the WSJ published after it became apparent the NYT was going to break the story. the times story was posted on it's websire the night before.
So the NYT, held the ball in the court and was responsible for starting the mess...figures... Newspapers can't "decide" what should be classified or not, especially when asked not to...Reasoning makes no sense unless the bias is clear...It should be handled in oversight.
1st amendment...and classified information pertinent to national security are two different birds in different hands...That is the way it should be...
the only people who should be held responsible for classified info getting out are the people who leaked it. which brings us to another point, obviously there were some people who are in the fight on terror who felt the public had a right to this info.
Is there any evidence to show that terrorists weren't aware of the monitoring? I don't know whether they were or weren't, but when the Whitehouse publically declared before that they were going to monitor and shut down the financing of the terrorists, this was the kind of thing I had in mind.
Perhaps classified information pertinent to national security shouldn't be discussed with reporters........
hopefully, this will result in a serious assessment of the damage done to national security by the times' premeptive strike against the bush admin. http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/06/pjm_exclusive_letter_from_sena.php June 27, 2006 The Honorable John D. Negroponte Director of National Intelligence Washington, D.C. 20511 Dear Mr. Director: Unauthorized disclosures of classified information continue to threaten our national security – exposing our sensitive intelligence sources and methods to our enemies. Numerous, recent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence programs have directly threatened important efforts in the war against terrorism. Whether the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program or the Department of Treasury’s effort to track terrorist financing, we have been unable to persuade the media to act responsibly and protect the means by which we protect this nation. To gain a better understanding of the damage caused by unauthorized disclosures of this type, I ask that you perform an assessment of the damage caused by the unauthorized disclosure of some of our most sensitive intelligence programs. While your assessment may range beyond the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program and Treasury’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, I am particularly interested in the damage attributable to these two unauthorized disclosures. Sincerely, Pat Roberts Chairman
Try blaming the person in the Bush Administration who leaked the information in the first place. Thanks for playing.
hopefully the damage was none or at least very minimal. It certainly wasn't as great as the damage done when the whitehouse blew the cover of the informant who was a memeber of Al Qaeda and still in e-mail contact with terrorists all over the world that he was in the process of getting in touch with, under the watchful eye of our intel group. If there is punishment to be handed out let it be done according to how detrimental it was.
Send the leaker to Gitmo, shut down the Times and confiscate all of their assets to use in the War on Terror. Kill three birds with one stone.
OK, so via Romenesko we now know that White House press secretary Tony Snow has now told Editor and Publisher that the New York Times won't have its press credentials taken away, as National Review has demanded. Nor do many commentators appear to think Alberto Gonzalez is likely to "prosecute" the Times, because it could be politically difficult at best for the White House. So this is kind of strange, then. Both Snow and Dick Cheney have explicitly said that the Times has put the nation's security at risk -- and presumably they think the paper continues to do so, since it won't back off its right to publish such stories. Yet by all indications the administration is unlikely to take any real action against the paper, mainly because it could be politically disastrous for Bush. That leaves only two possibilities. Either: 1) Officials won't act aggressively against an institution they're claiming puts American lives at risk, because it's politically untenable. That would mean the administration is putting politics ahead of aggressively prosecuting behavior it says endangers American lives. Or: 2) The administration doesn't genuinely believe The Times has put our national security at risk at all, and hence won't act. If this is the case, both Snow and Cheney blatantly and repeatedly lied. So there you have it. Either the administration is putting politics ahead of national security and won't act aggressively against an institution it says is endangering American lives -- because it would be bad for Bush. Or the administration's claim that The Times endangered national security is just the latest in a long string of lies it has told to the American people. Which is it? My money is squarely on number two. This isn't about protecting American lives at all. If the White House really thought publication of this story could put lives at risk, don't you think President Bush would have made a personal appeal to Bill Keller not to publish, as he did before the paper broke the NSA wiretapping story a few months ago? That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. No, this assault is about scapegoating, pure and simple. Desperate to deflect attention from its disastrous international performance, unable to convince Americans that things are improving in Iraq no matter how hard it spins, the administration now is embarrassingly trying to shift the blame on to something the GOP base regards as the most prominent symbol of liberal elitism in the land. This is a cheap stunt. The administration doesn't think the paper's endangering national security, and it's not going to genuinely go after the paper, either. This is just bluster for the boneheads -- end of story. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-sargent/white-house-assault-on-bi_b_23908.html
The *PEOPLE* should never know what the government is doing ESP in their own country - The New America If you find that you government is violating EVERY law to protect you . . ..are you kewl with that? Rocket River
If the government decides to prosecute, wouldn't the trial be forced to look even more into the investigation methods of the intel agencies?
