Confidential means nothing to the NY Times

[sculleywr]

Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, has been the center of much debate lately. He somehow got wind of a secret government program that tracks international banking transactions that has led to the freezing of bank accounts used by terrorists. The paper also released the information that international telephone calls. Now, I pose these hypothetical situation:

You are working in an office building when a terrorist, driving a car bought in America with money that was mailed to him, using a car bomb that is compiled with chemicals that are inert alone, but highly explosive when mixed, and given instructions by an encrypted email. All of these to avoid being caught by the NSA. This driver rams his car into the ground floor of your office building, causing an explosion that catches fire immediately to the majority of the first floor and spontaneously throughout the second floor. you are on the fifth floor, and are unable to get out before it collapses. The reason they weren't caught is because of the information provided in the NY Times

situation 2: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld invite the majority of the white house to come to their vacation house. The houses are bombed, resulting in the deaths of the president and all in line to succeed him. The perpetrator used pictures published in the NY Times that showed the locations of the security cameras and the location of the house itself to avoid being caught. Now the nation is in complete disarray.

In these two situations, would the New York Times be criminally responsible for aiding and abetting the deaths of these people?

YES.

The New York Times does not know the meaning of confidential. They do not know how to submit to the wants of the entire White House cabinet, including leftists like John Murtha. They will go to no ends to get there story. They think a good story is more important than the lives of countless Americans. The New York Times, the paper that terrorists prefer.

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, has been the center of much debate lately. He somehow got wind of a secret government program that tracks international banking transactions that has led to the freezing of bank accounts used by terrorists. The paper also released the information that international telephone calls. Now, I pose these hypothetical situation:

You are working in an office building when a terrorist, driving a car bought in America with money that was mailed to him, using a car bomb that is compiled with chemicals that are inert alone, but highly explosive when mixed, and given instructions by an encrypted email. All of these to avoid being caught by the NSA. This driver rams his car into the ground floor of your office building, causing an explosion that catches fire immediately to the majority of the first floor and spontaneously throughout the second floor. you are on the fifth floor, and are unable to get out before it collapses. The reason they weren't caught is because of the information provided in the NY Times

situation 2: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld invite the majority of the white house to come to their vacation house. The houses are bombed, resulting in the deaths of the president and all in line to succeed him. The perpetrator used pictures published in the NY Times that showed the locations of the security cameras and the location of the house itself to avoid being caught. Now the nation is in complete disarray.

In these two situations, would the New York Times be criminally responsible for aiding and abetting the deaths of these people?

YES.

The New York Times does not know the meaning of confidential. They do not know how to submit to the wants of the entire White House cabinet, including leftists like John Murtha. They will go to no ends to get there story. They think a good story is more important than the lives of countless Americans. The New York Times, the paper that terrorists prefer.

Link to source?

 

[sculleywr]

Link to source?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Intelligence-Leaks.html

I can't find the original article, maybe because the government could have censored it, but this is Bill Keller defending his decision to publish them anyways.
Sean Hannedy, Paul White, and the person filling in for Neal Bortz have been ranting all day about it. I think that the nation should at least have unity in this case.

 

[Dennis S.]

You leapt from a newspaper that publishes possible abuses of government authority into meaning the terrorists will win? You're grasping for a justification to keep a Republican agenda. No.

National security is one thing that cannot override the citizen's rights. The minute that the government is in control, there's no way to take back that control and prevent people from abusing it. Transparency into the government prevents abuse. Hiding things ENCOURAGES abuse.

So, here's your choices, realistically:

You are working in an office building when a terrorist, driving a car bought in America with money that was mailed to him, using a car bomb that is compiled with chemicals that are inert alone, but highly explosive when mixed, and given instructions by an encrypted email. All of these to avoid being caught by the NSA. This driver rams his car into the ground floor of your office building, causing an explosion that catches fire immediately to the majority of the first floor and spontaneously throughout the second floor. you are on the fifth floor, and are unable to get out before it collapses. The reason they weren't caught is because of the information provided in the NY Times

1) The NY Times publishes an article about the terrible security of some public place. The public place, fearing an actual terrorist attack, takes steps to remedy the problem, where they would never have done so if they swept everything under the rug and waited until that fateful day.

2) You read the article that the terrorists read. You know you're at risk, and take steps to increase your protection, instead of waiting for that fateful day where you died because you were kept in the dark.

3) The CIA/FBI/DEA/Delta Force see the article and chase down leads and leaks that are related to that article. They note that a possible terrorist is using money in suspicious ways. They investigate. They find probable cause and take down the terrorist red handed. Yay!

situation 2: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld invite the majority of the white house to come to their vacation house. The houses are bombed, resulting in the deaths of the president and all in line to succeed him. The perpetrator used pictures published in the NY Times that showed the locations of the security cameras and the location of the house itself to avoid being caught. Now the nation is in complete disarray.

This is absolutely absurd and isn't worth addressing. This is the reason we have security firms and secret service and anti-terrorist experts. There's also a reason why "the majority of the white house" wouldn't be in someplace unecured by the aforemented security firms.

