations to come will also have that right. Do we want the great democracy we created here or a watered down version others have adopted. You can have the program, you can monitor just observe the proper procedures before you do it. It is simple and this nonsense about how effective it was or wasn't is not relevant to the discussion. It would have been just as effective if implimented properly.
The Bush administration, during a war, had a program in place to monitor international terrorist financial transactions, and it was successful to some degree. Reasonable minds can claim that they should have followed certain procedures in implementing the program that were not followed.
Now through some leaking, at least 3 news organizations found out about the program and were begged not to publish the details. The NYT was the first to publish. Their editor is on the record as having said that during the Vietnam war, he would have preferred to hear that an American soldier had died rather than a North Vietnamese. (It is cited in his bio in the Wikipedia). Who is he rooting for now?
I think the main issue should be the NYT publication of secret data whose release undermines our fight against terrorists, rather than what procedures the Bush administration should have followed.
Now that the program is compromised, go ahead with legal scholar debate about preferred procedures for obtaining international banking records.
I still worry about what else Pinch & Co. will tell the enemy during the war.
They didn't publish a secret because the information was already out there in a variety of different forms. The program was not comprimised by this report any more then it was by Bush holding a press conference to tell us that he was following the money trail and tracking the finances in his "war" on terrorism. The only secret out there was the fact that they ignored checks and balances. If the Bush administration would respect the democracy and the checks and balances system we have in place then there would be no story. So perhaps it is the administration that is putting these useful tools in jeopardy by thumbing their noses and acting like this is a dictatorship rather then a democracy. This is a very bad precedent to be setting.
I was going to respond but I can not improve on these two replies, that is EXACTLY the crucial point
The NYTimes gave Bush and Cheney a full year before revealing the NSA spying on Americans story. From that story, and consequential leaks that gave more detailed information, we discovered the degrees to which the Bushies would break the law and violate the constitution. I criticize the Times for sitting on that story, and commend them for learning from previous mistakes. Again, I've yet to see anything in the Times story that aids the enemy in any way.
Yes, the people who wish to do us harm are viscious people. There are better ways of handling this situation than Bush has illustrated. Once again, I must stress, Bush's policies are aiding the terrorists. Not the exposure of them by our main stream media.
It is so ineffective that several terrorists have already been caught and they are monitoring more.
"Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several secret efforts to trace terrorist financing."
Sure sounds like those hunting the terrorists think it is a waste of time.
"Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments, the officials said."
I'm sure terrorists knew that all these sources were being watched.
"The cooperative's message traffic allows investigators, for example, to track money from the Saudi bank account of a suspected terrorist to a mosque in New York. Starting with tips from intelligence reports about specific targets, agents search the database in what one official described as a "24-7" operation. Customers' names, bank account numbers and other identifying information can be retrieved, the officials said."
If you think that the terrorists have abandoned all methods of trying to raise money you are naive. This information can kill U.S. troops and civilians and the NY Times should be prosecuted. If they aren't, the American public should drive them out of business.
The program obviously has its uses. The question is not if the program is effective but how was it implemented. They could have had the same program by going to the secret court. It is not a case of all or nothing. Just checks and balances.
---"This information can kill U.S. troops and civilians and the NY Times should be prosecuted. "---
No it can't. It's all information that was already available. The fact is that the Bush administration is pi$$ed-off because they demand to operate in total secrecy, without ANY oversight of any kind--from Congress, from the courts, or from the media.
The only thing in danger of being "killed" is the First Amendment. Bush apologists are complicit in the crime.
We are at war. . .
It is time to get rid of the First Amendment . . .
And anyone who disagrees that we should get rid of the First Amendment should be charged with treason.
Anyone who burns the American Flag should be charged with treason.
Anyone who disagrees with that should be charged with treason.
And I mean even if you oppose the idea – even if you keep your mouth shut – if you oppose protecting the American Flag from being burned then you should be charged with treason.
Anyone who questions this Administration should be charged with treason.
Anyone who prints stories about what this Administration is doing without first getting approval from the Administration should be charged with treason.
Anyone who thinks or feels that this Administration is not doing a good job should be charged with treason . . .
