For the record, being called “Wanker of the day” by Atrios is a lot like being called dumpy by Margaret Cho—or being told by Jessica Cutler that you “really can bring a world-class ass fucking!” Though on the plus side, maybe my newfound noteriety will garner me my own panel discussion at the next EschaCon!
A boy can still dream, can’t he?
Badge of honor, Jeffy.
I think I smell a new testimonial for the upper left quadrant of the page.
You don’t understand! Being called a “wanker,” much less THE wanker of the entire day, is perhaps the most bitter and destructive insult known to letters! It’s absolutely normal in these cases to feel at first a state of shock, where the full force of what has happened just doesn’t register. That’s ok, that’s just the body’s–and perhaps even more importantly, the mind’s–defense mechanisms coming into play. Get a glass of water, maybe a warm towel you can put on your forehead, sit down, and ask someone to call the hospital.
God help you. GOD HELP US ALL.
I sort of savor the irony of Atrios calling people wankers.
The real question is how did he know you were wanking and did he get a little pink permission slip from FISA to look.
IMPEACH ATRIOS!
Open Thread!
Wishbone’s dead right. There are people who would kill for a testimonial like that. Or at least perform really distasteful sexual acts. If Atrios ever thinks that you’re making sense, please don’t share it with your readers and shatter our illusions.
T/W: “right,” as in you, not Atrios. In several senses.
Oh, it gets nuttier than Atrios: Hesiod, for example, and the whole lot of them (such as they are, these days) over at WarbloggerWatch. Which, for some odd reason, now redirects to a sex site.
Longer Atrios:
Liars, lying liars, lying liars who lie about the lies they lie; open thread; bums, asses, assholes, shitheads, assholes whose heads are up their asses (heads which are full of shit); open thread; dumbasses, idiots, clueless, clueless idiot dumbasses; open thread; shorter Republican: I confirm your worst, most fevered fantasies about what Republicans represent; open thread; BoBo, Steno Sue, Booby, Whiny Ass Titty Babies; open thread. Wanker. Open thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker
This insult ranks right up there with yo mama insults. A true classic of which there is little retort. I must admit I’ve not used the international known sign language for the wanker insult on Colorado freeways but I shall incorporate it in to my arsenal of moves.
Well, just don’t be a “bleeding wanker” or a “git”; very, very bad…
Wow! First Hal, and now Atrios. Is this a great website or what?
Congratulations.
goldstein’s just mallard filmore with a thesaurus
Atrios | 01.04.06 – 9:50 am | #
COCK!
Kos Kommenters, condensed.
The first two lines express an opinion, or sorts. The next two slouch into partisan speculation, while the final sentence is the sort of rabid, inane, blinkered blathering that must come from someone who is very angry about still residing in mom’s basement at age 37. Or age 13. Take your pick.
As far as I could tell Atrios is a daycare center with WiFi. What’s the problem?
BIG GAY COCK!
Man, gotta be some stiff competition for that title over there at wank central, huh?
…
What?
SB: member
heh
Congrats!!!!
Way better than winning any silly Weblog Award….even if you did do worse than a couple of comic strips.
This&That
goldstein’s just mallard filmore with a thesaurus
Hmm. So, is being a duck-billed thesaurus better or worse than being a wanker?
perhaps the most bitter and destructive insult known to letters!
…kinda like making jokes about fat chicks. By the way, Margaret wouldn’t fuck you with Charles Johnson’s dick, which, as I understand it, is in your possession anyway.
From one of Cutler’s posts…
Talk about missing the point!
Typical. Form over content.
SB: said
yeah, him too
In Vino Veritas,
Did you just call Margaret Chow fat?
And what’s with the CJ reference? Is that like some inside baseball, anti-semite inuendo? Because that’s the only correlation I can come up with.
Why do you punish yourself so, Jeff? I would no more go to Atrios, or any of the other Leftard aphasics, than I would go out into my yard and grind my bare foot into a cold, wet dog turd.
Oliver Willis is growing truffles in beds of spluttered our corn chips, there, under his heaving man-breasts.
All of them, slipping under the tepid quagmire of their own irrelavancy.
Fukkem.
Wanker?
What is this guy? Twelve??
Next you’ll be called a “poop-head” by Kos.
’spluttered OUT’…not bad spelling, just good beer.
Note to self:
Don’t piss off Bane.
Hear! Hear! Speech! Speech!
