5stringJeff
Senior Member
The ClayTaurus said:But the NYT is not who has the classified access.
Correct. Their source is just as guilty.
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.
The ClayTaurus said:But the NYT is not who has the classified access.
No. Not just as. More.5stringJeff said:Correct. Their source is just as guilty.
The ClayTaurus said: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.
musicman said: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 said: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.
The ClayTaurus said: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 a decision that doesn't even arise if the administration is actually concerned about security.musicman said: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 said: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.
Exactly.CSM said: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.
jillian said: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.
The ClayTaurus said: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.
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.musicman said:If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. That was a pleasant little deflection, though. Now, back to the issue at hand:
The decision? Sure. Indefensible. The right to make that decision? Very defensible.musicman said:You agree, then, that the decision to print this story is indefensible?
Go read CSM's post, and then my response to his.musicman said: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 said:The right to make that decision? Very defensible.
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.rtwngAvngr said: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
Quit being obtuse.rtwngAvngr said: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 said:Quit being obtuse.
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 ClayTaurus said: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.
The ClayTaurus said: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.
The Clay Taurus said:The decision? Sure. Indefensible. The right to make that decision? Very defensible.
The Clay Taurus said:Go read CSM's post, and then my response to his.
The Clay Taurus said: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.