Nice strawmen. Now go hunt down some real problems, like making Christianity the required religion in the U.S.

 

[pek1]

As a journalist, it is not the job of a newspaper to reveal confidential sources, nor is it the job of a journalist. Are we living in a police state?

 

[Heath]

No, and in these times we are living in wartime America. It would be wise for the journalists to do some responsible, wise and honorable reporting but if the Pentagon says this is top secret. It should mean what it means. Top secret. During WW 2 people understood this concept and respected the decision. This is largely what helped America win WW 2. The liberals tried to rip apart that social farbic between the soldiers and the journalists in order to steal top secret information and now look the Vietnamese terrorists could read what was going on and plan accordingly in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City much like what is happening today. I cringe at some of the things that the news media publish things that should be confidential but at the same time it is interesting to learn about the new F-22 fighter jet that America just rolled out but we really could have said nothing and went in with total stealth and the F-22 would have been able to fly undetected on the radar but now we have Iraqi and Afghanstiani also arabic terrorists flying and patrolling the skies in their war planes searching for visual signs of our American warplanes in the skies and putting our American pilots at un-due risk. That is one thing I wish the media and newspapers would of not have published but you have to remember the liberal establishment effectively hijacked the news media way back in the 1960's so if America is to clean up its act then it starts right there at the media outlets and the newspaper presses and internet stations, radio stations things like that. A total blackout so that we can protect our fighting boys overseas and win get the job done and remove, arrest those who are liberal and have aided and abetted the enemy overseas by publishing what our fighting boys overseas are up to.

 

[Endymion]

Question.

Where do you draw the line between revealing confidential state secrets and revealing confidential state fraud?

 

[Heath]

Question.

Where do you draw the line between revealing confidential state secrets and revealing confidential state fraud?

Easier said than done. I believe there should be a unit dedicated for that purpose to keep our government honest but still fighting the war on terror.

 

[Endymion]

Easier said than done. I believe there should be a unit dedicated for that purpose to keep our government honest but still fighting the war on terror.

I meant that for the guy who started this thread.

That's an interesting response, though. What kind of unit would this be? Would the unit be employed by the government or by the media or by private watchdog organizations?

 

[Cousin Vinny]

That's an interesting response, though. What kind of unit would this be? Would the unit be employed by the government or by the media or by private watchdog organizations?

For more information than you ever asked for, here's the Google take:

Offices of Inspector Generals

Interesting, no?

 

[Heath]

I meant that for the guy who started this thread.

That's an interesting response, though. What kind of unit would this be? Would the unit be employed by the government or by the media or by private watchdog organizations?

It would have to be something that is worked out behind the scenes but keeping our government honest which is really a very dangerous business with a very short life span because these guys are dealing with highly trained and extremely violent individuals that in the right hands could be good for the USA but in the wrong hands, it would be bad for the USA while maintaining a total blackout on the news media tv radio newspapers internet and really respecting what it says, Top secret is top secret. Like I said that is what largely helped the USA win WW 2 but also there were another set of values that were set in motion. Good Old Fashioned Moral Values which is something we truly lack in today's generation and our world but not in our grandparent's generation during World War II.

 

[Maria]

As a journalist, it is not the job of a newspaper to reveal confidential sources, nor is it the job of a journalist. Are we living in a police state?

You bet. Not to mention 3 " big " words and it's New World Order. Or shall I say " New Brave World ". But, it's still there among us.

 

[Maria]

I despised " media ", because it could humiliate people or downright them by spillin' the beans or openin' the can of worms. Media is full of can of worms. I don't trust media if, not at all. Everyone will get to know you and they will start gossipin' about you. Media is a bad influence and cover up on many things we don't know what the " truth " is out there.

Media is creatin' one word " F E A R "..............

 

[sculleywr]

You leapt from a newspaper that publishes possible abuses of government authority into meaning the terrorists will win? You're grasping for a justification to keep a Republican agenda. No.

National security is one thing that cannot override the citizen's rights. The minute that the government is in control, there's no way to take back that control and prevent people from abusing it. Transparency into the government prevents abuse. Hiding things ENCOURAGES abuse.

So, here's your choices, realistically:



1) The NY Times publishes an article about the terrible security of some public place. The public place, fearing an actual terrorist attack, takes steps to remedy the problem, where they would never have done so if they swept everything under the rug and waited until that fateful day.

2) You read the article that the terrorists read. You know you're at risk, and take steps to increase your protection, instead of waiting for that fateful day where you died because you were kept in the dark.

3) The CIA/FBI/DEA/Delta Force see the article and chase down leads and leaks that are related to that article. They note that a possible terrorist is using money in suspicious ways. They investigate. They find probable cause and take down the terrorist red handed. Yay!



This is absolutely absurd and isn't worth addressing. This is the reason we have security firms and secret service and anti-terrorist experts. There's also a reason why "the majority of the white house" wouldn't be in someplace unecured by the aforemented security firms.

