Via Hot Air, which points us to this FOXNews poll:
Seventy percent, including 58% of Democrats, say they support “the U.S. Treasury Department tracking suspected terrorist financing through a secret program that looks at money transfers.†Among Republicans, 65% think media sources who publish national security secrets are guilty of treason; 55% of Democrats disagree. There’s widespread support for punishing the leakers themselves  87% agree to that.
Hot Air also points to a particularly revealing answer to the question about who the NYT “helped” by publishing the information.
I won’t spoil it for you, but I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with “Teh Ferrorists”.
Meanwhile, the Times‘ bigwigs continue to plead their case to the American public. You see, they agonized over the decision, which didn’t reveal anything anyway—making all that agony rather curious and showy, one would think. But then, in their defense, emotionalism does seem to be making a comeback.
Either way, the point is we must feel for them. For their suffering. After all, you think jeopardizing your country’s security so that you can maybe help bring about a few more Democratic victories in mid-term elections is easy? Because it’s not. In fact, it hurts one to their very goodly soul.
Yup.
Take it away, Michelle Malkin.
****
pdf here.
FRIST.
Er. First.
Happy Saturday to all, unless you are a burqa wearing NYT editor or publisher.
Remember, they feel our pain.
TW: terms. As in, we the NYTimes have come to terms with the fact that we are smarter than everyone else and you need us to tell you what is in the country’s best interests.
Any thinking Dem should condemn these bums. The others are biased to a suicidal degree. The leaks have an adverse effect on everyone.
Have they yet given a reason why this specific story needed to be published? Why it was sooo important to reveal a program rather universally thought to be both successful and within the limits of US laws?
All I got from that editorial today is that Bill Keller intends to do the exact opposite of what the administration might ask for. Now that’s a brilliant (read: unbelievably freakin’ immature) way to run a newspaper.
TW – needed. You gotta be kidding me.
I don’t hate Keller; I thank him for ensuring that control of neither house will go to the Dems in November.
He’s done a great thing for the country, but not the great thing he thought he did.
You may be on to something there. Bush’s numbers are going up. Maybe Keller’s a Rove plant. Ha!
Great travel story there. Just in time for the holiday. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m going to have to rewrite my plans for the Fourth after reading this.
So. Since the NYT obviously believes that NO information should be kept secret, when will we get to see a feature story on the out-of-town getaways of Keller and Pinch?
TW: result – as in, that would be the logical result of full disclosure
A brief glimpse inside the twisted mind of the B Moe:
I wonder what would happen if someone e-mailed Ann Coulter detailed blueprints of the Times Building?
To think that they are only publishing these stoies for Dem support is crazy. Remember that the NYT’s first reason for existence is to sell papers and charge as much as possible for advertising. That was all they wanted to do. Increase Buzz, get more notice, and try to sell a few more papers.
It’s sick.
TW: And maybe a few of them can type too.
Keller’s bouts of agony and ecstasy sound like a Charlton Heston movie, except in Keller’s version he must continually sabotage the scaffolding as the sacred fresco is being painted. Because, who do the imperious Pope and Bush think they are, trying to save our souls and arses?
Polls, Schmolls
But I agree, it’s an odd position to take that you agonized and debated over releasing a story that isn’t particularly important or meaningful. If it revealed nothing and wasn’t potentially a problem, why the trouble over the release?
I suspect the agony was the agony of sysyphus, pushing the rock of liberalism up the hill over and over to watch it fail and roll to the bottom again.
Sadly, no. In order to experience the ectasy one must also have the agony. So if he did not agonize over the decision, how could he be ecstatic about the resulting furor?
See: Irving Stone, “The Agony and the Ectasy”
Rich in Martigues has it right.
Oh, there’s bias in favor of Democrats and Leftists, and bigotry toward George Bush and his supporters. But it’s contributory, not deciding.
What we’re seeing here, as the NYT and (to a somewhat lesser extent) the LAT slowly bleed to death, is the limitations of “if it bleeds it leads” as a guiding philosophy of the Press.
Pinch and Keller have fully bought in to the picture of “news” consumers as hungry for sensation, for novelty, for titillation. They think stupid careless people will avidly buy papers to greedily consume the latest most exciting thing, so they’re continually searching for something new and fresh and exciting! to present. Car crashes or secret Government programs are all one. The criterion is that they expect crushing mobs to descend upon the newsstands, anxious for the latest thrilling episode.
The problem with that is the phenomenon called habituation. People get used to things that are constant in their environment. Back before the Clean Air Act I had several friends who lived downwind from small messy oil refineries. When I visited I would remark on the smell, and they’d raise their eyebrows and ask “what smell? It’s just normal.” And we’ve all heard the story about the family who lived near the railroad track. When the 2:03AM train didn’t roar by and blow its whistle, the whole household woke instantly, saying “what the Hell was that?”
Seeking after titillating news stories has become a game of “can you top this?” Every day something new and exciting; and, by now, “new and exciting” has become the routine expectation. It has to be newer! bigger! more outrageous! or it isn’t noticed at all. And, unfortunately for Pinch, the planet is fairly small and the range of behaviors of its inhabitants limited. At some point you simply can’t report anything more outrageous because the physical limit of outrageousness has been reached. One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic, and statistics are boring.
