NY Times Vs National Security

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, great job media, youve meesed us up again

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Lots of stuff lately on the radio about the NY times breaking the story on the Fed Program to track terrorist financial transactions. Seems there is a call from some for the Justice Department to investigate the NY Times and for the Government to hold the Times accountable for running a story that may significantly impact our national security.

From what I understand this particular program was very effective and terrorists had virtually no clue they could be tracked by such methods. There can be hardly any doubt that the NY Times story on the program gives our enemies knowledge that they can use to avoid such tracking now.

The question is how far is too far where national security is concerned. At what point does a media outlet like the NY Times actually violate national security concerns by running such a story and in turn, what should be done to the NY Times as punishment for same?

Weasel words highlighted. This is a clear case of put up or shut up.

The media isn't losing this war for us. I'm not sure this Administration needs help doing that.

 

[Mastreditr111]

God... please do not start threadjacking this to be a commentary on the war. This is a perfectly legitimate discussion of media responsibility... excluding all thoughts of the Administration's performance without media involvement

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The question is how far is too far where national security is concerned. At what point does a media outlet like the NY Times actually violate national security concerns by running such a story and in turn, what should be done to the NY Times as punishment for same?

If this program was indeed considered "classified" (ie. secret), then revealing its existence is a crime, tantamount to treason. If it was revealed by a foreign press, it would be moot, since only a national of the state can be considered owing allegiance to cause treason. Even though newspapers are not people, they are corporations, and therefore legally considered equivalent to a human being. By this extension, the US should consider the New York Times an American citizen, since it was granted articles of incorporation by the United States. Therefore, the NYT is an American national that can be held responsible for committing crimes, including that of divulging classified state information.

 

[Mastreditr111]

If this type of activity is illegal, I strongly suggest we start prosecuting it. However, this is never going to happen, as the political party that starts the ball rolling will be so villified by the entire press that they would lose any hope for the next few elections. Nor will both parties cooperate, lest one betray the other and leave it to the aforementioned fate. Unfortunately, here is yet another arena where national/public interest will take a back seat to politics. I wish just one person on either side of any level of government would GROW A SPINE and sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Even if it screws their party over.

 

[MobBoss]

Why are the Wall St. Journal and LA Times not being denegrated also? They both revealed the program along with the NYT.

I assume because the NYTs broke the story first.

Weasel words highlighted. This is a clear case of put up or shut up.

"Weasel words"? I didnt realize national security was only a "weasel" issue. The press breaking this kind of story hurts all of us in the USA...not just left or right. There is simply no benefit what-so-ever for the average Joe USA to know about this program. There is no "public good" served by running it. Its one of the few things that could be genuinely labeled as non-patriotic.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I assume because the NYTs broke the story first.

"Weasel words"? I didnt realize national security was only a "weasel" issue. The press breaking this kind of story hurts all of us in the USA...not just left or right. There is simply no benefit what-so-ever for the average Joe USA to know about this program. There is no "public good" served by running it. Its one of the few things that could be genuinely labeled as non-patriotic.

Apologies for the misunderstanding...

Weasel words are words that are intended to soften the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoid forming a clear position on a particular issue. A weasel word can be compared with, but is distinct from, a euphemism. The name is derived from the act of "weaseling out" of providing a reference to support a statement.

Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording. Generalization in this way helps the speaker or writer disappear in the crowd and thus disown responsibility for what he has said.

Examples:

"It has been mentioned he has embezzled money." (Who mentioned it?)
"Rumour has it that she has left him." (Where was this rumour published or spread?)
"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Where is it? What are the details?)

Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.

Essentially, if you cared about this topic enough to think the New York Times was truly committing treason against the nation, you could have at least gone to the effort of providing a cited, linked article that substantiated your claims regarding 1) the illegality of the leak, 2) the effectiveness of the program, 3) the claim that terrorists were unaware they were being monitored, 4) the claim that terrorists can use the article to circumvent or avoid monitoring in the future. Currently none of these claims have been factually substantiated in this thread.

In addition, own your opinions. Why weasel out by saying "Seems there is a call from some" to investigate the NYT when 1) it is quite clear that you hold this opinion, 2) you don't seem to cite anyone else who does. You're free to have your own opinion, just don't attribute it to a crowd of anonymous faces.

Finally, I may be alone in this, but people who use the passive voice give me the strong impression that they are not interested in arguing honestly. You leverage the power of the passive voice twice in your OP to make unsubstantiated claims ("There is a call from some," "there can be hardly any doubt.")

