More Calls For Prosecuting the NY Times and Ilk

[5stringJeff]

But the NYT is not who has the classified access.

Correct. Their source is just as guilty.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Correct. Their source is just as guilty.

No. Not just as. More.

 

[musicman]

It's pretty simple in my eyes. What they printed was entirely irresponsible, but if you prosecute them criminally you're just pushing yourself down a crisco-covered rusty razorblade-filled slope. Odd that everyone is obsessed with a newspaper divulging information rather than an obvious inability of an administration to keep in-house things in-house.

But leaks don't occur in a vacuum. Whoever is running off at the mouth elected to tell NYT. NYT had the option of quashing the story - was, in fact, asked to do so by the administration. It would have been the right thing to do.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. One traitor at a time. NYT elected to run the story. Defend that decision.

 

[jillian]

But leaks don't occur in a vacuum. Whoever is running off at the mouth elected to tell NYT. NYT had the option of quashing the story - was, in fact, asked to do so by the administration. It would have been the right thing to do.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. One traitor at a time. NYT elected to run the story. Defend that decision.

And the admin used the NYT when it allowed Judy Miller to repeat it's unsubstantiated pre-war propaganda, no? Yet they want it both ways.

 

[musicman]

I think that overstates the point and cedes too much power to this administration, which has already exercised too much power. More to the point, I think, is this, from Keller's response...
...And if you look at his point, which is that these people already KNOW we're tracking them, then it fits more with this admin's history of opposing any disclosure of its activities.

These are deflections, jillian. At issue is NYT's decision to run a story which clearly hamstrings America's ability to fight terrorism. It clearly endangers the lives of our soldiers. It clearly endangers all of us. And, to what purpose? The decision is indefensible. Try to defend it.

 

[CSM]

It's pretty simple in my eyes. What they printed was entirely irresponsible, but if you prosecute them criminally you're just pushing yourself down a crisco-covered rusty razorblade-filled slope. Odd that everyone is obsessed with a newspaper divulging information rather than an obvious inability of an administration to keep in-house things in-house.

I agree that prosecution of the paper is probably not a good idea. I would have no qualms if the government were to imprison the reporter until such time as he reveals his source, however. In fact, I would probably jail said reporter on the grounds that he is part of a conspiracy to commit treason....then let the fine judicial system inherent in this country have its way. I disagree that folks are less concerned with the leak, or the ability of ANY administration to control leaks. Let's face it, the leaker, when he is found, is in very serious trouble. I suppose there are some on this board who want to know the detailed plan for capturing the leaker.

it seems to me that there are really two issue here:

1) The ethics and concern for national security expressed by the NYT's actions (if the info were leaked to AL Jazeera, would it make any difference?)

2) The leak itself...someone who has access to classified information, has obviously been read into a classified program, and clearly broke the law in revealing the information.

In case 1, I guess it is up to the subscribers of the media involved to decide whether or not to continue to support their media outlets. In case 2, the government must find the leak and prosecute.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

But leaks don't occur in a vacuum. Whoever is running off at the mouth elected to tell NYT. NYT had the option of quashing the story - was, in fact, asked to do so by the administration. It would have been the right thing to do.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. One traitor at a time. NYT elected to run the story. Defend that decision.

It's a decision that doesn't even arise if the administration is actually concerned about security.

I don't defend them doing it, and as such I don't really read the NYT for a continually mounting variety of reasons. I defend freedom from government interference in the press, as the slippery slope precedent is frightening.

 

[musicman]

And the admin used the NYT when it allowed Judy Miller to repeat it's unsubstantiated pre-war propaganda, no? Yet they want it both ways.

Again:

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. One traitor at a time. NYT elected to run the story. Defend that decision.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I agree that prosecution of the paper is probably not a good idea. I would have no qualms if the government were to imprison the reporter until such time as he reveals his source, however. In fact, I would probably jail said reporter on the grounds that he is part of a conspiracy to commit treason....then let the fine judicial system inherent in this country have its way. I disagree that folks are less concerned with the leak, or the ability of ANY administration to control leaks. Let's face it, the leaker, when he is found, is in very serious trouble. I suppose there are some on this board who want to know the detailed plan for capturing the leaker.

it seems to me that there are really two issue here:

1) The ethics and concern for national security expressed by the NYT's actions (if the info were leaked to AL Jazeera, would it make any difference?)

2) The leak itself...someone who has access to classified information, has obviously been read into a classified program, and clearly broke the law in revealing the information.