Otherwise we are sending a mixed message to our troops.
We need to protect this country, this republic, this democracy.
We need to protect the Constitution on the United States from All enemies, foreign and domestic.
We live in a time of war . . .
And if you do not agree then you should be charged with treason.
You want to protect the first amendment but you immediatley state that we don't have the right of the first amendment to burn the flag. I have a flag and treat it with respect, but ultimately it's a piece of fabric. Most likely made in a foreign country incidently. The cconstitution trumps the flag everytime.
I think danciora was being sarcastic. You would have to be a really hardcore conservative to believe all of that.
Ya, I should have reread it! It's pretty obvious to me now. ;^}
"The cooperative's message traffic allows investigators, for example, to track money from the Saudi bank account of a suspected terrorist to a mosque in New York." --Leatherhelmet
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So you believe all the government needs to protect the civil liberties of Americans is a private auditor and their assurances? Who tells the auditors what is accepted behavior and what isn't?
Are you aware that looking up banking information of Americans is already perfectly legal, provided you can get a warrant from a member of the judiciary? If there is a problem with this system in any way, why hasn't the administration looked into streamlining the proceedures in order to comply with the Constitution?
Is 9-11 a valid excuse to completely ignore Constitutional guarantees for that matter in seemingly everything this administration does?
Your trust in the government is astounding. Will you be so trustworthy when Democrats have the SAME power?
Information from the White House? Please. Bush creates more terrorists than he catches. He was asleep on 9/11 and he's asleep now. Hear that ringing? It's the Taliban in Afghanistan, they've called to say that they are back and thanks to the King of America, George Bush for going into Iraq and pulling out of Afghanistan.
got this Talking Point out to everyone quickly!
Looks like another Annie C. wanna be... Honey that role is taken and don't even try to move up on Annie C....she will chew you up and spit you out....P.S. Weren't you an intern at the White House???..Oh, that was Monica L. Sorry about that but you just have that look.
If this regime is so up in arms about the NYTimes reporting on this program...........why go after the messenger to the people only......why not go after the "insider" that leaked this info to them??
Possible answer: Since this smells of Karl Rove..........My guess is that he is playing the Valerie Plame card on this one........
Think about it........Karl Rove gives truely anonomously the facts and info on this program.....to the one paper he and everyone else knows is more or less left-leaning.......then turns around after its printed and acuses them of being with the terrorists!
Giving the rubber stamp of a Congress and a treasonous president the fuel to try and take on the one little bit of hope "we the people" have of ever getting the truth and our Constitution back.... you know........the few small parts of the media that actually still try and do the right thing by telling US the truth!
After writing this....I thought to myself for a few moments before posting this...........this could be seen as conspiracy theory stuff......but then reality set in when I again told myself.......hmmmmph.....its Karl Rove............
These neocons have lost it. Now they want to put the entire NYT behind bars and consider anyone who reads it a jihadist. This would be hilarious if they weren't so many moonies in this country looking for a moron father figure.
Limbaugh says 80 percent of their readers must be jihadists.
So MMFA quotes their subscription base. Nice linkage. Not.
Now quote the trend of their subscription base. They are trying to compete with USA Today because New Yorkers have dropped them like a hot potato.
-----"MMFA has lost it ... Limbaugh says 80 percent of their readers must be jihadists. So MMFA quotes their subscription base. Nice linkage. Not. Now quote the trend of their subscription base. They are trying to compete with USA Today because New Yorkers have dropped them like a hot potato."-----
Whether or not the NY Times subscription base is up, down, under or sideways, the fact is that Limbaugh---as usual---just makes up s#*t.
Rush Limbaugh's favorite source of statistics is the Bureau of His Rear End.
Practically all Newspapers are losing readership. The NYTimes is still the worlds most influential newspaper.
"911"
"Aiding and abetting the terrorists"
"They hate Bush"
"They hate America"
I mean really guys, could you just even think of something new? It would still be completely illogical and rambling, but at least it would be interesting.
This is insane--if anyone should be gone after, which they shouldn't, it's the leakers in the White House. But because Bush Inc. is so pathologically secretive, this is the only way for the public to know ANYTHING.