Where do they go from here? It isn’t clear where they can go. It’s possible that they gained a blip in circulation due to this story, but there’s no way in Hell it’ll change the trend, and what are they going to report tomorrow? What’s exciting enough to “top this”?
I know what I wish. I wish they’d dump “All the News thats Fit to Print” from the masthead and replace it with Joe Friday’s characteristic utterance: Just the Facts, Ma’am. We need a free Press, and a free Press is always going to be at least somewhat adversarial. But they need to figure out that if they speak truth, power will hear it; specific attempts to address “power” are not just redundant, they’re self-defeating.
The prospects are not wonderfully hopeful.
Regards,
Ric
I dunno, Ric. Based on conversations with Manhattanites and other true believers, Keller’s whole can’t trust secretive big government (run by Nixon and successors) is sincere and the fix rather simple. Once we elect a President Hillary to further expand, truly cabal-factionalize, and drive federal government into a corrupt conspiracy of silence and secrecy *unrelated* to national security matters, the Times won’t complain, anymore.
Have you looked into Pinch’s political beliefs? They’re extremely leftist and anti-military.
T/W ill, as in the Gray Lady gravely.
Charlotte,
Oh, I think you’re quite correct. What I don’t think is that—how to put it? Sulzberger’s beliefs, and Keller’s, are the steering system, or perhaps the targeting mechanism. But the driver, the engine that pushes the whole machine forward, is the belief that novelty and titillation are what inspires people to buy the paper in the first place.
The word “news” is not derived from the word “new”. It is a coinage, a neologism based on an acronym put forward by an early publisher who promised his readers information from North, East, West, and South. Note that it has no direct translation into other languages—in German, for instance, a newspaper is generally a “daily page” (Tageblatt) or a “times” (Zeitung).
But the attitude of the Press has long since coalesced around “news” as a derivation of “new”, giving rise to the antonym “olds” which must be avoided at all costs. Thus the “news cycle” and the “spiking” of “dead stories” which no longer deserve our attention—not because what’s happening isn’t important, but because it isn’t new any more. It doesn’t serve either the consumer or the citizen. Therefore the decline in circulation. I don’t see an end to it.
Regards,
Ric
Yes, yes, BUT
How does one explain the Times’ (most mainstream media’s) reporting errors and controversial stories weighted out of all proportion to favoring the leftist or Democrat POV and attempting to undermine the center-right/ conservative Republican perspective? There are plenty of scandals and outrages that the Times doesn’t report or attempt to spin as such, because they occur on their hometeam. Sure, they report a few against Dems, but by and large the NYT’s meta-narrative is that Bush and his Repuglicans are corrupt, warmongering fascists and not that the Dems are sniveling, craven, lying weasels. They could have picked both storylines for sensational reportage, to sell more papers, but they didn’t. Seems highly partisan to a lot of us.
Mommy, why does the NY Times tell the terrorists how we are tracking their financial transactions?
Why? people are still going to bitch and moan.
Quick—a story about a politician involved in crime doesn’t mention political affiliation. To which party does the politician belong?
Robert,
How dare you expose our closely held secret for the public to read about. We didn’t think anyone noticed. Corruption is a Republican problem, and don’t you forget it.
Watch it, or the next thing you know there’ll be a map of your neighborhood on the front page.
Sincerely,
Pinch and hs butt boy Bill.
Robert,
A Democrat, of course. If the politician was a Republican they’d say so.
What I’m saying is that that system has run its course, or nearly so. I doubt seriously that there’s an American, even Democrats, who wouldn’t read it that way—they might groan and say something like “Oh shit, one of our guys got caught,” but they wouldn’t have any trouble with party identification.
The blogosphere is letting a little trickle of other news through, but even people who don’t know blogs have little or no trouble spotting what’s going on because it’s so blatant. Yeah, there are ignoramuses and apologists out there, lots of them, but there are more and more people who can tell a hawk from a handsaw.
Therefore declining circulation, ad revenue, and stock prices. The market will correct, given sufficient time. We’ll be damned uncomfortable while it’s happening, mind.
Regards,
Ric
The problem with that theory is that Keller et. al. have been defending their position—in part—by claiming that they didn’t publish anything new.
Which makes me wonder why it had to be
A) on the front page, and
B) in the public interest?
I think most of the bias comes from the fact that the news media and the Democrats both play to emotions, so they both tend to sell the same product. Reason is a hard sell, people have to read and think. It is better to get them to read and react, it works for advertisers and politicians both.
Well, stoo, likely they didn’t. Is the explanation helping them gain acceptance from the general public? The poll Jeff cited suggests not. I think that’s a good thing.
I’ve said it elsewhere, I’ll say it here: I don’t want to see Pinch Sulzberger or Bill Keller in jail. I want to see them as publisher and editor, respectively, of the Nassau County Green Sheet [buy a newspaper to read; read a Green Sheet to buy!] and sitting around in cheap bars in the evening, drinking draft Old Milwaukee and bragging about how important they used to be. I don’t want them convicted. I want them discredited, and this goes a long way toward that.
Jailing newspeople is a little too far down the slippery slope for me. Humiliating them? –go for it, bubba!
