Treason at the New York Times

[GTSteve03]

I don't remember reading any sort of information in the NYT or otherwise about upcoming military operations and what/where exactly they are planning on attacking.

In fact, I don't remember any reporters or papers getting in trouble for letting out secret military information EXCEPT (you guessed it) Geraldo Rivera from FOX News!

 

[Camp David]

I don't remember reading any sort of information in the NYT or otherwise about upcoming military operations...

How about leaking classified information on troop levels?????

New York Times leaked it!

"The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007......General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity."

 

[GTSteve03]

How about leaking classified information on troop levels?????

OK, please explain to me how the release of "projected" future possible troop reductions gives aid and comfort to terrorists, puts our soldiers at risk by revealing upcoming military operational plans, or threatens civilians here in the US or elsewhere.

Otherwise, your rabid mouth-foaming is starting to show a bit.

 

[Camp David]

OK, please explain to me how the release of "projected" future possible troop reductions gives aid and comfort to terrorists, puts our soldiers at risk by revealing upcoming military operational plans, or threatens civilians here in the US or elsewhere.

Have you ever served in the military? Evidently not or you would know that troop strengths at the division level during wartime is a guarded secret during wartime, particularly as we fight terrorists that may delay terror attacks based on such secrets when divilged. As I posted earlier:

"The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007."

Why do you think the top commander classifies this infiormation? What value is it to the NYT? If you agree to handicap the military by divulging such military secrets, you compromise American lives in the process.

Simply stated, the NYT and like newspapers are compromising our military strategy by divuliging this and many other secrets. Over the weekend the NYT and the LAT also divulged a secret effort to lock up terrorism financing! Why did they do this? This program was effective in determing terrorism financing.

 

[longeyes]

Longeyes; has congress declared war? We're in a protracted period of combat of course, but the real wars ended a couple years ago. Spook activities are not war, they're intelligence gathering and throat slitting.

The "real wars" haven't even begun.

I am not a big fan of the Bush administration but I am a big fan of our country and recognize that government does have a purpose, that primary purpose being to defend our national security.

Believing that we can defend this nation in war (undeclared or tacitly acknowledged, doesn't matter) through "openness" is about as loony and naive as thinking we can build our economy through debt and consumerism.

As for the LA Times and the NY Times I remain convinced that their obsession with laying bare what should remain draped says more about the editorial psyches involved than any commitment to the Bill of Rights.

 

[GTSteve03]

Have you ever served in the military? Evidently not or you would know that troop strengths at the division level during wartime is a guarded secret during wartime, particularly as we fight terrorists that may delay terror attacks based on such secrets when divilged.

Obviously they aren't closely guarded secrets as the current level of troop strength seems to be pretty well known. In fact this must not be a secret as more than one American official was willing to discuss these "classified" documents with the NYT. Whose fault is that?

No, I have not served in the military. Have you? According to your post you seem to hint that you have. Can you please provide a branch/time of service/MOS?

How does reporting on a successful financial operation against terrorists help them? There are no specifics listed and if the terrorists are forced to go underground for funding that means they will get less of it and have a harder time with it. Either way it's a win.

 

[No Quarter]

Perhaps enforcement of existing laws against divulging classified information against the people leaking the information is in order?

Oh wait - that would be too much like our argument that we should stop writing new gun laws and restrictions and only enforce existing laws wouldn't it?

Prosecute the people inside the government organizations leaking the messages.

If the government wants to keep secrets, let them do a better job of doing so. Otherwise, I want to know everything I can about what they are doing.

Who would be the governing body deciding what we should and should not know? How would THEY be governed? How would it be enforced? Would all reports have to pass through a government board for approval before they can be printed? At what point do they start regulating talk radio and internet reports? Why should they be held to any different standard? What about these very boards? We have some military member posting here and dropping hints and tidbits of information that might not be appropriate. How will we monitor that?

There is NO WAY to regulate the freedom of the press without creating an unacceptable level of restriction in our access to information and public discourse.

Edited to add: I am a MARINE VET. It cheapens what so many have died to secure by wanting to limit any portion of it.

 

[longeyes]

If the government wants to keep secrets, let them do a better job of doing so. Otherwise, I want to know everything I can about what they are doing....There is NO WAY to regulate the freedom of the press without creating an unacceptable level of restriction in our access to information and public discourse.

Then you will have no objection to the purging of leakers in the Government?

So you would have no problem with the press printing the names and addresses of all CCW permit holders? Or maybe the names and addresses of all gunowners along with a list of guns owned?

 

[Camp David]

How does reporting on a successful financial operation against terrorists help them?

The terrorists didn't know about it! Until now of course!

I will assume you are simply being obtuse to military operations during wartime; many of these require 1) that they remain classified and 2) they are briefed to senior Congressional Representatives. This has been the case for for long time. What is new, and illegal, is that liberal newspapers are revealing classified information that is understood as classified, on a purely partisan basis, against military rules.

btw... USAF, 1981-1985, AFSC:2T0xx, Mobility Officer (Plattsburgh AFB).