Go Times!
they are the one's who have committed treason. I just don't believe the Times (or anyone else for that matter) should have ran the story. They need to ask themselves if a story of this nature will jeapordize the lives of Americans, if it will, dont' run it.
Our primary concern must be with protecting the lives of Americans and those of our service men and women, not simply because someone feels the story is of public interest. The lives of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters must take precedent.
The only thing we know is that what was a secret is no longer and whether or not it was effective in the past, it certainly won't be effective now, and that I feel helps terrorists.
"Our primary concern must be with protecting the lives of Americans and those of our service men and women, not simply because someone feels the story is of public interest. The lives of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters must take precedent."
Mothers, fathers, sons and daughters = everyone.
How about giving up the bumper-sticker rhetoric about "our service men and women" and realize that a government without complete oversight by courts and congress is not something we should even sacrifice soldiers for.
Man, has it come this far? Is it really enough to say "it's to fight terrorists", and Americans will all of a sudden give up the ideals that this nation were founded on?
I'm willing to take my chances. And the next time I hear someone say that terrorists threaten our freedom, that person will be the unfortunate receiver of a much longer tirade than this. :)
Amen
Anyone who subscribes to the NY Times should be charged with treason.
And anyone who even read the article should be charged with treason.
In fact – if you even know the contents of the NY Times article you should be detained until the war on terrorism is over. (And then charged with treason when it is safe to reveal the contents of that New York Times article at an open and public trial.)
---"[the NY Times] need to ask themselves if a story of this nature will jeapordize the lives of Americans, if it will, dont' run it."---
They DID ask that question, decided it would not jeopardize lives, and ran it.
Perhaps you would prefer the government -rather than a free press- decided what newspapers can or cannot publish.
This is exactly it. They do indeed want the government to tell the papers what to say and when to say it. They really do.
And they apparently truly believe that nobody (i.e. themselves) was aware of the goverment monitoring banking transactions, which anyone who has been paying the barest level of attention already knew.
Are you just assuming that the NYT did this analysis of lives lost with publication, or do you have a source?
The very fact that there is vocal dissent against the irrational and counter productive policies of the Bush regime is keeping what few friend we have left in the world. Let me make it clear, Bush swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to protect the American people. The Constitution does that. So it is correct to say that by Bush urinating on the sacred document we owe our freedom to, he is hurting those he thinks he swore to protect.
---"Are you just assuming that the NYT did this analysis of lives lost with publication, or do you have a source?"---
I'd suggest reading the editorial in today's New York Times. However, you probably prefer to filter "data" through your government's propaganda "source"--Fox--or Rush Limbaugh.
Any halfwit terrorist already knows that transactions are being checked. The info was already available to the curious. An article was even posted on the U.N.'s web site. The claim that this will cost lives or was some sort of revelation to terrorists is illogical and absurd to the extreme.
The fact is, the right-wing's outrage-already in a hate mode over the NY Times to begin with- has been fueled by a White House that believes it has the right to operate in total secrecy. No scrutiny or oversight. Not from Congress, not from the courts, and not from the press. The danger here is to your rights--the Bill of Rights.
I followed through and read the editiorial. Clearly the NYT wants to err on the side of disclosure, not caution. So they realize that they should not disclose specific troop locations--well at least we have some line in the sand. I assume publishing general info about troop locations is OK.
Please don't berate my political readings. I do check out sources including Rush & Fox, but I consider their biases as well as I do NPR, ABC and the local paper.
Showme, Rush Limbaugh is so stoned or hateful or insulated or whatever, he has no concept of reality. His isn't bias, it's lies and propaganda. You would do yourself and your couuntry a service by not listening to anything that comes out of that man's mouth.
---"check your assumptions ... Clearly the NYT wants to err on the side of disclosure, not caution."----
The NY Times waited a full year --at the behest of the White House-- to tell the other recent story of Bush's similarly secretive, warrantless spying on Americans. "CLEARLY" the Times did NOT err on the side of disclosure in that case. You ought to "check" your OWN "assumption" about the motives of the Times.