And look: in terms of real damage they’re probably right—five years is a long time to expect people to put in their password, have the machine come back “please wait in place for U.S. Treasury agents”, and not put two and two together. Keep in mind that SWIFT is easy, fast, convenient, and reliable, but it isn’t the only way by ten centuries or so; similar organizations have been transferring funds between countries, often under the noses of Princes whose attitude was quite contemporary [“see money! gimme!”], since there’s been money to transfer. But deep in CIA there’s bound to be a whole section of bureaucrats whose rice bowl is the investigation. If you were the President, and saw a program whose usefulness had become quite limited but which had a substantial political and bureaucratic constituency, what would you do?
Just sayin’
Regards,
Ric
Now lets get back to writing our uncomfortableness with gay people into the constituion. The next week, we’ll repeal part of the first as it applies to flags.
I was opposed to both of those actus, try again.
Thats very nice of you. Too bad you’re not like the wingers in charge. No bias or playing with emotions then.
Changing the subject, actus? Who could blame you- what else do you have?
WTF?! Does this moron ever stay on topic?
TW: most – ”Most of the time, no.”
She’s got her little agenda.
And the thug that killed an old lady should just get a good talking to, because after all the old biddy wasn’t in good health anyway…
And the slumlord that burns down his tenement to collect the insurance should get a good dressing down from the building inspector instead of facing arson charges because it was his property…
Over the top? Sure. But that tired old slippery slope can tilt more than one direction.
If they violated the law, let them face justice.
Then let them try to work for the Nassau County Green Sheet.
That one was about bias and reason and playing with emotions. I suppose it is a change of subect to point to right wing acting this way when we’re cozily discussing the left doing it.
That would require the moron taking a position.
No, stoo. The comparisons aren’t apt. Neither the slumlord nor the thug buys ink by the barrel, and that’s what you have to keep in mind.
The law’s actually pretty clear, and pretty fair: people who don’t have clearances, who get classified information without knowing it’s classified, and make it public, aren’t committing a crime. They may be showing truly lousy judgement, but they aren’t criminals. What a lovely setup for entrapment the other system would be!
To show that they committed a crime you’d have to show that the leakers who told them also told them it was classified and that it was their responsibility to guard it—in effect, making them deputies to the officials with clearances. Like that’s gonna happen, right.
And meanwhile they would be slinging those barrels of ink. Suppression of the free Press! would be the least of it. The political damage would be enormous.
In the existing situation, George Bush clearly got upset—but not even his worst enemy could fail to grant that he had reasons to be upset, even if such enemy were glad to see it happen. Now he and the rest have cooled down and are saying, more or less calmly, “Well, the damage is done, and we think Pinch and company were maliciously irresponsible.” And the public is going for it; Bush’s poll numbers are rising, and the NYT’s approval ratings are going in the tank. Which is a much more valuable and useful result than jailing reporters would be.
And, if my theory is correct, some people at CIA who had fallen into a bureaucratic rut are being redirected into hopefully useful activity. I call that a win all ‘round, at Sulzberger’s expense. The circus surrounding a trial would give back part of the win, not add to it.
Regards,
Ric
Easy answer. Pass a law that says, when classified information is revealed, the reporter involved must provide the source. If they coose not to, the reporter will be charged with whatever crime the source commited in revealing the information.
One thing the Dimo’s forget when they leak the anti-terrortists programs. These are not programs that have anything to do with the war in Iraq. These are top secret operations to prevent another 9-11 in the United States. So you are not helping AQ in Iraq, you are helping the terrorists plan and eventually carry out another attack that will kill someone you know and possibly someone in your family.
You have to be a pretty low form of life to help kill your fellow americans and your own family. Not if, but when it comes you should remember who leaked and printed the information and be first in line to help with the hanging of a couple hundred traitors. I’m deadly serious, when we are attacked again the leakers and publishers should all be hanged at dawn.
Ric,
Here is the headline from the original story:
And the very first sentence:
What canard is this, they didn’t know? It tells me that you aren’t willing to be convinced—but, to be fair—you are no more unwilling than I, so I will stop trying.
– I’ve said this before, but I still find it interesting. We will convict people for being in possession of stolen property, but we give people who recieve stolen secrets a pass. Apparently we value our “things” more than our security and our lives. Weird, when you think about it.
– I happen to aggree with Ric’s position to an extent. Except its also true that many of the large media outlet owners are very Conservative. Another way to examine the question of “Left bias or merchandising” would be to look at the performance of the same MSM perps during the Clinton revalations. Same, different, more, less?
TW: Does ”George” know about this?
That pretty much already exists. Remember when Judy Miller went to jail.
The first amendment is going to love that one.
I don’t understand why if a newspaperman publicizes classified information people don’t want them in prison as much as – say – Sander Berger or anyone else who misuses classified information. Why not convict them if they’re guilty? The press isn’t sacrosanct, they aren’t immune to prosecution – the attitude that they are is how we got into this situation to begin with.
stoo, don’t believe that we differ that much. What I’m giving you is what I think the official line is going to be. And the reason that’ll be the official line is that it makes political sense. Prosecuting the NYT is sort of like shooting your mother-in-law: she may deserve it, but the satisfaction is overcome by the years in prison.
