NY Times Exposed

[megiloth.livejournal.com]

Just when you thought the New York Times has only recently let out vital secrets...here are a couple lesser known and forgotten examples...

Comments

[megiloth.livejournal.com]

I suppose it all depends on what group you consider vulnerable. If it the American people, what plight are they facing if we keep tabs on terrorist funds and communications. If it is the terrorists, then what do you care aboot their plight?

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

And if you're not a terrorist, why should you care if the government keeps tabs on every single thing you do, eh? Only a guilty person could object to being wiretapped and databased, and if they complain, that proves it.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

WIN

[megiloth.livejournal.com]

And if you're not a terrorist, why should you care if the government keeps tabs on every single thing you do, eh?

Perhaps if I'm making phone calls to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern shitholes, I would expect that would take place. Just like when I was in the military using military phone lines, I could expect to be monitored.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

And you seriously believe that the vast number of people they were tapping were doing anything like that? They were just using it as an excuse to keep tabs on anybody they didn't like -- that's why they couldn't be bothered to file for warrants, even in the generous after-the-fact time allotted by the law they were ignoring.

[megiloth.livejournal.com]

Okay, you got me. In all the red states, there are really underground caverns of secret smokey rooms fill with old white men with 1950's headphones listening to our conversations. Transcribing our every word so they provide it to Cheney and Gonzales. ssshhhh, don't tell anyone.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

Whatever you say. When the sarcasm gets this heavy, it's clear you're out of everything else.

[megiloth.livejournal.com]

No. It's just that I don't see a boogey man around every corner of ANY administration...unless I use my super X-Ray specs provided by the freemasons. @.@

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

Look out, there's a terrorist behind you and he'll get you unless you allow the government to perform a lot of unnecessary surveillance of every aspect of your life.

That was close.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Ah, he jokes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84)...

[theurv.livejournal.com]

I object because while in theory our government is for the people, there are individuals working in the government who can misuse information.

I do not drink, do drugs, engage in morally questionable acts or own any illeagal items/substances - yet I would not want my parents or friends rooting through my stuff or shadowing me.

I am not a terrorist- and I don't want the government to treat me as if I was one either. I want to be respected as a citizen who respects government's role and laws, pays taxes and understands the rules of society. As a citizen who does so, being treated as if I were at war with myself and society insults both my personal feelings and my society which theoretically respects the rights of individuals.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

Exactly. This administration keeps treating everybody as criminals in the absence of any reason to do so. They make me ashamed of my country.

[temujin9.livejournal.com]

What exactly does this have to do with a civilian news organization publishing sensitive information it receives?

If the Times could find it out, so could a determined group of terrorists; this is not the Times' fault. How does keeping the Times from telling the people protect anybody except the terrorists (and those responsible for the vulnerability)?

[megiloth.livejournal.com]

What exactly does this have to do with a civilian news organization publishing sensitive information it receives?

Since the information is kinda supposed to NOT be known to the international community, it would be nice for the media to not report sensitive information.

The left had a fucking cow when Valerie Plame was "outed" and how that is was treasonous, compromised national security, and so forth. But when the NY Times reports about secret programs to track down terrorist activity, it's a "right to know" issue? When the Washington Post publishes about secret prisons, it's a "right to know" issue. Gotta love the double standard.

[theurv.livejournal.com]

The difference in the role of the individual. As a worker in the CIA the government had made clear to Plame she was to maintain a secret and her identity was kept from the public as part of her job. Which she did. It was people within the government who had no right according to their own rules to share that information who did in fact do so. If they had gone through the procedure of declassifying the information first then it was released they'd be complying with the rules and there would be no issue. But to reveal classified information for political reasons is both irresponsible and illegal.

Virus when a journalist does their job of learning and reporting information- they are fulfilling their job's duties. If they have found information that the government has classified through means other than the government, they are not releasing the classified materials even if the information is the same. Their activities are not illegal even if they are counter to the interest of the government at times.

And as for the secret programs themselves- the main issue is that the president has created programs without the constitutional authority to do so, by claiming war powers to take actions within our country against our own citizens and people we're not a war with. Legally there is are lines which have been bent and rights that have been ignored and principles we claim to stand for that are being marginalized. Such programs change what it means to be American with the reinterpretation of laws and rights; and thus citizens have a right to know and make judgments on it.

[temujin9.livejournal.com]

The double standard is called "security clearance". Valerie Plume was outed by somebody with it. The reporters at the New York Times and the Washington Post lack it.

None of which addresses my central point: if reporters could find out, so could terrorists. Blaming those who noticed the problem, instead of those who caused it, is massive foolishness.