Either way it's a win.

For terrorists yes; for Americans no.

 

[coltrane679]

<OT harangue removed by Art>

So I say--good job, NY Times: keep telling us what our would-be "watchers" are up to. 2000 years ago Juvenal asked "Who watches the watchers?" In our society it is the press--who, in turn, are watched, with great annoyance, by the government. Sounds like the best system I've heard of to date.

 

[No Quarter]

If CCW holders and the guns they own were printed by the media, I certainly would not fault the media for reporting it, I would fault the government that betrayed my information and did not keep it secure. If I were even more worried about it, I would never purchase my guns through an FFL and private party buy them. If I were even MORE worried about it, I would carry anyway without a CHL.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Ben Franklin said that - read it - know it - live it.

 

[GTSteve03]

I will assume you are simply being obtuse to military operations during wartime; many of these require 1) that they remain classified and 2) they are briefed to senior Congressional Representatives. This has been the case for for long time. What is new, and illegal, is that liberal newspapers are revealing classified information that is understood as classified, on a purely partisan basis, against military rules.

I'm the one being obtuse? Look, the chain of information goes like this:

Military -> Congress critters -> NYT

The leak is not happening at the NYT. The leak is coming from people in Congress that are the ones being briefed by the military.

How is the NYT supposed to know this information is classified if people that are charged with keeping it secret are spilling their guts to the reporters?

 

[longeyes]

If CCW holders and the guns they own were printed by the media, I certainly would not fault the media for reporting it, I would fault the government that betrayed my information and did not keep it secure. If I were even more worried about it, I would never purchase my guns through an FFL and private party buy them. If I were even MORE worried about it, I would carry anyway without a CHL.

There was a time when editors used something called discretion and common sense in deciding what to print--I've heard the phrase "fit to print" bruited about--and weren't rabid automatic printing machines. You would apparently exempt journalists from behaving like responsible adults exercising judgment about what constitutes need-to-know.

 

[longeyes]

The leak is not happening at the NYT. The leak is coming from people in Congress that are the ones being briefed by the military.

And publishing is not a "leak?" There's plenty of irresponsibility here to go around.

 

[Camp David]

How is the NYT supposed to know this information is classified if people that are charged with keeping it secret are spilling their guts to the reporters?

Initially, you are justifying illegal conduct by citing other illegal conduct. Good journalism requires two sources for all reports; if the NYT's sources are indeed Congressional staffers or Congressmen/Congresswomen, then the NYT should provide a second source for story. It lacks this; thus strike one. Secondly, classified information is just that; classified. It does not become unclassified simply because you are told of it. The NYT knows this; thus strike two. Lastly, the NYT was told by the White House not to print stories without confirmation pertaining to war policy as it has done so before; repeatedly. There are different standards for release of information during a war. The NYT knows this too; thus strike three.

Rather than argue in defense in the NYT please justify their conduct by the release of this classified information...what did the NYT and the LAT gain?

 

[coltrane679]

Good journalism requires two sources for all reports; if the NYT's sources are indeed Congressional staffers or Congressmen/Congresswomen, then the NYT should provide a second source for story. It lacks this; thus strike one. Secondly, classified information is just that; classified. It does not become unclassified simply because you are told of it. The NYT knows this; thus strike two. Lastly, the NYT was told by the White House not to print stories without confirmation pertaining to war policy as it has done so before; repeatedly. There are different standards for release of information during a war. The NYT knows this too; thus strike three.

First, nobody said it was single-sourced, and I very seriously doubt it is--nor has anybody denied the accuracy of the report generally. What they are pissed about is that it IS accurate, so I don't understand your emphasis here. Strike one.

Also, if "classified" information is leaking like a sieve around Washington constantly, it could be a good indicator that many charged with knowledge of the information are uncomfortable with it. I seriously doubt the control freaks in the Bush adminstration have riddled their ranks with Al Qaeda sympathesizers. Strike two.

But most of all, when does this "war" you reference ever end, to justify all the secrecy you defend--when Georgie Boy or his innumerable successors tell us?

This is the most troubling aspect of all the apologists for government power grabs by this administration--although they posit all of this as "temporary" "wartime" measures, they are in fact no such thing. They are PERMANENT adjustments to the relationship between the individual and the state--and they inevitably lead to further adjustments in the same direction. After the next terrorist attack, we will be told what has been done so far is insufficient--the state must have MORE power. And on and on and on.

Strike three, you're out.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

It can be argued that they never should have reported on the Monica and Bill affair since it compromised the office of the president and made it look as if the leader of America was a bumbling oaf that was too busy getting blown to concentrate on our security.

Guess what ... The mainstream media DID NOT report the Monica affair. Matt Drudge did, and only once the word was out did they RELUCTANTLY tell us what the First Philanderer was up to. They knew about it, they chose to ignore it.

 

[GTSteve03]

Rather than argue in defense in the NYT please justify their conduct by the release of this classified information...what did the NYT and the LAT gain?

Hopefully it opened the eyes of at least a few people who normally don't think about the scope of power the US government has and chooses to use.