"I assume publishing general info about troop locations is OK." --Missourishowme
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course it is okay. Is this treason: There are more than 100,000 troops in Iraq.
What on Earth are you getting at with that?
The NYT editorial states that they see harm in publishing specific troop locations.
Call me a pessimist, but I think that means that they are likely to publish what they think are not-specific troop locations.
I'm not concerned at all about them saying we have troops in Iraq--Doesn't everyone know that? My concern is about disclosing troop movements, personnel and descriptions of locations they think are not specific, but a person with knowledge of the area could deduce.
Again, with Pinch's comments about Vietnam deaths, I don't trust his rag.
Through the lens of your bias. It is an American Newspaper, what he seems to be saying to me is that the death of an American is more newsworthy than the death of a North Vietnamese. It is patently obvious this is true.
"I'm not concerned at all about them saying we have troops in Iraq--Doesn't everyone know that? My concern is about disclosing troop movements, personnel and descriptions of locations they think are not specific, but a person with knowledge of the area could deduce." --missourishowme
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you have any evidence the NYT has done this? If not, why don't you wait until they actually do the thing you are speculating about. Then get back to me. Until then, you are just poorly attempting mind-reading and then condemning the NYT in advance for what you think they might do.
If you actually have evidence of what you speculate about, then show me.
What is the point of showing your proof when the facts are staring your right in the face yet you will not acknowledge that the SWIFT program wasn't a secret?
Your perfectly willing to believe that the NYT outed some secret program that was anything but secret and your basing this off of what exactly?
The info is right there in a public domain UN report from the Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group report.
Below is the link to the main page and to the specific report.
[link to www.un.org]
Dec 2002
[link to daccessdds.un.org] ... pg 11 paragraph 31
31. The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT , Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.
This program was NOT secret. This meathod of tracking finances has been out there all along. That is why the terrorist had already changed some of their methods of moving their money. Bush himself has come out repeatedly to tell us that we were tracking the money trail. The only thing that was not well known was the fact that they were doing so without judicial or congressional oversight. That is more then a simple matter of public interest this is precedent setting. Do you really want to see precedent set that allows for a unilateral executive branch? Our system works on checks and balances. The way they implemented this program ignored that system. That was the secret not that we were tracking their finances. And that is the story that these papers broke.
The only way that our democracy will survive is for the Government to keep everything secret. The media has no use during times of war. The media just gets in the way of the Government. The electorate does not need to know what the government is doing in order to make an informed decision anyway. All the electorate needs to do is guess or flip a coin or better yet - Vote Republican. As far as I am concerned the framers of the constitution never explicitly said that the electorate needs to know what the government is doing in order for the electorate to make an intelligent decision. And who cares what the framers of the constitution thought about the freedom of speech anyways because hey are all dead. And who cares what the constitution says anyways – as long as we protect this great Democratic Republic. Trust President George W. Bush.
...do you think the Republicans will still think these expanded powers with no checks and balances oversight is still a good thing? How much confidence will they have in an unlimited executive power if the executive is a democrat? Will they still think speaking out is treason?
You are a beacon for democracy and don't let these pigs intimidate you. It's time to fight back against this fascist administration. Rise up and take back this country from King Shrub. The one thing I did hear. Joe Scarborogh did say that NY times were right and must guard against the power grab from the administration. He also said he thinks how would republicans act if it was Clinton. This doesn't pass the smell test.
I think the US and China will soon meet halfway and become nice little fascist superpower buddies.
I'm just waiting for a White House decree explaining that any journalist writing about anti-terrorism will have to get governmental approval.
See you later New York Times Editors!! I hope they all go to jail. If America gets hit by a single Terrorist Attack, and one penny that was used to act out the Terrorist Act, can be traced to outside of the United States, those Editors should be Charged with the Murder of Each and Every Single Citizen that dies in those Attacks!!!
I wish a subscribed to the NY Times, so I could call and cancel my subscription and tell the Treasonist Newspaper why.
Oh and Media Matters, the reports from the LA Times and Wall Street Journal, are that they only ran it when The NY Times told them that they were going to lead with it, on their Front Page.