Congrats.
I volunteer to be a presenter at the awards ceremony.
Congrats Jeff. Wear it proud.
Reminds me of the quickest movie review ever
Next up, Mel Gibson in “What Women Want”
Who cares?
Next up…
Married with a young kid………
Try Wanker of the next two decades !
Are you sure, Jeff, that’s not his fantasy? To squeeze your wanker with his sphincter?
Just with the question of his intentions you’d better wash that off with bleach and lye soap for good measure
Oh, would that they were.
I must respectfully disagree in part with Jeff.
Being called “Wanker of the day” by Atrios is a lot like being called dumpy by Margaret Cho.
But that is not at all like being told by Jessica Cutler that you “really can bring a world-class ass fucking!†That would just be an honest compliment.
PS: The fact that you went right for the sodomy reference a mere two posts after noting Wonkette’s six-figure book deal did not pass without notice.
I think we pwned that Atrios thread, too.
Congrats on your award! You didn’t even have to WHORE youself out to get it.
Man, gotta be some stiff competition for that title over there at wank central, huh?
stiff competition?
(TW: “blue.” Nah, only in the 11PM show.)
Karl,
I believe the actual term is expert testimony.
tw: …and if it’s not it should be
Now if you can just get Kos to threaten to develop a secret plan to destroy you the way he destroyed the DLC, you’ll really be getting somewhere…
oh, wait, didn’t you sign up with PJM?
Mazel tov!
Perhaps an onanistical observation as well?
That’s the most Atrios I’ve ever read all at once, and I think it gave me a contact high.
Where’s the Cheetos?
Jeff, a wanker? Nah, I just don’t see wanker coming from you. You might be a tosser, but never a wanker.
He got you there Jeff, especially since it looks like Bush has been spilling the beans about the wiretapping anyway. Want evidence? See http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-is-bush-helping-terrorists-by.html
Yeah, the old accusation that “the NYT loves the terrorists” dawg won’t hunt this time.
Okay, Psyberian–we get it, Bush is EVILE.
Though I’d suggest that he does have the right to defend himself, his administration, and the professionals at the NSA from bullshit accusations from moonbats like you and Greenwald. Because if he did not, you’d accuse him of stonewalling and hiding the truth.
P.S.: The NYT may not “love” terrorists, but is friends with privileges with them.
Considering the source, it is an honor to have received the award.
TW: received
Psyberian (geez, Tillman, everytime I see that new nom de guerre I see Prebyterian and it just aint right)
Golda Meir once said that peace in the ME will take place when Arabs love their kids more than they hate the Jews.
I believe the NYTimes hates GW and most Republicans more than they love America.
That’s why the phrase “national security” means nothing to them and causing real harm to a program that already saved the Brooklyn bridge from destruction is readily dismissable if they can manufacture an anti-GW story.
After scanning the 297 comments at Atrios, I couldn’t help but notice that the critical method there involves arranging the most swears and insults within your comment in order to “fit in”.
We are in a Dark Age.
Please take down the link which goes to pictures of my kids. The baby is mine and the little boy I’m pitching to is also mine. Leave up whatever goddamn inane snark about me you want but keep my children out of your juvenile games. Thank you.
Thers
I’m curious. Why don’t you take down the publicly displayed pics of your kids?
Or do you believe Jeff’s link is part of the Bu$HitlerHaliburtonZionist NSA SPYING ON AMERICANS ILLEGAL AND WARRANTLESS grab for power and coming to get YOU and your little dog, too, Conspiracy?
TW: self-responsibility as in the word that leftist are allergic to …
“wanker” is the preferred term by those who like cursing, but want to sound dignified by cursing like a Brit.
As a so-called troll at Duncan Black’s site, who has been banned and then silently reinstated probably seven or eight times in the last year or so, I can break it down for your real simple: Black is running chat rooms. That’s all that shit is: chat rooms. Black is Sammy Hagar in a beachside bar and the many hundreds of fucking dolts who frequent his threads are nothing more than groupies. Very few of them are capable of rebutting or refuting me, so they all resort to vulgarity and witlessness and seek security in their numbers. The atmosphere there at Eschaton is bitter and cynical.
Nonetheless, I still enjoy a good argument with people I believe to be not only wrong, but immoral. Eschaton supplies a lot of that, but so long as Black continues to ban and unban me at his whim, it makes embarrassing his inordinately stupid readers harder than it should have to be.
