-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DealMonkey
Lifer
Um, I hate to break it to everyone, but the Bush Administration mentioned early on that we along with virtually every country on the planet would be going after the terrorist's financial network. This is not news by any stretch.
spelletrader
Senior member
Isn't it our responsiblity, as citizens, to refrain from wantonly abusing the rights afforded to us?
Hypothetically: If a news organization reported weaknesses in our homeland security (or security of interests around the globe) could/should that news organization be held liable if those weaknesses were exploited and people died as a result?
Not pointing to this NYT case, just in general, it seems like everyone (government and news organizations included) could do with a whopping dose of common sense.
Also, while I am here rambling... Isn't the unauthorized release of classified information a crime, in any context? I seem to remember something about that from my myriad of security clearances over the years. As important as our rights are, would you really want the NYT (or any other news organization) running a full page spread on "Three Easy Steps to Build a Nuclear Warhead" if they somehow obtained that information?
My ramble ceases.
Hypothetically: If a news organization reported weaknesses in our homeland security (or security of interests around the globe) could/should that news organization be held liable if those weaknesses were exploited and people died as a result?
Not pointing to this NYT case, just in general, it seems like everyone (government and news organizations included) could do with a whopping dose of common sense.
Also, while I am here rambling... Isn't the unauthorized release of classified information a crime, in any context? I seem to remember something about that from my myriad of security clearances over the years. As important as our rights are, would you really want the NYT (or any other news organization) running a full page spread on "Three Easy Steps to Build a Nuclear Warhead" if they somehow obtained that information?
My ramble ceases.
DealMonkey
Lifer
He's got a typical wingnut mindset. All you have to do is look at his direct quote in the OP:
That's the sort of Limbaughnian response that should be a dead giveaway.
Thump553
Lifer
Peter King is a prime example of a grandstanding idiot who does little more than mouth soundbites. The last time this fool moved to the forefront was when he was leading the charge against Dubai buying rights to operate US ports. He hit a public relations home run there so now tries to repeat it everytime he can.
King is so rabid about the New York Times' supposed liberal bent that he conveniently forgets that several other papers also published the story at about the same time, including the Wall Street Journal, which is solidly pro-Bush. Both papers bounced the story off the administration before publishing it.
Kudos to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and every other paper helping the citizens oversee what our government is doing in our names.
King is so rabid about the New York Times' supposed liberal bent that he conveniently forgets that several other papers also published the story at about the same time, including the Wall Street Journal, which is solidly pro-Bush. Both papers bounced the story off the administration before publishing it.
Kudos to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and every other paper helping the citizens oversee what our government is doing in our names.
fallensight
Senior member
The NYT wasnt naming any names of who the gov was investigating. It was documenting the procedure that it used. The people do have a right to know how the gov is investigating its citizens. The 'war on terror' works more like a police force investigating a crime, not a military combating enemy forces. This is not 'troop movements'. It is a 'war in as much as 'the war on drugs'. If the FBI is investigating soemthing, then it is a crime, not a matter of war. Bush and his ilk just dont like having any limit put on thier power.
The issue with 'leaks' is without them, how would you ever find out if the gov is doing something underhanded? If someone is leaking something to the press, they feel that there is a violation of either the law, or principals of the nation. Without the press reporting on what the gov is doing, how can we, as the people who elect the officals, truely know what they are doing. ALL elected officials have to answer to the citizens of this country.
The issue with 'leaks' is without them, how would you ever find out if the gov is doing something underhanded? If someone is leaking something to the press, they feel that there is a violation of either the law, or principals of the nation. Without the press reporting on what the gov is doing, how can we, as the people who elect the officals, truely know what they are doing. ALL elected officials have to answer to the citizens of this country.
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
Word!...
There is little likelihood that Al Qaida has just discovered that standard methods of international exchange are under surveillance. Their reliance on the hawala system has long been recognized, and it likely increased in response to monitoring sucesses years before this news was published. The SWIFT monitoring program is stale news in the context of our national security.
The fact that this monitoring program appears to have developed a life of its own irrespective of continuing utility in fighting the funding of terrorism _is_ newsworthy, however. Keeping an eye on undead government programs is a legitimate job of a free press, and one that self-identified conservatives used to respect.
Just your typical Rovian smear and distract campaign. The RWingnuts have been blathering about this since it came out. AM radio talking heads....er...comedians....have been spouting the exact same talking points for days and were even spewed again tonight on Hardball on MSNBC by gambling addict Melanie Morgan (what a waste of a carbon-based life form)
palehorse
Lifer
there is absolutely nothing illegal in what the government has done in the case of financial monitoring of transactions abroad. Even the NYT stated as much.
Which makes the outing of classified material that much more unjustified. it begs the question: Why? Why did they release the information even when their own lawyers saw nothing illegal in the program? What did the NYT hope to accomplish by releasing what was known to be classified information?
THAT is the reason i choose to condemn the NYT for their actions in this case. There really was no real reason "why" beyond their anti-war and anti-bush agenda.