I love the Journal too, but I will be canceling my Subscription.
Is that there is no Constitutional due process or productive oversight of this program.
Even that is nothing new from this administration.
Your beef appears to consist only of some irrational bias against the NYT.
Does your stated punishment also go for Bush who repeatedly told the American people that we were fighting the terrorist on the financial front and tracking their money trail. Should he be tried for murder and treason also? How about some perspective here. No big national secret was let out. The only people who didn't know we were tracking their finances was apparently you and several other rightwingers who apparently never pick up a book, listened to a news program, read a magazine, watch C-span, or listened to the President of The United States when he informed us this is what they were doing!
Not the people who criticize his agenda. It appears you are caught up in all the hoopla Bush is making about this story. As history has shown, Bush thinks nothing about authorizing the release of secret information to help him politically, for all we know he leaked this story to the Times so he could whine about it. You really should educate yourself regarding the Constitution and the history of this country. Bush is a traitor, not the media.
Why can they keep claiming that we are at war with terrorists, like we were not at war with terrorists previously?
Before the bank-tracking story broke, it was a WELL-KNOWN and WIDELY REPORTED fact that our government was going after the terrorists' finances. They get no benefit from this story. The only thing that is new here is that it has been revealed that our govt is not getting proper oversight and authorization from the other branches of government. They are breaking the law.
Just like in the wiretapping program and the data gathering program, and the secret prisons programs, the tactics themselves are perfectly legal. Again it was already well known public knowledge that the government wiretaps and gathers information, and imprisons. Again the only thing that we didn't know is that the govt wasn't getting proper oversight and authorization.
The only reason for these special programs to remain secret is because they violate the law.
The enemy benefits in no way by knowing that they may be monitored ILLEGALY when they used to think that they may be monitored LEGALY. They already know that their activities may be monitored.
If we ever sacrifice one civil liberty because of the terrorists. Then it is a victory for the terrorists.
While I'm not a conspiracy buff and think most of the books/films that suggest the Busheviks were behind 9/11, I do get a little suspicious. What is the US without an evil enemy?
The commies went by the wayside.
Evil narco traffickers didn't hold attention for too long
What do we need? TERRORISTS!
So, foster terrorists, or ignore their obvious threat, let it all happen, and you've got a new enemy!
Oh, and blame that incident on Bill Clinton--and the anquish of the survivors of the dead on their desire for publicity--and you've got it made. It makes a guy wonder....
whoever she might be and who she writes for...you stated this spying program is "carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties"--HOW do you know this?? How do any of these goofs know how safe it is if it is soooo secret? Maybe you are the LEAKERS??? Or are these the PARROT points given to you in the morning. Please, before long, we will only be able to read newspapers controlled by the Bush family, written and edited by George Bush. At least we will all need MBA's from YALE to read and understand the articles...
Sorry if I have insulted an ELI's
People have started to realize if they want to watch puppets they may as well watch the muppets.
Younger people are clearly losing confidence in the free press, in particular cable news. It's gotten to the point that these pundits are so so predictable we could all write their script for them. It's boring, predictable and ads nothing to the value of the program you're watching.
Politics is about spin and make believe news and cable news seems happy to play along.
Treason? I don't think this a path anybody wants to go down. Especially the Bush administration.
1. Treason is punishable by execution. What kind of country would execute the publisher of a newspaper for printing information that embarrasses the leaders of a government don't like? England. And isn't England why we're here in the first place?
2. In order for there to be treason, there has to be somebody knowingly passing information directly to the enemy. Who's the enemy? If the US government can't find UBL, do you think the New York Times can?
3. In order for there to be treason, there has to be a war. George Bush and his hired guns keep talking about this war, but in truth there is none. There has never been a declaration of war. George Bush declared war against a word. That doesn't count. Will somebody please declare war on a sovereign state so these yahoos can start jailing and executing people who don't think like they think? Their frustration is causing them to fight shadows.
(As in "the willful and deliberate transmission and dissemiation of false, inaccurate or otherwise unreliable news and information by deliberate design to specifically-targeted subpopulations.")