I like using “wanker” to slag off people. It’s fun and has that international flair.
C’mon, Darleen–next you’ll be asking him whether or not he believes that space-based orbital mind-control satellites linked up with Diebold voting machines to disenfranchise him and millions of other voters in 2004.
As if the answers to those questions weren’t obvious!
Oh, God. Don’t bring up that piece of shit.
I didn’t even know the substitute gym teacher was blogging again.
Er–that is, I didn’t even fucking know the fucking cocksucking gym teacher was fucking blogging fucking again.
BECAUSE OF THE VULGAR ADJECTIVES!
BIG SWEATY HORSE COCK!
So which picture is of your wife? And can I have her phone number?
My new fav-o-rite Kos comment!
Isn’t that just special. But remember – they LOVE America!
A truly informed answer to Atrios’s question would require disclosure of sources and methods, something of great interest to our jihadist adversaries.
The flies who hang around over there don’t have the brainpower to figure that out, but Atrios is just a leeetle bit smarter than that. That super-patriot knows the implications of his question and just doesn’t give a rat’s ass.
But…but…but he loves America! Right?
Tongueboy,
That’s the point…the NY Times article didn’t disclose sources and methods. We have no idea how this program works…we only know that the government has decided that it doesn’t need FISA warrants to listen in on conversations between Americans and someone overseas, whereas according to FISA it is necessary. Since we don’t have any information regarding sources and methods in the NY Times article, the NY Times article didn’t damage national security.
It’s funny that the majority of this thread is simply making fun of Atrios…whereas virtually none of it addresses his question. Someone want to step up to the plate and actually answer his question?
Because that’s all he deserves, IMHO. Four years of bad-faith arguments and outright falsehoods have built up to the point where many of us just don’t see the point in discussing anything with the left.
It hasn’t been, obviously. But if you don’t understand what a bullshit, disingenuous question it is in the first place, there is not much use trying to explain it to you. And as for this…
then how about you STFU until you know what you are talking about?
Yes, because calling someone “Wanker of the Day” shows just how deadly serious you are about the debate.
While Robert, BMoe and SeanM give LS the spanking he/she was probably secretly longing for, I’ll do the grunt work of actually engaging his/her ludicrous comment:
That’s the point…the NY Times article didn’t disclose sources and methods. We have no idea how this program works…we only know that the government has decided that it doesn’t need FISA warrants to listen in on conversations between Americans and someone overseas, whereas according to FISA it is necessary.
LS, have you been following Jeff’s posts and the ensuing discussion on this topic the past couple of weeks? You’re just a wee bit behind in the discussion…
Since we don’t have any information regarding sources and methods in the NY Times article, the NY Times article didn’t damage national security.
Which is why I used the preface “A truly informed answer”. The program’s revelation has lead to all manner of speculation regarding its manner of operation, by those defending it as within the President’s authority, by those criticizing its existence or the President’s asserted authority to conduct it, or by those engaging the issue from professional or idle curiosity. Some speculation is wild or idle, some speculation is quite informed. Somehow, I think at least some of our jihadist adversaries are smart enough to distinguish the wheat from the chafe in these discussions so as to potentially improve their operational communications. “A truly informed answer” would confirm sources and methods but at least some damage already seems likely to have been done.
Additionally, the revelation of the leak also reveals incredible divisions within the innermost sanctums of our national security establishment, which functions as an encourage to the jihadist to step up reconnaisance and planning for additional strikes. If the revelations were a smoke-out operation, my hat’s off to the intel pro who thunk it up. But that seems highly unlikely, don’t you think?
Therefore, making a categorical assertion of “no harm/no foul” seems a bit premature.
Let me phrase a counter-question:
So you believe that individuals entrusted with classified national security secrets can sidestep the established IG whisteblower process and reveal those secrets with no expectation of an investigation, prosecution and possible punishment, especially when their revelations could have no possible impact on national security?
Here’s a genuine retort to LS and others like him that I trotted out AT THE VERY BEGINNING of this tempest in a shitpot on the porch of the NYT:
Show me an innocent American citizen who has been harmed by the program and I’ll march with you. At that point at least we’d have some details and not be talking about classified information.
To “answer the question,” defenders of the President’s actions would have to point to information that is likely classified by its very nature (and ATRIOS KNOWS THAT…I hope…because if not, you and the rest of his readers are REALLY out in the fields surrounding Loontown).