I believe, but cannot prove, that this was a deliberate and intentional challenge, and that Sulzberger checked with his allies before going ahead, to be sure that the action would be immediate and vociferous should he, Keller, or the reporters be charged. Bush is gonna short-circuit all of that, leaving them punching the air. Consider Greenwald, who probably already has three thousand words in the can excoriating the Bush administration for unconstitutional meddling with the free press. He’ll never get to use it. Don’t you feel sorry for him? :=\
Like you, I think the law was broken. Unlike you, I think the cure is worse than the disease. Convicting Pinch, Keller & Associates in court would be a circus with only the bad guys holding megaphones. Convicting them in the court of public opinion is harder, but the result tends to neutralize a threat rather than energizing it. Therefore it’s what I pick.
Regards,
Ric
Its got to do with how they get it. Someone like berger, or a leaker, is violating the confindence in which they got the data. The Press? Not receiving it in confidence, so they don’t have the duty to not print it.
But over on patterico they mentioned that the government declassified the info before the NYT published it. Which is interesting.
– Not at all necessary. The Key to stopping leaks is two-fold:
– All sources must be revealed or the reciever goes to jail in contempt just as it is now, except a hearing should be automatic if called for by the AG, at the behest of the Pres.
– If no govermental wrong doing is shown in connection with the “leak”, in other words the perps can claim “whistle-blowing”, a claim that would be a great deal easier to make if the “leakers” went to their Congressional Reps/Senators instead of the media, then no harm no foul.
– Dry up the sources for the media, and the only “leaks” you will get is when the perps have a real reason to believe some high crime is being committed. Partisanship would be left at the curb.
– No first amendment probs, no unecessary partisan leaks, and still a vehical for criminal behavior exposure. Hell on paper sales though.
actus, I’m not a lawyer, but even I’ve heard of Accessory. My understanding is:
Accessory before the fact: aiding in the planning or preparation for the crime, or providing means to commit the crime to the prospective criminal.
Accessory during the fact: giving material aid in the execution of the criminal act, including standing guard over the scene.
Accessory after the fact: aiding in the concealment of the crime or evidence of the crime, or helping the criminal to evade capture and/or prosecution.
Given that a leaker is breaking the law, the crime is not complete until the information actually becomes public. A reporter who takes the information and publicizes it is either a witness or an accessory—no other status is available, but the reporter does get to pick.
I just don’t think that will happen in this case.
Regards,
Ric
The crime is when they tell someone that doesn’t have clearance—the reporter. Then their crime is over.
No doubt they’re witnesses. Thats why Judy Miller went to jail.
Ric
“deliberate and intentional challenge”
My thoughts as well. An attempt to line up a court case for the mid-terms. Tanker trucks of ink would flow. I think a last ditch effort to reverse the direction of a sinking ship. But GW didn’t take the bait. Yet…
Luther,
I don’t think GWB will “take the bait”. I think he’s the one who chummed the waters, and is happy with the fish he got.
Regards,
Ric
tw: by George, I believe I’ve got it.
The fuck they don’t. Citizenship has its inherent duties; not committing treason—or any other crime, for that matter—is one of them.
Not that I’d expect a liberal lawyer to comprehend the idea that duties can go beyond the letter of the law.
Oh. well, this isn’t treason. But just as treason is in the constitution, so is the first amendment.
I’m sure they do go beyond the “letter.” But duties prohibiting speech, the breach of which could land you jail? Those are going to be strictly construed.
Not treason, huh?
I’m with Ric – it would be counterproductive to charge the reporters & editors involved, but it does seem to come pretty dang close to the Constitutional definition of treason.
Nope. And Yes, i’m familiar with what the constitution says about it. There’s no adherence here.
I’m no Inigo Montoya, but that word may not mean what you think it means.
Cramer vs. US, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), talks about it. Thats in the sense i’m using it. But maybe I’m wrong and you’ve got the right answer.
McGehee, he’s right for once. If Pinch and Bill (and whatsisname, Oblurt or Oshit or whatever, out in California) were declared or secret Islamists who were deliberately sending data to support their co-religionists, that might be “adherence”. This doesn’t qualify.
Give it a rest. Accusing them of crimes is playing directly into their hands; it’s what they want, it’s what they think will give them good publicity. Don’t do it.
Sneer at them instead. They look like a bunch of stupid dorks, they know it and are trying to spin it like mad, and it isn’t working. Then, with the summer homes thing, they look like stupid, bitter, vindictive dorks, and I’m not sure Bill Clinton himself could spin that. Hand them a sharper shovel and encourage them to dig. They’d do as much for you.
Regards,
Ric
– Since there seems to be no limit to how low the Left will go in their Bush derangement, I’m at least enjoying their 3rd stage panic, as they try endlessly, with worse and worse acts of anti-Americanism, to dig themselves out of the “weak on terror”, “cut and run” hole they dug themselves into. Hard as they try to hide it all, at times their true fears bubble too the surface, as they try in vain to get on the right side of the WOT.
– Suddenly Bush is “following the Progressive plan” – Uh huh. Right.
– The Dem Senators catterwailing that “Bush and his boys are going to come out with the “October” surprise just before elections. Just watch and see.” (Delivered bitterly, like the sore losers they’ve shown themselves to be.)
– At this point, as the panic among the moonies escalates, nothing they do surprises me amy more.
Knowingly receiving stolen goods is a crime.The first amendment does not relieve one of responsibility.It is not absolute.
Witnesses generally aren’t jailed. Felons are.