Is this what the Zealots and True Believers of Xtreme Conservatism really want out of the MSM, even if it means the willful and deliberate staging or fabrication of "stories" or otherwise issuing "guidance" on the stories "which need to be reported"?
Next thing you know, expect certain "foundations" with connexions to Xtreme Conservatism to bankroll a nationally-circulated "red top" tabloid daily deliberately targeting especially lower-income communities with nothing more than a mix of sport, crime, astrology, celebrity goss and Page Three-school soft porn (a/k/a prolefeed in its purest form)--all serving no worthwhile interest other than to "keep [the Lower Classes] in their proper place" (read: deliberately ignorant, stupid and otherwise "of no worthwhile interest to the average person").
All the while consciously aware that what they're passing off as news to Angry White Trash Eating Krispy Kreme Donuts is deliberately false, misleading or inaccurate.
To the most extreme Bush idolotors it is treason to print ANYTHING but rightwing propaganda and White House press releases. Even then they must just print them and not comment on them. They want to be mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed manure.
Funny, the scum that is the republican party had no problems with the NYT when Judy Miller was working in the administration's steno pool printing their unconfirmed crap. Cheney was all to happy to cite the NYT on meet the press when they were publishing their Iraq bs word for word. These counterfeit christian, phony flag waving republicans are as unAmerican as it gets.
Treason for revealing the truth, while the Dubya regime made up stories that got us into a "war" which, by the standards of Nuremburg, they should be....well, you know.
Treason. Is that like "disloyal" or "unpatriotic?" Although more hyperbole? Use it to discredit critics. Sounds like a Goebells game, doesn't it? (Speaking of Nuremburg....)
The unpatriotic nitwits who buy this administration's clown act are just too dumb to waste precious oxygen on.
Since Bush mentioned this program years ago, this blather about National Security and treason is pure crap. It's like saying the fbi employed wire taps to go after Gotti. No kidding. There's no more evidence that this program works than there was of wmd or that warrantless wiretaps and data mining of tens of millions named Sullivan, Smith, Shapiro and Satriale is useful against al qaeda.
It's total bs. They're not trying to keep anything from al qaeda, they're trying to keep it from the American People. This administration has lied every step of the way. I see no reason to trust it now.
It's high time the msm got off its tail and started holding this administration accountable for their actions and inactions.
Can we get a summary of each of these pundit's statements about how they feel about Novak publishing Plame's identity?
yes super secret
The info is right there in a public domain UN report from the Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group report.
Below is the link to the main page and to the specific report.
[link to www.un.org]
Dec 2002
[link to daccessdds.un.org] pg 11 paragraph 31
31. The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.
It interrupts the slander.
.. to publish the story regarding the tracking of financial data. The Times sat on the original story for a full year before reporting it. After words, the administration deplored it, though they knew the Times had the info the entire year. The administration then said it only targeted people outside the US, then people who had contact with US citizens but still outside the US. They said it was a handful of cases, turns out they've been mining data from millions of phone calls of millions of unsuspecting American citizens. All without real Congressional over sight or warrants from the FISA court. Legal scholars and libertarian groups like the CATO institute have stated they believe the President has broken the law, some argue for impeachment. The point is, when a liar proves himself to be a liar, believe him. Bush has shown that he will leak classified information for political gain at the expense of our security. The Times report on this matter was not specific enough to hamper US security efforts. For all we know Bush authorized this leak to demonize the media. To those who claim this report somehow aids the terrorists, you are ill informed. Educate yourself and realize there are traitors in the White House, not at the NY Times.
The overwhelming noise of the Rove's propaganda machine is vitally important to the Bush Administration in this case. Those Americans most likely to have made large international financial transactions are the neocons core constituents. If you make the super rich uncomfortable about their shady financial dealings they may start backing the people who believe in civil liberties. The plutocrats might not care about millions and millions of phone calls, but they should be nervous about their offshore accounts.
By Cheney/Snow/King standards, the Patriot act is treasonous. Why? Go read section 314, especially this part: "(2) COOPERATION AND INFORMATION SHARING PROCEDURES- The regulations adopted under paragraph (1) may include or create procedures for cooperation and information sharing focusing on-- ...(C) means of facilitating the identification of accounts and transactions involving terrorist groups and facilitating the exchange of information concerning such accounts and transactions between financial institutions and law enforcement organizations."
