The NY Times has exposed classified information on three separate occasions and must be prosecuted to prevent further violations.
The New York Times has once again escalated its Journalistic Jihad against the American people, proving beyond all doubt that the Times' personal interests violently clash with America's public interest.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - JustOneMan
THOMAS...
1. I never ever stated that I hate liberals and
2. You are trying to connect Wellstones death to Bush?????
I thought you were someone who was interested in debating the issues based upon facts - of course with emotion...with that statement...about Bush you show yourself to be a pathetic human being at best....
77 - Kold
"Be the change you wanna see in the world" -Gandhi
78 - Dave Nalle
dave--are you admitting to being a conservative?!
HOLY FUCK. (to the admitting, not the actual admission.)
I've admitted it before. I'm a conservative AND a liberal. The two are not opposites, contrary to what so many seem to think. Liberalism IS a conservative movement in its pure form. It seeks to go back to the simplest, most basic forms of government derived from a very conservative application of natural law.
Dave
79 - Alix
Newspapers need to be held accountable for their actions. USA Today has now said that their story regarding the NSA program for Bellsouth and Verizon can no longer be verified. This did not appear on the front page like it did when it first came out. This is why we can not have newspapers think they are the 4th branch of government. Finance tracking is legal, surpported by both sides of the asile, told to memebers of Congress and the Senate. This story was done out of aggression to the Bush administration.
80 - zingzing
dave: "I've admitted it before. I'm a conservative AND a liberal." and all the rest.
oh shut up. you know what you say doesn't mean anything like you say it means. you go back to the 1700's and be a liberal then. have fun.
it's a moot point. but if you want to use 18th century definitions, that means it's actually worth discussing. but it's not.
81 - Dave Nalle
Things are what they are. That people have chosen to misuse a philosophical/political term like 'liberal' doesn't actually change the definition of the word. You may want to appropriate it for yourself and pervert it to make your socialism seem less reprehensible than it is, but that only works to fool the ignorant. By the same measure the fact that Rush Limbaugh chooses to use it as a perjorative doesn't make him right either. That's just as much a perversion of the term. The definition of the word in the dictionary still says the same thing it did (in essence) 100 or 200 years ago and that's what the word means to those who prefer accuracy over trendiness or subservience to a political agenda of distortion.
Dave
82 - to ms. b5, from your editor
socialism isnt necessarily evil. you can pervert it all you like, but it has good points. you can't deny that the actual idea has its metaphorical heart in the right place. and we can learn something from it. as for your argument, let's look at the definition (from american heritage dictionary):
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
hrm. you kind of straddle the line on this one. sometimes you fall right into its traps... you aren't a bigot, but you do hold on to some suspect tradtional values which could be easily construed as dogma.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
again, you straddle the line. it depends on the issue. you aren't as open as you would like to think you are.
maybe you are both (conservative and liberal) at once, but not for the reasons you state. it's more like you don't really know what you are, and though you lean right, when the mood hits you, or you realize what a douche the right can be, you favor a little to the left. whatever.
83 - zingzing
shit that was me. i was fuckin with someone somewhere on the b5 post... got a bit carried away.
84 - JP
Alix, you're missing the point. If anyone should be attacked, it's the people who leaked the info to the Times. The Times did its job--it is the "independent" media, as a watchdog, that protects the citizens. No "4th branch" does that make.
85 - Dave Nalle
I have no idea what the name applied to #82 means, but...
maybe you are both (conservative and liberal) at once, but not for the reasons you state. it's more like you don't really know what you are, and though you lean right, when the mood hits you, or you realize what a douche the right can be, you favor a little to the left. whatever.
Thjis shows a fundamental lack of understanding both of the nature of liberalism and of my positions on various issues. I'm nothing if not consistent. When an issue of rights is raised I'm always ont he side of the most freedom for the most people. When it's a pragmatic issue I'm always on the side of the simplest, least bureaucratic solution. I guess you could describe my position as Libertarian/Utilitarian, which is conservative in a very traditional sense, because I don't believe in change for change's sake, but only to serve the goal of restoring the most natural, limited government possible.
Dave
86 - Dave Nalle
As to this entire issue of the NYT leak, I think it's a symptom of the times we live in. Even a decade ago the administration could have leaked a story like this, made a big and completely meaningless fuss about it and no one would have paid any attention. The formal requirements would have been met.
But in our current era opportunistic legislators leap on it to try to make something more substantial out of it and advance their careers, bloggers start calling for blood, and the entire thing gets blown out of proportion, while the people in the white house and at the Times who come from a slightly earlier era just look around at all the chaos going 'what the fuck'.