Nice strawmen. Now go hunt down some real problems, like making Christianity the required religion in the U.S.

The NY Times published information that was crucial to the protection of our country. Would it be any different if they had done the same with the names of undercover agents that were currently planted in terrorist safehouses? In this case, all they would need to do is transfer money to a bank in Mexico, and then come through the rather porous borders with the money and buy what they needed in cash. This is NOT some red/blue, Conservative/Liberal, or Republican/Democrat issue. The NY Times compromised the "security firms and secret service and anti-terrorist experts" by revealing their program to catch the terrorists and freeze the bank accounts they used to get money to their agents in the US. Keller defends by saying that "this is the most secretive administration since Nixon." Well, we are at WAR. We don't need to be revealing our secrets to the enemy.
You can't read that article and know how the terrorists are going to attack next, because they are going to change their strategy, thanks to the tip-off they received from the NY Times. The CIA won't catch any terrorists by using the program because there are obvious ways to get around it. The main weapon of the program was its secrecy. Without it, it would be like trying to snipe from the woods without being seen, all while wearing neon green and purple clothes. Hiding things is the best way to catch the enemy off-guard. If you ever step onto a battlefield, or even a paintball field, you would understand that. This was one case where we preferred the enemy be deaf. It is a lot easier to sneak up on someone who can't hear you.

(Forgive the illustration, but it is truthful here)

edit: your step one is not even relevant to the topic. This article revealed the security methods of the ENTIRE COUNTRY
.

 

[ismi]

International banking is not useful to terrorists - it's too easy to trace nowadays (meaning, post-9/11, now that it's being watched more closely). Instead, a system called hawala is used; that system is very hard to track. So why then is our government focusing so hard on non-hawala methods of money transfer? There's a good chance it's not just about the terrorists.

 

[Dennis S.]

Nothing is secret forever. The more you rely on secrecy as the way to fight terrorism, the quicker we're going to lose. They're the ones who are actively seeking information themselves whether or not it's published in the NY Times.

All the "inspector general" stuff does is concentrate the power of oversight to a few people who can and will become corrupt. They can also be prevented from getting the information they need because they are only few in number and not ever present or kept informed.

The government needs to fear its people. Today, it does not. That needs to change, and I'll be happy to go into politics to change it.

 

[sculleywr]

International banking is not useful to terrorists - it's too easy to trace nowadays (meaning, post-9/11, now that it's being watched more closely). Instead, a system called hawala is used; that system is very hard to track. So why then is our government focusing so hard on non-hawala methods of money transfer? There's a good chance it's not just about the terrorists.

They were focusing on ALL international finance transfers of any kind into the US. Now that the terrorists know that big brother is watching, they will no longer transfer to the US. They can easily avoid detection by transferring to an agent in Mexico and that agent take the cash money across the border. To quote Bill Clinton, "Our porous borders are a blessing to our economy."


:takes a minute to let that last one soak in:

NOT!

 

[sculleywr]

Nothing is secret forever. The more you rely on secrecy as the way to fight terrorism, the quicker we're going to lose. They're the ones who are actively seeking information themselves whether or not it's published in the NY Times.

All the "inspector general" stuff does is concentrate the power of oversight to a few people who can and will become corrupt. They can also be prevented from getting the information they need because they are only few in number and not ever present or kept informed.

The government needs to fear its people. Today, it does not. That needs to change, and I'll be happy to go into politics to change it.

But the terrorists need to be afraid of us catching them, what with them not knowing how they are going to be caught. If they know how we are catching them, they can avoid being caught. The government needs to PROTECT its people. When someone hampers their ability to protect its people by leaking out secret information, they might as well be committing treason. The actions of the NY Times are deplorable. What if that information had been the trick to creating nuclear weapons? If it were that blatant, nobody would have a problem with us shutting them down. But we allow them to blow holes in our defenses by showing the methods used to catch them? This is NOT a political issue. This is a PROTECTION issue. What's next? A list of the aliases used by undercover CIA agents and their real names?

 

[sculleywr]

I despised " media ", because it could humiliate people or downright them by spillin' the beans or openin' the can of worms. Media is full of can of worms. I don't trust media if, not at all. Everyone will get to know you and they will start gossipin' about you. Media is a bad influence and cover up on many things we don't know what the " truth " is out there.

Media is creatin' one word " F E A R "..............

The only news channel I can stand to listen to is Fox News. I watch CNN only because I have to so I can stay on top of my game.

 

[Rose Immortal]

I don't think that the New York Times needed to publish all of the stuff that they did. I think that they really should've used some discretion in thinking through the ramifications of releasing information about sources and methods. All that does is close down avenues we can use to track the terrorists.

Even in my private life I don't tell everybody every secret I come across, if I think it's going to do nothing but harm. If something then DOES happen after I leak something, then the damage is my fault.

If they were concerned about abuses by the executive branch, the Guantanamo Bay issue was very public and they could've hammered away at that one--that would've been quite sufficient for triggering investigations on other things...investigations that did not have to be released to the public.