Next time one of your Repug friends(?!), relatives, or co-workers rants about the NY Times as 'traitors', ask them this: Do you think the terrorists have read the Patriot Act? Yes? YES? WELL, THEN THEY F'ING KNOW WE ARE WATCHING ALL THEIR FINANCIAL ACTIVITY (unless, of course, they are Saudis)! SO, please, pretty please, try to charge and prosecute the NY Times and GET YOUR A$$ HANDED TO YOU! Sorry about all the caps, I'm very angry.
BOZELL: Again, The New York Times needs to be reminded -- I think they forgot that on September 11, 2001, something really awful happened right down the street from the newspaper. And since then, the United States has been engaged in a global war against these damn terrorists. And the last thing we need is The New York Times aiding and abetting the terrorist movement. And that's exactly what they're doing by divulging these secrets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bozo never ceases to amaze.
Gee, no wonder they went so heavily Democratic.
Unlike the nitwits of Knoxville and the like, the people of the greater Metropolitan New York City area and DC know who and what the greater threat is to their well being. They know that they're far more likely to be adversely affected by the likes of shrub and red state rubbish than al qaeda.
They're the ones who were there and who are staring it down today. Shrub's act may go over in Tulsa, but it can't make it there.
You are right
It is so ineffective that several terrorists have already been caught and they are monitoring more.
"Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several secret efforts to trace terrorist financing."
Sure sounds like those hunting the terrorists think it is a waste of time.
"Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments, the officials said."
I'm sure terrorists knew that all these sources were being watched.
"The cooperative's message traffic allows investigators, for example, to track money from the Saudi bank account of a suspected terrorist to a mosque in New York. Starting with tips from intelligence reports about specific targets, agents search the database in what one official described as a "24-7" operation. Customers' names, bank account numbers and other identifying information can be retrieved, the officials said."
If you think that the terrorists have abandoned all methods of trying to raise money you are naive. This information can kill U.S. troops and civilians and the NY Times should be prosecuted. If they aren't, the American public should drive them out of business. - leatherhelmet / Tuesday June 27, 2006 10:35:09 PM EST - Reply to this comment -
Nice try. If you trust this administration, you're too dumb to waste oxygen on.
You're going to have to better than some unattributed quotes from assorted shrub shills. Shrub's made a lot of claims. Let's see, there was wmd, can't wait for a mushroom cloud, there is no warrantless wiretapping, no one in the white house had anything to do with outing Valerie Plame and if they did, they won't be working here any more. I don't see any more evidence supporting this bs than that bs.
Locked Up Tight!!!!
See you later New York Times Editors!! I hope they all go to jail. If America gets hit by a single Terrorist Attack, and one penny that was used to act out the Terrorist Act, can be traced to outside of the United States, those Editors should be Charged with the Murder of Each and Every Single Citizen that dies in those Attacks!!!
I wish a subscribed to the NY Times, so I could call and cancel my subscription and tell the Treasonist Newspaper why.
Oh and Media Matters, the reports from the LA Times and Wall Street Journal, are that they only ran it when The NY Times told them that they were going to lead with it, on their Front Page.
I love the Journal too, but I will be canceling my Subscription.
- mwolfrey8605 / Wednesday June 28, 2006 12:54:26 AM EST - Reply to this comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wish a subscribed to the NY Times, so I could call and cancel my subscription and tell the Treasonist Newspaper why. "
Go ahead, the only thing stopping you is your own semi-functional illiteracy.
As for the rest, you can file those with your dreams of winning the daytona 500, being the winning QB in the Super Bowl and having a mate you don't have to inflate.
The only thing getting US Military Personnel in Iraq killed is shrub, reptiles in congress and the nitwits who put them there.
Their blood is on your hands.
Looks like Karl Rove
got this Talking Point out to everyone quickly!
- dougsomers / Wednesday June 28, 2006 09:04:05 AM EST - Reply to this comment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, one is about all the base can handle.