Rusty,
I’m for that. Prosecute the leakers. But there, too, there’s the rest of the story.
Misrepresent the goods to a legitimate customer, and you may wind up in a nice, genteel civil trial and have to pay a fine.
Misrepresent the goods to a fence, and the “trial” is apt to be nasty, brutish, and short, as the saying is. At the very minimum you’re going to have difficulty realizing your ill-gotten gains in future.
How charitable do you think those reporters are feeling toward the leaker who led them to this point? It’s downright poetic, it is. I’d still like to see ‘em jailed and the key melted down for a watch fob, but this is not only better than nothing, it pleases me no end. Demand-side justice, so to speak.
Regards,
Ric
Ok, a little blog comment love here for Ric.
Sir, you are very patient and careful in explaining your positions. I agree with you fairly often, not always, however. But I do wish that all who posted comments – Left/Right/Undecided were as thoughtful, civil, consistent and informed as you. Here ends the lickage.
P.S. Have you considered a blog? If a wise-a$$ like me can stumble over to Blogger and get one…
Oh, and Ric, if you had the, uh, edginess of our favorite Gaul … you’d be so far off the chain, I’d have to start a cult.
Major John – congrats on acquitting yourself honorably with the moonbatterotti at Pandagon. You literally left them dumbfounded; you could almost see them shuffling through their list of mental stereotypes of RWDBs and muttering “Does not compute, does not compute….” while going into full cortex meltdown. Even PIATOR, who seems to actually salivate at the thought of US casualties, remained subdued. Well-done indeed.
Congrats too to Verc, who deployed some devastating arguments as well, and caused quite a few cortex meltdowns of his own. Even the esteemed Ms. Marcotte herself beat a hasty retreat, only able at best to utter invective about “war porn” and comparable brilliance.
You think maybe, once their fireant frenzy subsides, that at least one of them over there will consider how lame it is that they don’t just traffic in stereotypes, but actually live their lives, online and otherwise, as such?
It’s something to hope for, at least. Again, well-done.
Gotta love Actus’ “logic” here. Got classified information you want out? Just tell your buddy, then he can without breaking the law tell anyone he likes!
I hope nobody innocent pulls this gem as a lawyer, if that’s his best argument in defense of the NYT printing classified information. That’s a step down from the “oh, everyone knew it already defense.
Well, yes. That’s protected by the first. At least, the AIPAC case is currently testing this.
There are other cases of people who passed on illegally obtained information to the press, and the press was able to publish.
So what actus is saying what the Rosenburgs did was alright?
No, no. He’s saying the Rosenburgs should’ve passed their info on to the Soviets via the front page of the NY Times.
Shoot, they could’ve used Duranty (1884-1957).
Or what they did was unprocted because it was treason, not speech.
Or what they did was unprocted because it was treason, not speech.
That’s ‘unprotected’
No. Even had the Rosenburgs handed over the atomic bomb secrets to the NYT instead of the soviets it still would have been a criminal act.
Yelling”FIRE” in a crowded theater is still illegal.
The NYT, as subsequent events have proven, was not protecting the publics right to know. They are assiduously working to undermine the current adminstratiion.
Oh, actus, you silly person, there’s no such thing as treason anymore.
It’s now called dissent. And as we all know, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
How did the rosenberg’s get the info? Were they on the inside, or just couriers?
Though, given the NYT’s track record on WMD’s, they’d probably foul up the printing up of nuclear secrets.
I think you’re mixing your legal theories.
Heh… that’s some amazing um, interpretation of the law. Meanwhile in the real world, publishing classified information… even if you weren’t the first person to tell someone… is still illegal.
Sure it is.
If the Administration wanted the NY Times to take its word for what intelligence should and shouldn’t be printed, it probably shouldn’t have sent Chalabi’s con artist buddies to the NYT peddling their lies about Iraqi WMD, and vouched for their credibility. The NYT was strongly inclined to take the government’s word on intelligence matters in 2002 and through 2003. As a result of trusting the Administration, it had its credibility severely damaged. Subsequent experience (Jessica Lynch, Abu Ghraib, the outing of Valerie Plame and the smearing of Joseph Wilson, the dangerousness of detainees at Guantanamo and numerous people being prosecuted as “terrorists”, the constant baseless terror alerts under Ashcroft, the latest ridiculous “terror cell” bustup announced by Gonzales, the incompetent mess of CIA reform under Porter Goss, the and on and on) has shot to hell the Administration’s credibility on the issue of what should remain classified. The White House should be grateful the NYT even gives them a hearing anymore before deciding whether to publish or not.
And, yes, now that I am aware that SWIFT is cooperating with US authorities (and I certainly hope the US will prosecute that Belgian consortium for publishing this information on their website), I will stop making my donations to Al-Qaeda via Internet bank transfer and writing “reimbursement for C-4 used in Cole bombing” in the “Details” field.
Ric :
“To show that they committed a crime you’d have to show that the leakers who told them also told them it was classified and that it was their responsibility to guard itâ€â€in effect, making them deputies to the officials with clearances. “
Just to be clear, you are saying if Leaker says to Reporter, ‘Here’s some classified info.’ and Reporter publishes it, then it’s not a crime.
But if Leaker says to reporter, ‘Here’s some classified info. You are now responsible for guarding it.’ and Reporter publishes it, then it is a crime.