Like fire to cavemen.
Crawford,
Well, if that’s how you want to deal with a question, then go right ahead. I’d prefer to focus on substance myself.
BMoe,
It’s not a disingenuous question. In the original Protein Wisdom post that was replied to by Greenwald which was linked by Atrios, Goldstein said:
Then Greenwald and Atrios both ask Goldstein (or anyone else) to back that statement up. Goldstein makes a claim, Atrios asks him to back that claim up. How on earth is this disingenuous?
Tongue,
So it’s not the NY Times article that has damaged national security. It’s the idle speculation by bloggers on the NY Times article that has damaged national security? Don’t you think that the assumption, both pre- and post-NY Times article was that their communications were somehow being monitored? Al Qaeda members would have to be complete idiots to think that their communications weren’t tapped somehow, regardless of the contents of FISA.
And the revelation of disagreement in our government re: privacy rights will lead towards increase planning for terrorist attacks? This doesn’t make any sense.
And to answer your question, I think that individuals can sidestep the IG whistleblower process IF they have cause to believe that going through the IG won’t work AND if what they’re blowing the whistle on is illegal (see Felt/Deep Throat/Watergate).
The NYT itself said they removed content they believed may directly harm national security/be critical natSec concerns. The bigger problem is a) the leak itself (which obviously did transmit dangerous/important information), and b) Risen’s book, which likely doesn’t hold itself to the same limits as the Times’ reports (see the posts at Volokh yesterday, f/e).
LS: you’re being intellecutally dishonest when you conflate the leak itself being damaging, and the NYT article being damaging. See my above post.
Llama,
Thanks for letting us know that you are current on Al Qaeda operational practice. Because as we all know, American organized crime always knew their communications were monitored, too. All you have to do is watch A&E to get a dose of how eavesdropping never works. That’s sarcasm, by the way.
You and the lefties who get your panties in a wad repeatedly over things that you know nothing about, in fact OR theory, are in some cases valuable comic relief like the “Wanker” remark, but leave those of us on the right shuddering that you may control national security one day. Why? You have no clue how military, intelligence, or even diplomatic operations work.
Congratulations Llama School, that’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve read in months.
Knowlege that NSA would like to tap information, and knowlege that their conversations are indeed being tapped, is completely and utterly different.
Per what you said in that quote, why don’t the terrorists just set up a public television station to communicate? The NSA is listening anyway. That way the authorities and entire public can keep up to date on what they (the terrorists) are planning next?……… wait for it…… here it comes……. wait for it…….. BECAUSE IT’S A SECRET YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
APF,
I’m not sure I follow your point on the leak/NYT article. If the only information from the leaker that’s been made public is what was in the NYT article, then the leak and the article are essentially the same. Even if the leaker gave more info to the NYT, if that info hasn’t been made public, it’s not a leak that can harm national security.
Now as for the Risen book, that does seem to have more information than the NYT article, and I have no idea if that information is a threat to national security (I haven’t read the book and have only skimmed the Volohk posts). If the leaker to the NY Times also sourced extra information in the Risen book, then that does dissociate the leak from the NYT article.
Wishbone/Nitesnake,
It’s not a secret that the NSA can attempt to monitor any foreign communications. AND it’s wasn’t a secret that the NSA can monitor domestic communications, as long as they have a secret warrant. A warrant that the public doesn’t know about, but allows for eavesdropping on those communications. After the NYT article, we now know that they don’t need a secret warrant that the public wouldn’t know about anyways. So the NYT article reveals nothing new about NSA’s capabilities. Before and after the article, Al Qaeda could easily assume that they were being tapped. And I think they would have to be complete idiots to think that their communications weren’t being tapped.
Second, no information in the NYT article re: FISA lets a member of Al Qaeda know that they are “indeed being tapped”. If the NYT article had a list of people currently being tapped…then that’s a different story. But as you said, “Knowlege that NSA would like to tap information, and knowlege that their conversations are indeed being tapped, is completely and utterly different.” The NYT article notes that domestic conversations can be tapped without a warrant, and gives no information saying that their conversations are actually being tapped. Probably being tapped? Yeah…but Al Qaeda members likely assumed that well before the NYT leak.
So it’s not the NY Times article that has damaged national security. It’s
the idle speculation by bloggers on the NY Times article that has damaged
national security?