In case 1, I guess it is up to the subscribers of the media involved to decide whether or not to continue to support their media outlets. In case 2, the government must find the leak and prosecute.

Exactly.

 

[CSM]

And the admin used the NYT when it allowed Judy Miller to repeat it's unsubstantiated pre-war propaganda, no? Yet they want it both ways.

Does that statement mean you think that the revelation of classified information should not be investigate and once the leak is found, the person responsible not prosecuted?

Or do you propose that leaking unclassified information is equivalent to leaking classified information and both should be prosecuted?

Your assertion that "they"want it both ways makes for great rhetoric but is clearly an attempt at "moral relativism" (as they say).

 

[musicman]

It's a decision that doesn't even arise if the administration is actually concerned about security.

If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. That was a pleasant little deflection, though. Now, back to the issue at hand:

I don't defend them doing it, and as such I don't really read the NYT for a continually mounting variety of reasons.

You agree, then, that the decision to print this story is indefensible?

I defend freedom from government interference in the press, as the slippery slope precedent is frightening.

What should the government do in this case, then? Shrug their shoulders? Tell the American people, "We'll provide for the national defense to the degree the NYT deems proper"?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. That was a pleasant little deflection, though. Now, back to the issue at hand:

Oh please. If I was deflecting I would have ended my post. You are simultaneously asking this to be treated both in and out of vacuum.

You agree, then, that the decision to print this story is indefensible?

The decision? Sure. Indefensible. The right to make that decision? Very defensible.

What should the government do in this case, then? Shrug their shoulders? Tell the American people, "We'll provide for the national defense to the degree the NYT deems proper"?

Go read CSM's post, and then my response to his.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The right to make that decision? Very defensible.

Yes. We all have the RIGHT to decide whether or not to commit crimes. Once we commit the crime, however, we are still criminal, having chosen such a path.

You're a funny clown.:funnyface

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I will fight to the death, if need be, to defend the right of any americans to choose to commit crimes, and then be held liable for those choices!


:rotflmao:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yes. We all have the RIGHT to decide whether or not to commit crimes. Once we commit the crime, however, we are still criminal, having chosen such a path.

You're a funny clown.:funnyface

No retard. You hold the reporter on charges of conspiracy until they give up the leak. And then you severely punish the leak. You can shift as much culpability as you'd like, but the primary responsibility still falls on the administration to run a water-tight ship and squash those who violate their confidentiality agreements.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I will fight to the death, if need be, to defend the right of any americans to choose to commit crimes, and then be held liable for those choices!


:rotflmao:

Quit being obtuse.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Quit being obtuse.

You're killing me, man!:rotflmao:

 

[Annie]

It's pretty simple in my eyes. What they printed was entirely irresponsible, but if you prosecute them criminally you're just pushing yourself down a crisco-covered rusty razorblade-filled slope. Odd that everyone is obsessed with a newspaper divulging information rather than an obvious inability of an administration to keep in-house things in-house.

It's not someone within the administration per se, in all liklihood. It's someone from State or Treasury. Yes, the NY Times should be forced to give up the source and prosecute the source. I believe they said there were 20 of them.

The NYT gets away with the term 'administration' because the departments fall within the executive branch. This was done from someone who means harm, they weren't elected and they should be punished.

 

[Annie]

Correct. Their source is just as guilty.

Even more culpable.

 

[musicman]

Oh please. If I was deflecting I would have ended my post. You are simultaneously asking this to be treated both in and out of vacuum.

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to keep to the issue at hand.

The decision? Sure. Indefensible. The right to make that decision? Very defensible.

The right to make THAT decision? In a way, you're right, though; like anyone else who has decided to commit a crime, I guess they still enjoy rights.

Go read CSM's post, and then my response to his.

Ah, but CSM's post was in response to this:

It's pretty simple in my eyes. What they printed was entirely irresponsible, but if you prosecute them criminally you're just pushing yourself down a crisco-covered rusty razorblade-filled slope. Odd that everyone is obsessed with a newspaper divulging information rather than an obvious inability of an administration to keep in-house things in-house.

Clearly, you are trying to deflect blame away from NYT and back toward the Administration. That someone in the government needs his tongue cut out, and that the NYT has willfully endangered Americans - these are two separate and distinct issues. One is not an answer for the other. At issue here is the NYT's criminal disregard for anything or anybody but its own sick agenda. This must be addressed. There are all kinds of "crisco-covered rusty razorblade-filled slopes", and Bill Keller is dragging us toward one of them with all his might.