Perhaps it made a couple of folks stop and think for awhile whether or not they LIKE their government taking such liberties in this undeclared "War" on Terror.

 

[No Quarter]

Longeyes,

Discretion is a subjective process that relies on the personal thoughts and opinions of the person utilizing it. So, do you agree with conservative discretion but not liberal discretion? how do you regulate it? Who's side do you have to be on to be right when you choose not to print a story?

I'll take all the good with the bad thank you. It is up to me to sift through it all and up to us as a free society to enjoy both the benefits and repercussions of freedom of speech. The alternative is not acceptable.


discretion
One entry found for discretion.
Main Entry: dis·cre·tion
Pronunciation: dis-'kre-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the quality of being discreet : CIRCUMSPECTION; especially : cautious reserve in speech
2 : ability to make responsible decisions
3 a : individual choice or judgment <left the decision to his discretion> b : power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds <reached the age of discretion>
4 : the result of separating or distinguishing

 

[No Quarter]

Mongo,

Someone is always the first to break a scandal. The media does not gain information as one large collective mind. The fact is, the media took hold of the story and reported on it widespread in every outlet as soon as it was brought to light. No different than the conservative outlets are reportiong on the bank records items.

You guys really are on the losing side of the argument. You decry the loss of freedoms and yet you would employ restrictions on those very freedoms to help strengthen your position. Very frightening mindset in my opinion.

 

[Camp David]

First, nobody said it was single-sourced, and I very seriously doubt it is

Then name either a) the initial source, or b) the second corroborating source. I'll settle for one or the other. The NYT and the LAT named neither nor will they.

Also, if "classified" information is leaking like a sieve around Washington constantly...

Justifying bad behavior by citing other like bad behavior is juvenile, but still wrong.

when does this "war" you reference ever end, to justify all the secrecy you defend...

When civilians in skyscrapers can feel safe. When civilians in airliners can feel safe. You forget about the 3,000 who died or need a reminder?

...the state must have MORE power...

Nice "red herring" you threw! This discussion is not about more or less power by the Federal Government; it is about military secrets being divulged by liberal media...stay on topic...

Here is topic=>

Bush condemns disclosure of secret anti-terror program
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/bush.terroristfinancing.ap/index.html
Monday, June 26, 2006; Posted: 11:35 a.m. EDT (15:35 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said. "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Someone is always the first to break a scandal. The media does not gain information as one large collective mind. The fact is, the media took hold of the story and reported on it widespread in every outlet as soon as it was brought to light. .

Excuse me I WAS THERE "As soon as it wa brought to light". Steerdust!

The Socialist Mainstream Media have "one large collective mind". Check the stories on CBS, NBC, ABC, the NYTimes, the LATimes. They walk in lockstep, and they have a politial agenda, which is at odds with the majority of people in the US.

You guys really are on the losing side of the argument. You decry the loss of freedoms and yet you would employ restrictions on those very freedoms to help strengthen your position. Very frightening mindset in my opinion.

Never said a word about restrictions, IIRC. Never said they couldn't publish any of the Anti-American, Socialist garb. All I said was when they publish information which the Government has asked them not to, and which the Government feels will put us at risk, they should run the risk of prosecution.

Enough has been said on this thread about what would have happened in WW II if the press had published stores like our code breaking capabilities.

 

[No Quarter]

The bottom line:

Enjoy being free and other's rights to be free also even if you don't agree with them.

Lest we forget what our good patriot Ben Franklin said:

Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I don't want to live in a country that controls its own ineptitude at keeping "secrets" by controlling those that bring such things to public attention.

It does not matter which media outlet brings us the news. It matters that we have media outlets with different policies and opinions that will bring out news and "secrets" whether they satisfy the left leaning, right leaning and everything in between citizens they may be. If they were one homogenous unit, we would never learn anything!

They are checks and balances to each other, just like every post in this thread. We all disagree, but it is only through disagreement and our right to do so that we can have this discourse in the first place!

Please just admit that this is one of the foundations upon which our country was built!

 

[Master Blaster]

You know, I hate to say this but the NYT is apparently too stupid to understand that they are screwing themselves with every release of classified information.

The NYT is located in NewYork City.

NewYork CITY is the terrorists favorite target.

Alqueada has promissed something that will make the WTC look insignificant.

I predict Folks in NYC and at the Times are going to really feel the next one.

Darwinism at its finest folks.

 

[longeyes]

Also, if "classified" information is leaking like a sieve around Washington constantly, it could be a good indicator that many charged with knowledge of the information are uncomfortable with it. I seriously doubt the control freaks in the Bush adminstration have riddled their ranks with Al Qaeda sympathesizers. Strike two.

No, what it indicates is a profound and perhaps irremediable rift in our society in terms of some very basic values. And that is another, and ultimately more important, front in what is going to be a long and deep war.

The New York Times doesn't mind exacerbating its "target status" in NYC. Part of the pathology controlling their behavior is sadomasochism, the same reason they romanticize terrorists and cutthroats.