Do I have that right? That sounds like a crazy way to safeguard security secrets.
Oh, hell, I think I agree with you that going after the NYT is playing into their hands so we shouldn’t do it…. so forget what I just said.
Les,
In case A, the reporter may (or may not, depending on other facts) be committing a crime.
In case B, the reporter is definitely violating the law.
Regards,
Ric
Exactly. If they’re brough into the inside as part of an official program—say, they’re going to be sent on the first boat ashore in normandy—then they’re violating the confidence in which they were entrusted with the information. But if they received a leak? then no.
Ric
Thanks for clarifying.
You are probably right that going after the Media is a bad idea, so it’s a moot point anyway.
However, going after the Leakers, if there are any, is a different story, I think.
brooksfoe,
Sorry. It won’t wash.
You can bring up all the red herrings you like, but at the end of the day the story is this: The New York Times published, and touted as Highly Secret! Looky Here! Buy Our Paper! material, details about a program that was legal, was properly overseen, was returning useful data, and which they themselves had demanded only a few years ago. The bare existence of the program was essentially an open secret, so there were no gigantic revelations involved, but rehearsing the details in the article has had the net effect of essentially eliminating it, reducing our ability to “follow the money”. They then followed up, I believe coincidentally, with what looks very much like a mean-spirited attempt to expose Administration figures to danger unnecessarily. Their “apologies” are so clearly arrogant arrogation of power to themselves as to be embarrassing to all but the most fanatic, such as yourself. They look like a bunch of arrogant, irresponsible, elitist dweebs. Their supporters look much the same. More please.
As for your other talking points:
Jessica Lynch: One of the main drivers for morale and “unit cohesion” is bull sessions, pinochle games, and the like, at which stories are told. It was just such conversations about the Red Ball Express in WWII that led directly to the Truman Declaration and the Civil Rights Act. The military was trying, hard, to generate a story whose punchline was “girls can kick ass.” The NYT debunked the story conclusively. Hurrah for the Truth! But the debunking measurably delayed the acceptance of women in the military, which I would have thought you supported.
Abu Ghraib: The American criminals in the Abu Ghraib incident were investigated, charged, tried, convicted, and imprisoned, and several of their superiors disciplined or relieved. That process was well underway before the New York Times appeared to become aware of the story, and the Times‘s “contribution” was entirely sensationalism based on the photographs which had absolutely no effect on the investigation, charges, etc. of the criminals. Its only real effect was to change a useful object lesson (this is how a liberal society handles evildoers found in its midst; oh, and we regard as “evil” some things others find trivial) into an undeserved black eye for the military (which did everything right after the initial incident) and the Administration. Pure malicious destruction.
Valerie Plame: After literally years of an investigation led by a man known in advance to be hostile to the Bush Administration, there is no evidence of any trace of a likelihood that the conventional leftist narrative of the incident contains any truth whatever. Repeating lies makes you a liar.
Joseph Wilson: Somehow a man with no previous qualifications whatever was sent on an investigative mission without the knowledge of superiors who should have been informed. That man filed an initial report that said one thing, then published a newspaper article maintaining the precise opposite. One of those two accounts is a lie by definition. If pointing that out is “smearing” I call “smearing” a positive duty.
Detainees at Guantanamo: The Guantanamo prisoners were taken in battle or the aftermath thereof, under arms, not wearing identifying marks. By strict application of the Geneva Accords they could, and should, have been executed on the spot, and if they had been nobody, now, would ever have heard of or learned anything about them outside Afghanistan. George Bush elected to be “compassionate” and to take the time to find out which were real warriors and which were not. The decision was foolish. You will note that it hasn’t been repeated. Again, an attempt to be kind and honest has been turned into a liability by maliciousness and hysteria.
Dangerousness: Several prisoners released from Guantanamo have turned up either in Afghanistan or Iraq, carrying guns or bombs and killing people, mostly civilians. Dangerous? Not to you, perhaps, but if you’re so arrogantly bigoted that danger to other people is of no import to you your opinion isn’t anything I’m willing to take note of.
Terror alerts: Congratulations. Tails you win, heads I lose. If terror alerts serve to make local authorities more alert and stop attacks, the attacks don’t happen and you are free to bitch about the intrusiveness, right?
Terror cell bustup: Again, you have a very pretty position, and I salute your contrivance with a single upraised finger. If those guys had succeeded in blowing something up—and remember that McVeigh had less help and fewer resources—your complaint would be all that security is intrusive and useless, right? Heads you win, tails I lose. I’m not impressed by the game.
CIA Reform: Here we find our first points of agreement. Porter Goss didn’t shoot nearly enough people, the wimp.
Spin all you like, that turd won’t move. The New York Times has been sensationalist, titillation-seeking, obstructive, and malicious; in the process it has been as or more destructive to the causes it claims to treasure as it has to the welfare of the country as a whole, and has failed to bend the course of the Administration by as much as one circular mill. They finally went over the top. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
Regards,
Ric
No, they were turned over to the CIA by the Pakistani intelligence service, after having been rounded up in their homes on the basis of tips provided by people with whom they had a grudge.
I agree with not a single one of your other points, but have no time to post detailed rebuttals, so we will agree to live in different universes.
