Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
CSM said:Not always. I suppose you are in favor of revealing every bit of classified info...I am not. I could go into this big long exaggeration about how you want to let the terrorists know every weakness in our security, but I doubt that is what you mean or want.
I suspect that you are well aware there are good reasons for some classified data being kept secret (radio encryption codes, for example, or operational plans for an Army maneuver and deploymnent schedules for ships and planes). I don't want those published by anyone even if they are to be examined to ensure "there are no offensive words in them" etc.
A subject for debate is why we need such secrecy in the first place but I suspect that would soon degenerate into an argument between idealism and realism.
Information that must be controlled to protect the national security is assigned one of three levels of classification, as follows:
TOP SECRET information is information which, if disclosed without authorization, could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
SECRET information is information which, if disclosed without authorization, could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
CONFIDENTIAL information is information which, if disclosed without authorization, could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security.
good point, I once heard that foreign intelligence (as well as our own) can "piece together" disparate pieces of information to get a reasonably certain idea of information that is classified without actually having the information in hand.CSM said:That depends on the reasons it was classified in the first place, who is the authority, and what level of classification. It is also contingent on the classification of related data. In some cases it is very complex and in others it is very simple. In all cases, there is an authority that can override subordinates... the President has such authority. (and no it doesn't matter which party the President is affiliated with).
KarlMarx said:good point, I once heard that foreign intelligence (as well as our own) can "piece together" disparate pieces of information to get a reasonably certain idea of information that is classified without actually having the information in hand.
That is why soldiers are trained to give only name, rank and serial number in the event of capture.
KarlMarx said:How classification levels are determined....
Often, but not always, classified information becomes declassified after an assigned date. As an example, the movie "Trinity and Beyond" had the yields of atom bomb tests from the 1940s and 1950s. That information was declassified some time before the movie's release in 1995.
Bullypulpit said:The US governemnt is supposed to be one of "We the people...". Are we not then entitled to know what the government does in our name? Are we not entitled to oversight of government actions?
Kathianne said:
musicman said:Whew - I'm glad you posted that, Kathianne! Keller's arrogance, condescension, and seemingly native disingenuousness put visions of murder in my mind. However, Mr. Hewitt thoroughly addressed my concerns, as he usually does!
I'm beginning to believe what I read elsewhere on USMB: the NYT WANTS to be prosecuted; their spiraling irrelevance terrifies them. If they can somehow appear as martyrs to "free speech", The Old Grey Slut may live to lie another day.
June 26, 2006
A word from Lt. Cotton
Lt. Tom Cotton writes this morning from Baghdad with a word for the New York Times:
Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:
Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)
Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.
Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.
And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.
Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq
Posted by Scott at 06:54 AM
Kathianne said:Yep, for 'profit' motive.
Here's something that Powerline has from someone who has a message for the old, grey hag and her riders:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014515.php
musicman said:I think about the America of another day and age. These traitors would be praying (or something) for arrest, before the outraged citizenry could storm the NYT building - rope in hand. My, how we've...EVOLVED.
jillian said:Don't you think someone has to act to try to oversee these folk? It's not like Congress is doing it's job. That's also why we have a free press. You don't have to like what they say, but you do have to fight for their right to say it, no?
jillian said:Don't you think someone has to act to try to oversee these folk? It's not like Congress is doing it's job. That's also why we have a free press. You don't have to like what they say, but you do have to fight for their right to say it, no?
But the NYT is not who has the classified access.5stringJeff said:Not if they are revealing classified information, which is classified for a great reason - so that we can continue disrupting the terrorist's financial links.
The ClayTaurus said:But the NYT is not who has the classified access.
5stringJeff said:Not if they are revealing classified information, which is classified for a great reason - so that we can continue disrupting the terrorist's financial links.
jillian said:Don't you think someone has to act to try to oversee these folk? It's not like Congress is doing it's job. That's also why we have a free press. You don't have to like what they say, but you do have to fight for their right to say it, no?
jillian said:But the admin didn't mind disrupting Valerie Plame's efforts to track Iran's access to nuclear material.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html
You don't prosecute the Fourth Estate for covering news. And Clay is right, the NYT wasn't the one revealing purportedly classified info.
musicman said:Have you...READ any of the articles in this thread? Could you please tell me how, "Hey, Osama - here are the exhaustively detailed plans on how that gunslinging son of a bitch we both hate is thwarting your financing efforts" is in ANY WAY defensible?
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.rtwngAvngr said:But they're still knowingly printing classified information, so they are liable, though yes, someone in goverment is also liable. two wrong != a right
jillian said:I think you can imagine my opinion of realclearpolitics and the national review. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one and go with Keller's response. Sorry.
musicman said:Our right to know supercedes our right to exist? Keller's actions are indefensible. Please show me where I'm wrong.
By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would if the public knew what they were doing withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA.
A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.