Dave
87 - gonzo marx
and that many things raise such a fuss...that more people are AWare fo the bullshit doen in our Names by those we Elect, that more dirt flies out from under the carpet due to the digging of regular folks and is spread via the democratic "press" of the Net...
is ALL a good Thing
there are those who may not like it, but imo, transparency in ALL dealings is good...if it truly requires being "secret" then mechanisms are in place to keep it such and any violations of that shoudl be Prosecuted...
you know, like outing the identity of covert Operatives as per the CIA and such
but i digress
Excelsior?
88 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, in past eras it was generally assumed that the executive branch determined what was and was not classified information, and if it chose to do a back-door leak of classified information then that was accepted with a smile and a wink. The news media would take the information and run with it and no one woudl think twice about the process by which they got it.
This whole idea that the executive can't reveal what it classified in the first place is part of the bizarre new mindset which has spread from the internet to the real world, promoted by a simplistic viewpoint which sees everything in absolute shades of pure black and white.
The idea that someone should prosecute a government official who leaked information the administration wanted leaked is bizarre doublethink.
Dave
89 - gonzo marx
well i must disagree...if the information is declassified, then it shoudl clearly be marked as such, and then removed from the INdex for said classification and disseminated to those involved
THAT is the fucking Law on how these thigns work, as anyone who has worked with Classified information or documents very well knows under federal penalties..you actually have to sign that you know and understand these Rules and Laws BEFORE your clearance is Issued
now..if some have bypassed this in the past, that does NOT make it correct, or legal in that the rest of the proper procedures were nto followed for the declassification of said info
example: the WH decides to declassify and leak some info for whatever reason...yet they neglect to inform another Agency , who is pertinently involved, that such info was declassified...it is this organization which is then suprised when they read the info in the morning paper
nwo, guess what...the Wh was perfectly legal in their declassification, but they broke the law by not following procedures BEFORE they leaked it...
also, when it involved other agencies outside the Executive, there are legal procedures in place for the discussion and dissemination of such information prior to it being officially changed in classification status
complex..i know...but them's the Rules
you want lies and doublethink, how about this one
"I will fire anyone responsible for leaking this information"
a few weeks later
"I will fire anyone criminally prosecuted for leaking this information"
THAT is bullshit doublethink
just because the good ole boy network has doen certain illegal things for a length of time, does NOT suddenly make it legal...it just means now they got caught
as for shades of grey and black and white...well, that is what the Law is for, to delineate these things, prevent double standards from being applied, and to ensure we are a Nation governed by Law and not by fallible and corruptable Men
Excelsior?
90 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, you are a classic example of someone who subscribes to the black and white world view which is inherently incompatible with pragmatically running the country.
Your attitude hamstrings the presidency in red tape which makes it impossible for them to do their job effectively or at all.
As for doing things one way for a long time not making them legal, you're wrong on both an ethical and a legal basis. In fact, if some extra-legal practice becomes well enough established the law ought to be changed, and in many cases the law can be legally voided as a result.
Dave
91 - gonzo marx
comment #90...
and you suffer from the classic "ends juustify the means" which has as examples every criminal from Cain to those tried at Nuremberg
the laws as they are written in the US , especially the Constitution and what it has to say abotu the duties and responsibilities of each branch fo Government ARE the Ethics which determine the justified use of Power by the government to which we have given this authority via the covenant of our Constitution
those who woudl take shortcuts, cut corners, or bypass said Laws for expediencies sake, as you suggest when you whine about "red tape" are the eunEthical pigfuckers who shoudl never be allowed near elected office or the Power inherenty via the will of the People, since they have NO ethical basis or standard by which to weild it
to put it bluntly, those who think as you have just stated in the comment above are EXACTLY the kinds of people for whom the safeguards in our Constitution are built..the unethical, power hungry sociopaths who need to be checked and balanced against
thanks for proving them right, just as this Administration has
Excelsior?
92 - JP
Gonzo, I'm with you on #89--of course the executive has the right to declassify, but it must go through a process. They have to be held responsible for following the process as well as everyone else--much like with the wiretap issue, they need to do it within the channels that exist (FISA) rather than the "because we said so" argument Dave is espousing.
This administration lives to do things because it says so, precisely because it's the belief of people like Dick Cheney that the executive has "lost" power since Watergate era oversight measures were put in place and he wants to reclaim said alleged lost power. I am a firm believer in checks and balances, and that Cheney's view is out of line with what the Constitution calls for. Therefore, the way I see it, the administration has been stepping way out of line. The "we said so" argument holds no water.