Oh, do find the time brooksfoe, especially to report from your alternate universe. And please detail the hundreds who were picked up in their homes by Pakistani intelligence, squaring that with Jeralyn telling us that they were captured by bounty hunters in Afghanistan. Please tell us how each and every one of them is innocent.
This should be good.
Some were captured in Afghanistan. Some were rounded up in their homes in Pakistan. Specifically, two of those at Guantanamo were the editors of a satirical newspaper in northern Pakistan which at one point in 1998 had made a joke about President Clinton. They were arrested by Pakistani police at home, and then turned over to US troops. There were at that point large cash rewards for handing over suspected terrorists and Taliban to the US, and the Pakistanis were either trying to make a buck, or there was a grudge involved – no one is entirely sure. Anyway, they spent a few years in US custody and then were released.
There is no particular reason to believe that the prisoners still in Gitmo committed worse acts than those who have been released. So far the pattern has been that those who had the most noise made about them by significant outside parties got out, regardless of whether the gov’t thought they were dangerous or not. The ones who are still there are just as likely to be the most hapless schmoes as to be the most dangerous of the lot. And the fact the gov’t is unwilling to try any of them in any plausibly fair fashion is a pretty good indication that they got nothin’ on ‘em. The Pakistanis sold them a bunch of guys, it took them a year or so to realize they’d been conned, and now they’re too embarrassed to admit it and let these guys go.
You inhabit a planet of derring-do and brave men fighting demons. I inhabit a crappy planet of incompetents with selfish motives. It’s called Earth. I recommend you stay on yours, as ours is considerably more depressing.
You are so right.
How much glee from the left would it have aroused if we had arrested 19 Arabs with box cutters on Sept. 10, 2001?
TW: called-> yup
One of these days you may develop the intellectual maturity to realize it is the same place, but I doubt it.
Actually, you’re right. What’s your point?
More importantly, why did you contradict Ric, and why did you throw the Paki strawman into the mix? You told Ric he was wrong. Are you holding to that, or are you admitting that he is at least as correct as you feel you are about the circumstances capture of Gitmo detainees?
The ones who are still there are just as likely to be the most hapless schmoes as to be the most dangerous of the lot.
Is that your point? It almost sounds reasonable, aside from the fact that we’d derive absolutely no benefit from detaining hapless schmoes. Certainly, some of them got scooped up. But why would we keep them if we know they’re innocent schlubs? Because we’re just so evil?
But we have let them go, and as per the link above we’ve got some things to be embarrased about there. Still, we’ve done it. So why would we be embarrassed about letting people go who are actually not a threat? That seems to be good PR.
My world has both, and a bunch of things in between like me and you.
I think we’ve found another of your problems. You have no hope. You see only the worst possible outcome. How sad for you.
Back to that 66% thing, do you think maybe the Times is regretting that whole “Leaks are bad” drumbeat they kept up over the whole Plamegate fizzle?
Irony is a bitch.
How did the rosenberg’s get the info? Were they on the inside, or just couriers?
Read some history. Then we’ll talk
Probably not. Part of the point is that the law treats different information differently. And that it makes sense. But some people want sweeping oversimplified generalizations with which to live their lives. For that I recommend cable news, not newspapers.
Its really not that hard for you say it. I know they’re guilty of treason and were on the side of the enemy, not the free press or our public. Wikipedia says Ethel typed the notes. But not where she got them.
I agree with not a single one of your other points, but have no time to post detailed rebuttals, so we will agree to live in different universes.
Posted by brooksfoe | permalink
on 07/03 at 02:42 AM
*********
Comment: Post not reproduced here. Comment word count: 288. None appear to engage Ric’s rebuttal.
Posted by brooksfoe | permalink
on 07/03 at 05:48 AM
*********
Things that make you go hmmmmmm….
Pot. Kettle. Cucumber.
Erp, wrong thread.
HAHA. The other problem with gannon is that he appears to be a victim of right wing affirmative action.
Reason #7056 for not using “soft” sources like Wikipedia rather than *real* sourced works like Richard Rhodes, “Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb”.
Free hint: David Greenglass -> Julius Rosenberg -> Ethel Rosenberg.
Damn, but you’ll make someone a miserable pro bono public service defender someday. If you pass the bar, that is…
actus, re 66% and Plamegate blowback:
Translation: As long as we can keep changing the rules to fit the needs of the moment, we’re good.
Shorter translation: Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Why? Because i don’t go run to the library when you tell me to look something up, when you know the answer and won’t give it? If it was a trial, there would be discovery. And no, I won’t make it as a public defender. Its a pretty competitive field—as you can imagine, funds are tight—and crimnal defense sounds like plain awful work. I have friends going into it, and I don’t know how they manage it.
The law on it is pretty consistent. There are different categories of information—as you might suspect, not every piece of datum is the same as another. And these categories are treated differently.
No. Because your mouth runs when you have nothing of value or correctness to say. If you don’t know something, then shut up.
BTW, I didn’t write the hobgoblin quote, so learn not to conflate postings either, retarded telephone pole.
I said they were convicted of treason, which is distinguishable from what the NYT did. And then I asked about other facts which may or may not distinguish them from the NYT.
Or ask someone who does know. God what an awful person you are.
Its not conflating them to respond to two different people in one post. Jesus. Chill.