When I was a kid, my school gave us the Weekly Reader as a reading comprehension aid. What did they give you?
Don’t you think that the assumption, both pre- and post-NY Times article was that their communications were somehow being monitored? Al Qaeda members would have to be complete idiots to think that their communications weren’t tapped somehow, regardless of the contents of FISA.
Which some undoubtedly are. Let me rephrase and condense your last sentence so that you can ponder your naivete:
Al Qaeda<b>American, British, German, Russian and Japanese forces<b> would have to be complete idiots to think that their communications weren’t tapped somehow…. Which is why world-wide cable and radio silence was observed by those major combatants for the approximately 6 years duration of World War II.And the revelation of disagreement in our government re: privacy rights will lead towards increase planning for terrorist attacks? This doesn’t make any sense.
I refer you once again to the Weekly Reader.
And to answer your question, I think that individuals can sidestep the IG whistleblower process IF they have cause to believe that going through the IG won’t work AND if what they’re blowing the whistle on is illegal (see Felt/Deep Throat/Watergate).
And what “cause to believe” would that be? Can you identify problems in the IG process particular to this case? Awww, why bother? Anyone who can conflate the use of a parallel, non-Executive branch operative team to spy on political opponents with the use of an Executive branch agency tasked with spying on our enemies to, um, spy on our enemies , eagerly makes the blind leap of (bad) faith regarding the use of NSA’s expanded, but not particularly extraordinary (from the information currently available), employment of signals intelligence capabilities, and so casually misrepresents his opponents words and arguments is just not seriously engaging the issue but is rather basking in the stagelights of the moral self-approbation of the classic narcissist. In other words, not worth any more of my time.
Not sure why I bother, especially after tongue’s excellent post, but here goes…
The devil is in the DETAILS, Llama. Which we do not know, but some previously unknown elements were included in the NYT article.
Let’s assume for giggles, that Al Qaeda has some of its best and brightest paying attention to such details and how they fit into the broader picture of pressure that we apply on the international scene. Now can you see where the harm is?
If not, tongue left out one detail.
Llama School, you missed the point. Al Queda would not communicate sensitive/secret information over the telephone if they knew that there was even a remote possibility that they are being tapped. That’s the nature of terrorists. They are sneaky bastards.
The media attention and political firestorm that the NYT story has created now indicates to AQ how detailed the NSA has been in collecting information. The devil is indeed in the details. The President and NSA have now been forced to tip their hand, and in my opinion, too much.
The methods by which AQ communicates will now change in light of this new information. If I was one of those terrorist fucks I’d say, “no more phone calls, we talk via hand written letters shoved up a donkey’s ass†or what ever they devise as a means to bypass the NSA system. Perhaps it’s just as easy as making a call from a Mercedes Benz manufacturer in Germany to a Mercedes Benz dealership in Boston (since I know that will likely not be seen as anything suspicious and it’s not an individual’s address).
Please allow me to be abundantly clear. The NYT story and the “whistle blower†have hurt national security by casting all of this light on an intelligence gathering system that is by all accounts consistent with the Constitutional rights of the government.
To address some of y’alls comments:
Axis and Allied forces did assume that their communications were being tapped. That’s why the Americans used Navajo code talkers, the Germans used the Enigma device, the Japanese used the PURPLE code, etc. To make it even clearer, they used code because they assumed they were being listened to (and were). Al Qaeda likely assumes that they are being listened to in any sort of wire/satellite/internet communications. Because of that they are likely either using code or attempting to use encrypted communications. Revelation of the secret warrant program won’t change any of that.
(Would you like to make more Weekly Reader comments now? I’m amazed at how smug one can be when making such an obviously flawed point.)
As for the whistleblower question, I don’t know what the “cause to believe” is…I’m not the leaker. It’s possible that he had reason to believe that this would be squashed going through legal channels (see Mark Felt and the fears he had for coming forward in Watergate). It’s also possible that the leaker’s fears are totally unwarranted. Also, if the executive order and all actions taken pursuant to it are clearly legal, then the leaker screwed up and should be prosecuted. As to whether it’s legal or not, the courts should decide. But it’s not my place to judge whether the leaker(s) should be prosecuted or not, as I don’t know if the program is legal or not and I don’t know what the consequences of coming forward via normal channels would be.
Nate,
My point is that I strongly suspect that revelations about warrants will not change the way Al Qaeda communicates, because they must know that when using wire/internet communications, there is more than a remote possibility that they are being listened to.