93 - Dave Nalle
and you suffer from the classic "ends juustify the means" which has as examples every criminal from Cain to those tried at Nuremberg
And includes both villains and heroes, including our founding fathers who were willing to use any means to achieve liberty. And that's the point. The means are vindicated if the ends which you achieve or which you work towards are laudable. Cain and the Nazis had evil and self serving ends to pursue. The Sons of Liberty pursued noble ends and are now viewed as heroes.
the laws as they are written in the US , especially the Constitution and what it has to say abotu the duties and responsibilities of each branch fo Government ARE the Ethics which determine the justified use of Power by the government to which we have given this authority via the covenant of our Constitution
The Constitution has NOTHING to do with ethics. There's not a word in the document about ethics. It's an outline of the structure of government. Even the bill of rights isn't about ethics. It's about rights and defining and describing them. Even those rights don't originate with the Constitution, but have an external existence which predates and supersedes the Constitution. You are reading things into the Constitution which just aren't there.
those who woudl take shortcuts, cut corners, or bypass said Laws for expediencies sake, as you suggest when you whine about "red tape" are the eunEthical pigfuckers who shoudl never be allowed near elected office or the Power inherenty via the will of the People, since they have NO ethical basis or standard by which to weild it
Taking advantage of vague areas in the law and working to define the law to your advantage is the nature of the human, political animal. To expect them to behave differently is unrealistic. That's why the constitution exists, as a point of reference for when the abuse inherent in the system exceeds acceptable limits. But just as they can't be allowed to exceed the limits set by the constitution, you can't extend constitutional authority beyond what's literally IN the constitution, and by thinking it's an ethical document and extending its meaning by implication you're going as far in the wrong direction as the abusive politicians.
to put it bluntly, those who think as you have just stated in the comment above are EXACTLY the kinds of people for whom the safeguards in our Constitution are built..the unethical, power hungry sociopaths who need to be checked and balanced against
Sure, but again it has nothing to do with ethics, just with actions and behavior.
Dave
94 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, I'm with you on #89--of course the executive has the right to declassify, but it must go through a process. They have to be held responsible for following the process as well as everyone else--much like with the wiretap issue, they need to do it within the channels that exist (FISA) rather than the "because we said so" argument Dave is espousing.
FISA has nothing to do with declassifying things. The 'channels' for declassifying information are hardly firmly established. Yes, there are procedures for declassifying documents when their relevance has passed, but the ability to declassify something because the information serves a specific purpose lies entirely with the executive branch and the president. You and gonzo may not like the fact that the president can declassify things - a ridiculous position to take - but he can do it at will. And the fact that it's sometimes more effective to release information as a leak rather than at a press conference or in an official statement is largely irrelevant. And don't bring up the constitution here. There's not one word about the procedures for declassifying information in the Constitution.
Dave
95 - Dave Nalle
Just for the record, the ENTIRE system of classifying and declassifying documents was established by a series of executive orders starting during WW2 and modified at will by presidents since then, with ZERO oversight from Congress, because constitutionally the entire issue of classifying information is at the will of the executive. Currently it's handled under Executive Order 13292, which says:
And states the right of both the President and Vice President summary authority to declassify something in the public interest.
Dave
96 - gonzo marx
but there ARE clear definitions of the Procedures for declassification within the various Agencies of Government..
THAT is the point
if POTUS decides to declassify something, he is well within the sphere of his authority to do so...however, depending on the category and source fo the Information to be declassified, there are clearly delineated procedures that need to be adhered to prior to the release of said information
this is defined and delineated in the Agreement signed by ANYONE who is granted clearances with government Agencies, there are NO cases for exceptions
unfortunately, the agreement for Top Secret and above classifications are not public...same with the procedures for declassifying and releasing said information
i am familiar with it having had such clearances
and my point is that the legality is not so simple as a few men in a room deciding to declassify something, and then leaking it to the media in some cases, the Agencies involved are REQUIRED to be notified BEFORE such events occur
i do hope that clears some of it up
Excelsior?
97 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, there are certainly procedures, but I don't see any way a reasonable argument can be made to apply those procedures to the President or members of his staff acting on his authority. He IS the law as far as classification is concerned. As for prior notification, the current Executive Order on classification includes provisions for notification after the fact in some cases, and it's just notification, not approval from the agencies involved. Classification committees and heads of agencies do NOT have authority over the president under any circumstances. These are rules which the president can change at any time. They may be absolute for those below him in the chain of command, but I can't possibly see how those same restrictions apply to the executive.
Dave
98 - sr
HAD SOME FRIENDS TELL ME THEY USED THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR TOILET PAPER AND BECAME LIBERAL ASSHOLES.
99 - gonzo marx
Nalle sez...
*The 'channels' for declassifying information are hardly firmly established. *
incorrect, as i have pointed out, they are clearly delineated in the agreement you sign when you accept your clearance...it is correct that the Pres and VP have wider latitude, but they must still infrom the proper agencies if the info is above a certain level of security before it is made public...
he also sez...
*He IS the law as far as classification is concerned.*
checks and balances...the President is neither King nor Emperor...no matter how much some might Wish it to be so
but that you honestly argue from this position saddens me greatly for a number of Reasons...
ah well...not even worth discussing such any further...enjoy the holiday
Excelsior?