And if you had even the slightest idea of what you were talking about, you’d know the Rosenbergs passed along information from Greenglass and were not the primary source.
In principle, just like the NYTimes.
Which you didn’t bother to wait on before you blathered forth.
It is if you don’t bother to indicate who wrote what.
And if you don’t like miserable treatment, consider not wasting so much of my time with your inane BS. Virtually every thread on this site is polluted with it, let alone the drivel you place on Patterico.
tw: Remember, you aren’t dealing with someone who hasn’t even graduated yet and gained any real life outside experience like yourself…
… says the vile little fuckwit who spends virtually all his free time trolling conservative message boards!
Fine then. Jessica Lynch.
The NYT debunked the story conclusively. Hurrah for the Truth! But the debunking measurably delayed the acceptance of women in the military,
It is not actually necessary to lie to convince people that women can do a good job.
Joseph Wilson: Somehow a man with no previous qualifications whatever
Except for having been ambassador to Iraq and a diplomat in Niger.
That man filed an initial report that said one thing, then published a newspaper article maintaining the precise opposite.
Hey, that’s interesting gibberish. It bears no relationship to anything Joseph Wilson ever said or wrote, and must represent a bizarre version of neocon reality which has been so twisted through the propaganda wringer that it no longer contains any truth. Joseph Wilson said the supposed Iraqi mission to buy Nigerois uranium which he had been sent to find out about could not have happened. And, lo and behold, it never happened. Let us start from the fact that there was no Iraqi bomb, move on to the fact that there was no Iraqi bomb program, move from there to the fact that the Iraqis could not get any uranium from Niger, then return to the point that the Iraqis never tried to get any uranium from Niger, from there to the fact that the only substantive evidence of such an effort turned out to be a forgery, and that will keep us safely tuned in to reality and away from the tempting sirens of Administration Spin Madness.
there is no evidence of any trace of a likelihood that the conventional leftist narrative of the incident contains any truth whatever.
Except for the part about how the Vice President’s office deliberately leaked Plame’s identity as part of an effort to smear her husband, a conspiracy for which Scooter Libby is under indictment. They apparently couldn’t get enough on Rove to nail him for perjury, though he has admitted leaking Plame’s identity, a fact he initially denied vociferously. The President said that if anyone in the White House had been involved in leaking classified information, that person would be fired. Rove has said to the Grand Jury and publicly that he leaked Plame’s name to reporters – at least two, I believe, though perhaps only one And yet the President has not fired him. That her identity was classified is not under dispute; the dispute only refers to whether the leak violated the act of Congress specifically prohibiting such leaks. So who’s the liar?
The Guantanamo prisoners were taken in battle or the aftermath thereof, under arms, not wearing identifying marks.
I have responded to this above. Few appear to have actually been captured “on the battlefield” in Afghanistan; some were officials accused of having Taliban sympathies by other Afghans (obviously problematic), others were handed over by the Pakistanis, and so on. The “captured on the battlefield” line is an Administration line which has been used since late 2003, when the people who were spreading it knew it was a lie. As for those remaining, CIA sources in various articles have said that the important intelligence assets are not at Guantanamo; they’re being held by CIA in undisclosed locations, and we mainly don’t even know about them. The people at Guantanamo are the ones the Navy couldn’t figure out what to do with, because they didn’t know who they were but were afraid to get caught having released someone who might turn out to be a terrorist. This kind of bureaucratic madness and paranoia can best be compared to a tiny gulag, and violates every principle the United States ought to stand for.
Several prisoners released from Guantanamo have turned up either in Afghanistan or Iraq, carrying guns or bombs and killing people, mostly civilians.
Sources, please.
If terror alerts serve to make local authorities more alert and stop attacks,
Absurd. There has not been a single instance of an operational attack foiled in the US since 2001. When the Israelis say they “foiled an attack”, they mean they caught a guy wearing a cordite belt. When DHS say we “foiled an attack”, it turns out they picked up some paranoid schizo who tried to find out Osama’s email address. Ashcroft’s terror alerts were a joke, which is why they’ve disappeared quietly.
If those guys had succeeded in blowing something upâ€â€and remember that McVeigh had less help and fewer resources
I’m glad they got arrested. What bugs me is having the freaking AG announce it like it was Armageddon. This was a minor freakshow and should be treated as such; giving it big billing makes it look like we’re clueless.
Porter Goss was the classic conservative chief of agency: someone who doesn’t believe in the agency’s mission, but uses it as an opportunity to get his friends cushy jobs. He Michael Browned the agency, and now it may have to be cannibalized entirely, like FEMA. If we give you guys 6 more years, there’ll be no US government left to campaign against.
“The law on it is pretty consistent. There are different categories of informationâ€â€as you might suspect, not every piece of datum is the same as another. And these categories are treated differently.”
Apples and oranges, deary. First off, if any law was broken in “outing” Plame, Fitzpatrick’s had a damned hard time identifying it. (OTOH, I would guess at least a few of the sources for SWIFTGate violates their oaths of secrecy). Second, we’re talking about the public’s opinion of what the NYT, LAT, and WSJ did. This is politics baby (and economics—keep driving those stock prices down, Pinch!), and you can pooh-pooh the hoi-polloi all you want, but it won’t make the eminently practical effects of pissing off the patriotic public go away.
Are you really a law student? Figures.