Now if there is an article that lays out a new, unknown method that we are using to gather intelligence (for example, a super-sensitive microphone that can filter and pick up any voice conversation in Pakistan or something) that will likely lead Al Qaeda members to stop using a specific method of communication (e.g. stop talking and only communicate by words on paper), and said program is completely legal, then that’s a serious issue. But so far, I haven’t seen any concrete examples of something like this occurring based on leaks to the NYT. If the devil is in the details, then there needs to be some evidence that these details are revealing something new that will likely change Al Qaeda behavior. Revealing the lack of a secret warrant program is not one of those details.
Atrios exact question:
again, emphasis all mine:
That is not the issue anyone has been making, and that is grossly over-simplifying what has been done. But since the truth is complicated, he can hardly expect his audience to be interested.
And as for this:
That has to be one of the most stunningly ignorant statements I have ever read.
You asked for it.
Try–hard–to connect the dots in your sentences above and maybe you’ll get it.
Hint: Insert “with someone residing in the US” at a critical juncture.
Like hovercraft to sea otters this is.
Being a wanker myself, I consider it an honor to be reading the inspired musings of a fellow wanker.
Oh, did I say “wanker”? I meant “manhunk with Peter North stamina”.
Ol’ Atrios knows how to drive traffic. What’s that saying about bad money driving out good money?
Like hell it doesn’t. We had broken the Japanese and German codes—and went to almost fanatical lengths to keep that fact secret. Why? Because if they had found out, they would have changed codes and forced us to start over again. The Germans and Japanese knew they were being listened to, but assumed no one could understand them, so they kept jabbering away.
In this case, we know that usable information has been found by tapping international calls to phones connected to al’Qaeda. Thus, those calls were either not in code, or the traffic analysis is what developed the information.
But now the entire world knows we’ve developed useful information this way. So they’ll find an alternative, and we’ll lose a source of information. Or they’ll increase the amount of false information they pass through that channel.
*THAT* is the damage done. We had a source of usable information; its existence has been revealed, and now its usefulness is either over, or severely limited.
What would have been the impact, Llama School, if the NYT had disclosed in 1944, let’s say, the nature of the work being done by William Friedman, or the Allied teams working at Bletchley Park? Given the fact, as you say, that the Axis naturally assumed they were being monitored and their communications intercepted?
Never mind – Robert Crawford said it first, and far better.
Wishbone, if it could only be that simple. I am convinced that liberals in general lack a little thing called common sense.
As a little expirement, start to pay attention to your liberal friends ability to make everyday rational/moral decisions. It’s very difficult for them.
Robert and RS, thanks for helping me keep my “vow of silence”. It is almost impossible to keep silent in the face of both rank stupidity and distilled narcissism.
Wishbone,
Let me lay this out again.
Before AND after the NYT article, Al Qaeda members were likely aware that the NSA was listening in on their foreign to foreign conversations, since this is completely legal.
Before NYT article: Wiretapping a foreign to domestic conversation is legal given that the FISA court put a warrant on that person. Knowledge of the existence of this secret court and secret FISA hearings are readily available in the public domain. Since these warrants are secret, anyone related to Al Qaeda doesn’t know for certain that they are being listened to. But they know that it’s very possible and legal that they are being listened to.
After NYT article: Wiretapping a foreign to domestic conversation is legal given the once-secret executive order. Knowledge of the existence of this secret executive order is in the public domain. Since who’s being listened to under this executive order is secret, anyone related to Al Qaeda doesn’t know for certain that they are being listened to. But they know that it’s very possible and legal that they are being listened to.
Crawford,
The NYT isn’t revealing that we’ve figured out some specific method that Al Qaeda is using to communicate that Al Qaeda didn’t know before. The NYT has revealed something that will make no difference in Al Qaeda operations; as both before and after they were likely aware that they were being monitored. For example, information about the capture of Iyman Faris, the big scalp of the warrantless program, was available in 2003. This Department of Justice release stated that “he sent several coded messages through another individual to his longtime friend in Pakistan”. From reading this, it’s obvious that he was being monitored, and that he was using code, and that we figured out that code. The only thing that the NYT article adds to this is that we didn’t use a secret warrant to get that information.