100 - Dave Nalle
incorrect,
I meant firmly established as in immutable in law or in the Constitution - they just come from an executive order and both of the last two presidents have changed the rules with new versions.
as i have pointed out, they are clearly delineated in the agreement you sign when you accept your clearance...it is correct that the Pres and VP have wider latitude, but they must still infrom the proper agencies if the info is above a certain level of security before it is made public...
Wider lattitude in the sense of they can do whatever the hell they want, really.
he also sez...
*He IS the law as far as classification is concerned.*
checks and balances...the President is neither King nor Emperor...no matter how much some might Wish it to be so
I don't wish him to be king, but I do think we should acknowledge his legitimate executive authority.
but that you honestly argue from this position saddens me greatly for a number of Reasons...
That you so clearly don't understand the position befuddles me. But I'll continue ruminating on my vacation.
Dave
101 - gonzo marx
enjoy your vacation...and i understand your Position completely...
hence my consternation
Excelsior?
102 - Dave Nalle
Ah, but if you truly understood it, you'd agree.
Dave
103 - gonzo marx
no..i understand it, and disagree based upon my Principles...
now,. might i politely suggest you stick to speaking what you are thinking and refrain from trying to speak for me, or what i might think or do
because i honestly don't think you Understand where i am coming from at all
and that's ok..you don't have to, just take the words i give for whatever you find they are worth
there are indeed many things we agree upon, but there are other things tht i woudl wager we will NEVER agree on, based on my Principles versus your ideological "pragmatism"
objects in mirror are closer than they appear
Excelsior?
104 - Alix
I have 2 questions regarding the NYT/LAT/WSJ story. If this was a no big
deal story that every one knew about, the administration had been
talking about, why couldn't the sources go on the record with their
names published. No editor has addressed this issue. I also have not
heard from Bill Keller's response to their own publisher making a
commencement speech about how sorry he is for President Bush to be in
office. How can they deny bias when these are public statements from
their own publisher. Can you answer these questions for me.
105 - President G W Bush
WISHING BLOG CRITICS A HAPPY 4TH OF JULY. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. GOD BLESS AMERICA. LAURA SAYS HELLO.
106 - Jet in Columbus
That's about the stupidest thing I've seen on this website
107 - sr
Jet, are you calling the President stupid. Can't believe he commented on BC. The odds for the President to comment on BC according to my calculations, you would have a better chance of getting hit by blue ice or marrying an assdroid. Think about it. sr
108 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Can someone check the Internet server of "President G W Bush?" I'd be shocked if the chifd executive commented here - or even if one of his flunkies did.
109 - KoFi Annan
WANT TO THANK BLOG CRITICS FOR A JOB WILL DONE. WE AT THE UN READ BC EACH DAY FOR PERSPECTIVE VIEWS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THEY HAVE A 4TH OF JULY IN THE UK. PEACE TO ALL. KA
110 - DrPat
Kofi, they DO have a Fourth of July in the UK. Every year.
111 - KoFi Anus
DrPat. You are the grand prise winner. Congradulations from all at the UN. Dinner for two at Jets Beastro by the bay. Contack me at the UN for details. KoFi.
112 - Jet in Columbus
Oh oh oh I'm sooooooo honored. By the way it's black tie only... nothing but a black tie.
113 - sr(coffeecup)
Black tie it is senor Jet.
114 - Jet in Columbus
Damn it I sold all my china and silverwear to make next month's rent, I guess it's paper plates and plastic silverware.
Uh you need to reread that, it says black tie only as in nothing but a black tie.
Now who can I borrow a video cam from?
115 - sr
Jet Mi Amigo. Just picture Michael Moore with a black tie only. Holy big hairy cheeks Batman. Dam that Boy Wonder dirt bag. The shit head lost my video cam. What is Gotham City comming too. THE BAT GUY.
116 - Jet in Columbus
Dear god what are you drinking?
117 - sr
CAPT MORGAN OF COURSE.
118 - Jet in Columbus
You're drinking captain morgan-OH GROSS!!!!
119 - Clavos
God drinks Capt. Morgan???
I've got to get me some!!
120 - Jet in Columbus
Does he work for the New York Times, and why does a dairy machine suddenly cum to mind?
121 - Clavos
uummm...I've had a stupid attack, Jet--I didn't get 120.
122 - Jet in Columbus
Oh dear sounds painful
123 - Clavos
Only when I try to think.
124 - Jet in Columbus
Go read my latest in the political section, it'll put hair on your chest, I'm going to go watch Columbus' fireworks...
125 - Christopher Rose
By the way, folks, the comment purporting to be from George Bush was made by our own dear sr, bless him!