This is not mere grammar we're talking about. You have managed to direct this thread into a discussion about whether the NYT should be punished, based on the unquestioned premise that what the NYT did was 1) illegal, 2) unpatriotic, 3) materially detrimental to the war effort. Yet nobody has questioned those premises DESPITE the fact that you have not provided a single factual citation in this thread. Why is that? Perhaps people are more susceptible to the power of weasel words than they like to think.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

And by the way, yes, revealing classified information is a crime, I'm glad to see the "No crime committed in Valerie Plame case" whiners finally admit that. If publishing it is a crime, that leaves me wondering why Robert Novak is still walking the streets at night, howling at the moon. After all, the identities of all CIA agents constitute classified information whether they are undercover or not.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I have a problem with the times wanting to protect there sources for information yet at the same time wanting to reveal classified goverment programs that relate to national security.

If this were june of 44 with the way things are, would d-day have been exposed?

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public.” - Teddy Roosevelt (FDR)

yeah unlike a democratic controlled presidency, congress and senante. Republicans were busy trading with the nazis.
Heck there was a Congressional investigation into profiteering which was considered as "treasonous"

 

[Rik Meleet]

Assuming the newspapers were no part of the group of people that knew of this tracking and (again my assumption) those people vowed to not talk about it - one of them is to blame, not the newspapers that report a story while not having taken an oath of silence on it.

"National Security" is not a card blanche that can be used indiscriminately. In my opinion the one claiming "national security" as a reason to not allow certain information out has to proof to the ones that did obtain that information accidently that that information indeed is harming the nation a lot more than censorship is harming the nation.

The phrase "National Security" is overused - especially when someone of the inner circle has already leaked it.

 

[Marshy]

This story hit the front page of the Irish newspapers today. It seems that the CIA had the cooperation of many European banks without the permission of their governments. There is a strong possibility that this is illegal and the Belgian authorities have ordered an investigation.

If it turns out that the CIA asked foreign banks in allied nations to break the law then surely that is fair game for the press? It's hardly the same as revealing that the military have broken an enemy code (to address MobBoss' point).

 

[bathsheba666]

This is good news, it seems the republicans are going to be able to trace the billions that Bechtel "lost" in Iraq after all?

 

[tomsnowman123]

"National Security" is not a card blanche that can be used indiscriminately. In my opinion the one claiming "national security" as a reason to not allow certain information out has to proof to the ones that did obtain that information accidently that that information indeed is harming the nation a lot more than censorship is harming the nation.

The phrase "National Security" is overused - especially when someone of the inner circle has already leaked it.

Exactly, it's an abused term used to justify the restriction of our freedom. The newspaper wasn't wrong in simply reporting a story that they didn't leak.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. WTH. Over?

 

[MobBoss]

In addition, own your opinions. Why weasel out by saying "Seems there is a call from some" to investigate the NYT when 1) it is quite clear that you hold this opinion, 2) you don't seem to cite anyone else who does.

Sigh. I didnt think I needed to use the crayons in order to simply facilitate a discussion. Here: http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062806/nytimes.html

And if you cared as well, you could find many other such links with similiar information.

And to reiterate...the only people who seem to have profited by such a story being run are the terrorists themselves. So for what its worth, I certainly do hope that the NY Times is held accountable for such action and forced to turn over the identity of the leaker as well.

 

[Masquerouge]

Where does freedom of speech fits into this? Are some limitations to that freedom acceptable in certain cases, and if yes who or waht can make sure these limitations are legal?

 

[Mastreditr111]

I think Nancyborgasm, who seems to understand American law on the topic better than anyone else here, hit the nail on the head. Freedom of the press is all well and good, but that should not be allowed to take precidence over the safety of American citizens. To be honest, I refer to my earlier post, in that all vestiges of journalistic integrity are, and have been, gone from the Liberal Media for the last 20-30 years. This one (not divulging sources) is only kept so they can save their own a**es. Arrest them all if it really is a crime, if not they are still under constitutional obligation NOT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. They legally MUST reveal their source.

EDIT: You cannot be free if you are DEAD!

 

[EdwardTking]

Why are the Wall St. Journal and LA Times not being denegrated also? They both revealed the program along with the NYT.

Well according to UK papers, the NYT has had the nerve to question
the legality of other types of monitoring by Uncle Sam.

...and therefore must be intimidated into falling into line..


Personally I don't give a damm if the government monitors my
bank account and credit card details. I am much more concerned
about criminals and disreputable businesses doing that.

 

[tomsnowman123]

EDIT: You cannot be free if you are DEAD!

One could argue that death is the ultimate freedom. And some, like me, value our freedoms to much to just give them up in the name of "national security."

 

[Mastreditr111]

I won't idly give them up either, but there are still laws.... I.E. the ones Nancyborgasm and I have been mentioning (no obstruction of justice at the very least.) I will die for a worthy cause, not because some terrorist who could have been stopped with a little common sense blew up a nuke in my home city.