If the NYT published specific information about the specific methods of the program, then Al Qaeda could change their behavior based on that information, and that would be very bad. But all we know is that the program may snoop on internet or phone communications that can involve domestic targets, something that was easily known before the NYT article.
So, as long as you—based on limited information—can see no way leaking classified information has caused harm, then the leak’s OK?
No. It is possible that the NY Times article contained something that will definitely change the behavior of members of Al Qaeda. But the arguments presented here in the comments haven’t provided any compelling evidence to think this. As I stated earlier, the info regarding methods are too vague, and it was obvious that the gov’t would be spying on suspected Al Qaeda members before the NYT article.
Read the DOJ release in the earlier comment, and note that it mentions monitoring communicatons with people in other countries (Pakistan), breaking code between Faris and a contact in Pakistan, etc. And this was years before the NYT article. The only thing that the NYT article adds is that it was done w/o a warrant.
Do you think everyone on the NYT has a security clearance, Einstein? Do you know what a security clearance is? Hell, do you even know what a secret is? Do you think we are the only country that has spies? Do you not know that the media is a prime spot for spies and moles? How long does it take to get used to the smell of having your head so far up your fucking ass? You have admitted repeatedly you don’t know what was leaked, who it was leaked to, or what it means, but you still know that it wasn’t important. You are an idiot, go away.
BMoe,
Let me change my statement then. IF the leaker gave information that is a threat to national security to the NYT (something we don’t know), and IF that reporter is being spied upon by some Al Qaeda agent (something we don’t know), then that could harm national security.
I don’t know what was leaked, other than what was in the NYT. And from that, there is little evidence that this info is a threat to national security. In the land of hypotheticals, it is possible that the leak did some grave national security damage (assuming stuff we don’t know about the non-public info in the leak and stuff we don’t know about spying of the NYT). If you want to get worked up about the hypotheticals, then go right ahead.
Read this.
This is one of the good parts:
Critical thinking apparently was not on the curriculum in Llama School. Or maybe you didn’t have to take it if you doubled up on Yips and Orgles in Senior Year.
Hey, did anyone ask Jeff what the hell Ontology has to do with Cutler, Cho, Atrios, or even Jeff?
Here is one definition:
“Ontology
That department of the science of metaphysics which investigates and explains the nature and essential properties and relations of all beings, as such, or the principles and causes of being.”
Ontological arguments are usually about the existence of God. Is Jeff saying he’s God because Atrios called him a wanker?
And, nextly, is Jeff saying he ISN’T a wanker? ‘Cause I call bullshit. He’s a wanker and he knows it.
Now the question of whether or not he is a principled human being or a clueless hack is another question altogether. I don’t know how principled he is, I can’t tell from his writngs, and I’m not SURE he is a hack, but I gotta tell ya, he’s got the clueless part down pat.
Jake
Llama School doesn’t seem to have considered the most basic paradox: It would be impossible for any of us to give clear evidence of precisely how our security has been damaged by the New York Times without further damaging our security, since such evidence would itself be very useful to any al Qaeda members looking to escape notice. Demanding evidence that you know cannot honorably be given seems either dishonest or stupid.
Frustrating, isn’t it Jake? How you can’t just shit in your hand and throw it on the internet?
Bmore, I don’t think I get it. What are you trying to tell me? I know that old one about shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills first, hell, that’s one I use when describing Bush’s approach to life, the universe and EVERYTHING, but I don’t get your drift.
Jake
Finally! That is what we have been trying to tell you.
B Moe,
Note also that in the comments section of that post, multiple people note that this information comes not from the New York Times articles, but from the Risen book. From one commenter:
I haven’t read the Risen book and can’t comment on whether the info there is a threat to national security. But all of the hullaballoo has been regarding the NYT articles, and it seems like they omitted important information re: the details of the program.
Dr. Weevil,
So one can claim that the NYT articles have damaged national security. But when asked how, one can’t answer because explaining it (where explaining involves discussing something already public) will damage national security?
If that’s the case, then has Robert Crawford (or anyone else in this thread) who explained how the leak supposedly damaged national security, damaged national security? Wow. By simply commenting on public articles on Protein Wisdom, the terrorists have already won.
No, all the hullaballoo has been about the leak itself, which so far has manifested itself primarily in the NYT. That is why I said Atrios question was bullshit. Does it really make it okay to you that the NYT opened the door to a leak of classified information just to pimp a book by one of its writers? You tools are too ridiculous to even put up a believable front.