basso, it works for you? With all due respect, that's sickening. Not that you give a damn , but here's today's Austin American-Statesman editorial about yet another McCarthy tactic by your favorite extremists, the Bush Administration: Keeping public in dark is what's 'disgraceful' EDITORIAL BOARD Wednesday, June 28, 2006 It is highly unlikely that reports about the Bush administration's secret monitoring of international banking transactions were news to the world's terror organizations. On the contrary, it has long been known that government officials target the transfer of money to locate, and in some cases prosecute, terror groups. Publication by several news organizations of the secret monitoring project involving a clearinghouse for international money transfers could not have been terribly damaging to U.S. efforts to fight terrorists. But the Bush administration, awash in bad news, is attacking The New York Times for writing about the program, accusing it of "disgraceful reporting," undermining the war on terrorism and endangering Americans. That's absurd, but the administration hopes to make political points by attacking the Times as a liberal bastion that doesn't care about the safety of the United States. Attacking the Times — but pointedly not The Wall Street Journal, which also reported on the secret program — plays well in conservative political circles. This administration, one of the most secretive and grasping in history, reacts in fury when its questionable tactics are exposed. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal would not write about the banking surveillance program if they thought exposing it would place Americans in harm's way. It is certain that the articles did not set back the war on terror. Reports that the administration is watching international transfers of money would not be news to al Qaeda or other terrorist networks. The genesis of the news stories is telling, as well. Officials high enough in the administration to know about the project obviously are concerned that the White House is abusing its power and may be violating privacy by monitoring international financial transactions. That is why the information was leaked to three of the most respected newspapers in the country. That was the same impetus behind The New York Times' exposé last year that revealed the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance of American citizens. That article won the Pulitzer Prize, the nation's top award for journalistic excellence, and the White House is still chapped about that rebuke to its furtive ways. Many people — not just liberals or civil libertarians — are deeply concerned about the degree to which this administration operates in the dark. A lot of people who know about the program are worried enough to go public with their doubts. The Treasury Department obtained the transaction data through a rarely used administrative subpoena, which is not reviewed by a judge or grand jury. The information is then shared with intelligence agencies that look for terror connections. Administration officials asked The New York Times to not publish the article about the program, and the Times complied for a while. But the Times, the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal felt there is enough concern about the program to tell the American people about it. That is what good newspapers do. They inform. That's why most U.S. newspapers, including the American-Statesman, ran The New York Times' report. Should the people who elected the president and pay for this government not know that it is spying on citizens and monitoring millions of financial transactions? The newspapers thought Americans ought to know the lengths to which this administration is going in its secret war. We think so, too. It's your government, after all. http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/06/28times_edit.html I have a lot more I could say, but it's draft day (far out! I'm really excited, aren't you? ), so because of that, I'll control myself. Besides, I doubt that you care about my opinion any longer. I'll just add this: The Fourth Estate, with it's vital role in our democracy, so vital that it is enshrined in that sacred document, the Constitution, is so under assault by the current government that it'll soon be road kill. How does it feel to be behind the wheel of one of Bush's trucks? Do you even feel the thump as you spread the carcus of the document our ancesters paid for with their blood, and continue to sacrifice for? Does it give you pause? Silly question to be asking you, I'm sure. Keep D&D Civil.
And they would lose in any court except one that starts with K and ends with roo. And they would be utterly embarrased if they did try to go to court. Think "Discovery." Furthermore, the NYTimes reporters have said if the administration does come after them, they will discuss all the leaks provided by WH officials. Checkmate. It appears that dozens of people (leakers?) provided info to the reporters working this story. The people who provided info are either traitors in league with the terrorists or they feel that the public has a right to know about this program and some might even believe it's legally questionable. I wonder which it could be? Those of you advocating Gitmo for the leakers are effectively saying, "I have in my hand a list of 205 cases of individuals who appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Terrorists." It's disgusting and UnAmerican. This is all rhetoric used to fire the base up for the mid-terms. Look for more of this depressing stuff in the coming months as the nation falls further in the crapper while we debate flags and gays and go off on tangents like this as if they were the most important issues facing the country.
