Not satisfied with publishing details of the U.S. Government's classified program of monitoring international financial transactions as part of its "war on terrorism," the New York Times has, today, once again boldly taken another step towards what I earlier described as moving from "Fourth Estate" to "Fifth Column."
In publishing details of current military plans for troop reductions and redeployments in Iraq, the paper admitted that the briefing from which the information was taken was a "classified briefing."
Why then, does the New York Times feel that it has the right to publish the details of that "classified briefing?" Doesn't "classified" mean, "keep it to yourselves, folks, we don't want the 'bad guys' to know about this"?
Well, it appears that the "bad guys" did find out about the briefing and they published it.
The Times states that General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.
I note that the paper did not use the phrase, "administration officials," but the oddly vague phrase, "American officials." I'm not sure what this imprecision means but it does raise questions about who these "American officials" might be.
Whoever they are, these folks had clearance to have either attended the classified briefing or to have received a detailed summary of it. Their security clearance presumes they will not go around telling major national newspapers classified information that they may come across while supposedly doing their jobs.
It is curious that the Times writer states that those who revealed this information to him were plural in number: "American officials." Personally, I don't believe this. If it is one source then it is a leak. If it is more than one, it is a conspiracy.
Maybe I'm naive, but if someone handed me a copy of "classified government information," I would head straight for the FBI and have the person arrested and charged with espionage, treason, or both.
Apparently the New York Times does not consider their publishing of this classified material to be in any way "aiding and abetting" the dissemination of information obtained illegally from criminal felons. I suppose that this just simply goes to prove the old adage that, "A man (or newspaper) is known for the company he (it) keeps."
From where I sit, I should hope that those responsible for publishing this information at the New York Times will have the opportunity to enjoy the company of their sources for many years inside a Federal penitentiary.
Article comments
1 - JP
Get a spine, and stop falling for the administration spin.
2 - Alix
Quite interesting that Valarie Plame who was not covert gets so much furor from the left, but when it comes to national security to catch terroists, the left is silent.
3 - gonzo marx
Alix sez...
*Quite interesting that Valarie Plame who was not covert gets so much furor from the left,*
either you are misinformed, or it has slipped your Attention that the CIA brought up the case originally, and the Agency classified Plame as "covert"
but we expect some to miss that Fact
as for this Article, when one Party has complete Rule, and checks and balances are circumvented by those in Power...all that is left for the Citizen is the Free Press
one woudl think ethe Concern woudl be more with those who leaked the Info...and why
as for the bank scan Progam itself, all appears legit...SWIFT required a warrant for the broad based data mining being done...which also makes the ENTIRE program part of the public Record...
just like when the WH stated clearly they were pursuing this avenue
so where's the "fire"?
if it is public due ot a warrant, and the admission of SWIFT itself...then how the fuck is any of the info reported "classified"?
Senator Spector doesn't seem to think so
Excelsior?
4 - mschannon
How quickly people forget the Pentagon Papers, where the right howled in indignation until it became clear what the Nixon administration had been up to.
If we could trust this administration, perhaps one could argue that the media should keep classified information from the public, but anyone who trusts this administration is taking some awfully good dope & not sharing.
Those unfamiliar with what goes on in editorial boards have no idea how much discussion there is about whether to print classified information. These are not decisions made lightly. Me, I'd trust the judgment of the Times editors long before anyone in the Bush administration.
In Jameson Veritas
5 - Dave Nalle
Might it not be time to threaten to indict the NYT editorial board unless they give up the sources that are leaking this stuff to them and either jail them for contempt or put away the leakers once and for all? Where's Patrick Fitzgerald when you need him?
Dave
6 - gonzo marx
oh, that woulod be Fun...just what you need in the Land of the Free...indict the editors form the "paper of record"
i understand that much of the WH agenda has been to intimidate and control the Press with their tactics..
that only works for so long...
we shall see come November, and i had never thought of you as someone who would advocate stifling Freedom of the Press....where ARE the real Conservatives and Libertarians?
Excelsior?
7 - troll
gonzo writes - *where ARE the real Conservatives and Libertarians?*
I've been reading Bing and Dave's stuff all morning asking myself the same question
as one who is sick of the status quo I'm all in favor of Dave's suggestion #5...it would bring clarity to the situation and take the US one step closer to the 'Jeffersonian Option' (which I'm beginning to believe is unavoidable)
troll
8 - Dave Nalle
Troll, I'm pretty damned Libertarian and all for the freedom of the press. I certainly don't want us to return to the subservient press of the Kennedy era. But at the same time, our government does have classified information which is protected for a reason, and if the NYT is cultivating sources who are leaking that info those sources need to be shut down, and if the Times protects them then they are accessories to a genuine crime and something needs to be done.
That said, there's every possibility that these things are being deliberately leaked by the administration, and that in and of itself is newsworthy.
Dave
9 - Dave Nalle
As for the 'Jeffersonian Option;, how are you using the term? It's normally used to mean total open government - which seems like an impractical idea.
Dave
10 - exfoliator
Why won't they trust the President? He will tell us what we need to know.
11 - gonzo marx
#8 sez...
*That said, there's every possibility that these things are being deliberately leaked by the administration, and that in and of itself is newsworthy.*
Quoted for Truth
Excelsior?
12 - Nancy
Comment #10 - ROTFLOL, is that for straight?!
13 - troll
Dave - basic to the Option is decentralization by force if necessary
as a libertarian I would expect you to spend less time shooting ducks in the pond (lefties) and more time with your sights on real problems for individuals like the present administrations intrusions where it doesn't belong and the right's ongoing efforts to grow big regulatory government
face it - you're a realist and a rationalist for whom existing power relations are basic even when they are used to trump the idealistic Golden Rule of liberty
but what the hell - I enjoy your ideas and writing except when you get into bot-like bashing of lefty Bush haters as you have been doing all morning
troll
14 - JP
This is sad, people. I can POSSIBLY find room to agree with going after the leakers themselves, but it is beyond tolerable to allow our free and independent media to be harmed.
Of course, with reasonable suspicion I question whether half of what Bush Inc. classifies is really a matter of "national security," or if it's simply things that would alarm the public--and therefore lessen their poll numbers, and in that way "harm" national security. What a sham.
15 - anonymous
"Maybe I'm naive, but if someone handed me a copy of 'classified government information,' I would head straight for the FBI and have the person arrested and charged with espionage, treason or both."
Somehow I doubt you apply this principle consistently.
16 - Bliffle
"That said, there's every possibility that these things are being deliberately leaked by the administration, and that in and of itself is newsworthy.
"
Most likely. This admin has shown great skill at manipulating the press, while promoting the idea that the very press they dominate is somehow against them. Very clever.