Except as far as I understand the program, it wasn't just monitoring transactions abroad, it was monitoring transactions that had one end here as well (similar to the warrantless wiretaps). Perhaps I misread the article, but it seems like that might be an interesting news item...
DealMonkey
Lifer
I say now that the cat is out of the bag, and it's been out of the bag since September 12th, 2001 when the administration broadcast their intentions to dry up the financial network and support of AQ, I say we throw the whole thing open to scrutiny. Let's examine all the spy programs and let the Supreme Court decide the legality or illegality once and for all.
palehorse
Lifer
actually, even the NYT ackowledges that there does not appear to be anything illegal in the program. which, again, begs the question "then why release information that is known to be classified?!"
I suggest you look into the issue further. Even some democrats are coming out and denouncing this act by the NYT. Granted, they refuse to vote for legal ramifications, but they are nonetheless condemning the NYT for their role in this blatant and pointless release of classified information.
I cannot see how anyone else could see the NYT as "right" in this case. It was a blatant violation of National Security with no point beyond the NYT's own political agenda!
DealMonkey
Lifer
Only in the sense that it will never happen. What do you suppose AQ will learn that they don't already know? I think you underestimate the enemy. They're not transferring funds through traceable systems, just like they're not talking on Sat phones or doing anything else equally stupid and naive.
palehorse
Lifer
actually, no. since they printed the previously classified material once it had already been published elsewhere, it would no longer be considered "classified." once the cat was out of the bag, the other papers were free to run with the info.
sad, but true. (unless I'm wrong on the sequence of events here... possible!)
that said, there is no excuse for the blatant release of classified information when it serves no purpose whatsoever beyond the paper's own political agenda. The NYT screwed themselves by admitting that there is nothing illegal in the monitoring program. with that admission, they basically gave up the only leg they had to stand on in a case of the public disclosure of classified data. In other words, they admitted that they really had no good reason at all to publish said info beyond the hope that it would damage the current admin.
I hope they f'n fry the editor who allowed it to be printed. not the entire paper, mind you, but the editor who authorized the initial publication should be investigated to the fullest extent possible; and prosecuted thereafter... as a traitor!
Perhaps this will make the newspapers out there think twice before publishing blatantly classified data. If the government truly does something illegal, then that is one thing, but publishing classified data with no links to wrongdoing is a blatant crime.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Looks like the NY Times will be indicted and a trial for Treason in Federal Court for Treason.
So many questions surrounding this case.
It's almost like a reverse Patriot Act Vs Free Speech.
Should the times honored Bush's request to not print the story?
Does Free Speech trump National Security?
Does infringing on citizens rights trump Free Speech?
Guess we will find out soon enough.
6-26-2006 Argument against report puzzles NYT editors
NEW YORK - The New York Times is defending itself from criticism about a report on secret financial monitoring of terrorists, saying it found arguments by Bush administration officials against publishing it "puzzling" and "half-hearted."
In a note on the paper's Web site Sunday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said the Times spent weeks discussing with Bush administration officials whether to publish the report.
He said part of the government's argument was that the anti-terror program would no longer be effective if it became known, because international bankers would be unwilling to cooperate and terrorists would find other ways to move money.
"We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling," Keller said, pointing out that the banks were under subpoena to provide the information. "The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere."
"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.
Stories about the money-monitoring program also appeared last week in The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. But King, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he singled out the New York paper because it also disclosed a secret domestic-wiretapping program in December.
He charged that the paper was "more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people."
King said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times ? the reporters, the editors and the publisher."
Gonzales has said the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security.
---
Please post your information in the current thread on this topic.
Thank you.
AnandTech Moderator
Looks like we NY Times is under direct assault.
So many questions surrounding this case.
It's almost like a reverse Patriot Act Vs Free Speech.
Should the times honored Bush's request to not print the story?
Does Free Speech trump National Security?
Does infringing on citizens rights trump Free Speech?
Guess we will find out soon enough.
6-26-2006 Argument against report puzzles NYT editors
NEW YORK - The New York Times is defending itself from criticism about a report on secret financial monitoring of terrorists, saying it found arguments by Bush administration officials against publishing it "puzzling" and "half-hearted."
In a note on the paper's Web site Sunday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said the Times spent weeks discussing with Bush administration officials whether to publish the report.
He said part of the government's argument was that the anti-terror program would no longer be effective if it became known, because international bankers would be unwilling to cooperate and terrorists would find other ways to move money.
"We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling," Keller said, pointing out that the banks were under subpoena to provide the information. "The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere."
"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.
Stories about the money-monitoring program also appeared last week in The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. But King, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he singled out the New York paper because it also disclosed a secret domestic-wiretapping program in December.
He charged that the paper was "more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people."
King said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times ? the reporters, the editors and the publisher."
Gonzales has said the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security.
---
Please post your information in the current thread on this topic.
Thank you.
AnandTech Moderator
Looks like we NY Times is under direct assault.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
