I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 07:12 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Veteran
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1982 300SD
Location: Bel AIr, MD
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

How come those of you who felt it was required to investigate the leak of the Valarie Pflame information have been so silent about demanding an equal investigation into the leak of information about the Whitehouse's campaign to wiretap terrorists' phone calls? Both leaks, it could be argued, have impacted the ability to obtain information.Both leaks involved, allegedly, illegal revelations.
Again, you prove yourselves not to be defenders of the Constitution, or the country, but mere political hacks--who will use anything for the reclaimation of power. Your hypocracy is noted; you have no moral high ground; your cause is simply power, and you must be prevented form the exercise thereof.

The democrats version of leaks---
BAD if they hurt democrats
GOOD if they hurt Bush.
How utterly transparent!
MS Fowler is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 08:04 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

Here are the rules.

1. Anything done that helps Bush is evil.
2. Anything that hurts Bush is good.
3. Anything done by the USA is evil.

Once we understand the rules our lives will have meaning.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #3 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 08:14 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

I posted a link to a NY Democratic Senator's suggestion we find out if the "leak" was whistleblowing on an illegal activity, in which case the whistleblower protection laws should protect the individual, or if it was a security breach intended to harm the United States. If it turns out there was illegal wiretapping, I would suggest those who have initiated an investigation (reportedly initiated without Whitehouse influence, wink, wink) intended to intimidate and exact revenge on a whistleblower be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. On the other hand, if the wiretapping turns out to be legal, and the "leak" is determined to be have damaged our national security, the leaker should pay for his or her crime.

So, there is a difference from the Valerie Plame business. But I know you guys with your heads so far up the Republican Party rectum had to give up your sense of sight for the warmth, wetness and, well, the opportunity to be covered in George W. Bush shit, which you seem to value more than your freedoms as an American citizen, and can't see this stuff for what it is. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #4 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 08:17 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

Quote:
JimSmith - 1/2/2006 10:14 AM

I posted a link to a NY Democratic Senator's suggestion we find out if the "leak" was whistleblowing on an illegal activity, in which case the whistleblower protection laws should protect the individual, or if it was a security breach intended to harm the United States. If it turns out there was illegal wiretapping, I would suggest those who have initiated an investigation (reportedly initiated without Whitehouse influence, wink, wink) intended to intimidate and exact revenge on a whistleblower be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. On the other hand, if the wiretapping turns out to be legal, and the "leak" is determined to be have damaged our national security, the leaker should pay for his or her crime.

So, there is a difference from the Valerie Plame business. But I know you guys with your heads so far up the Republican Party rectum had to give up your sense of sight for the warmth, wetness and, well, the opportunity to be covered in George W. Bush shit, which you seem to value more than your freedoms as an American citizen, and can't see this stuff for what it is. Jim
If the wiretaps were illegal then the leaker should get a medal. If teh wiretaps were legal the leaker should get fried.

In general, I don't pay a great deal of attention to what senators, congressmen, or presidents say when they criticize the opposing party. It's always going to be hyped disproportionate to the allegation and thus, a waste of time.

For that reason, I didn't read your post from Schumer. I figured it was more of the same. My bad.

Bot


(edited because I spelled Schumer, "Scumer." Talk about freudian slip.
Botnst is offline  
post #5 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 08:22 AM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1763 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

Quote:
Botnst - 1/2/2006 9:04 AM

Here are the rules.

1. Anything done that helps Bush is evil.
2. Anything that hurts Bush is good.
3. Anything done by the USA is evil.

Once we understand the rules our lives will have meaning.

Bot
Got to love those definitives. It keeps the world in order! And stupid.[xx(]
Shane is offline  
post #6 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 08:51 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

Quote:
Shane - 1/2/2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Botnst - 1/2/2006 9:04 AM

Here are the rules.

1. Anything done that helps Bush is evil.
2. Anything that hurts Bush is good.
3. Anything done by the USA is evil.

Once we understand the rules our lives will have meaning.

Bot
Got to love those definitives. It keeps the world in order! And stupid.[xx(]
Duuude, you kant spel wurf a shit, it's stoopid.
Botnst is offline  
post #7 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 09:21 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
smurfccoupe's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2003
Vehicle: 2002 C230
Location: Westwood, NJ
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

Quote:
MS Fowler - 1/2/2006 9:12 AM

Both leaks, it could be argued, have impacted the ability to obtain information.Both leaks involved, allegedly, illegal revelations.
The Plume leak was a leak of an individual which immediately put her in harm's way. The wire tap leak did not directly harm anyone (that we can prove - I'm still fuzzy on how anyone can know the real impact of these taps anyway, honestly). If you fail to see any measurable difference, then the Dems aren't the only ones with blinders on.

2002 Ccoupe, not as good as others, apparently
smurfccoupe is offline  
post #8 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 09:37 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

Quote:
smurfccoupe - 1/2/2006 11:21 AM

Quote:
MS Fowler - 1/2/2006 9:12 AM

Both leaks, it could be argued, have impacted the ability to obtain information.Both leaks involved, allegedly, illegal revelations.
The Plume leak was a leak of an individual which immediately put her in harm's way. The wire tap leak did not directly harm anyone (that we can prove - I'm still fuzzy on how anyone can know the real impact of these taps anyway, honestly). If you fail to see any measurable difference, then the Dems aren't the only ones with blinders on.
The degree to which Plame may have been endangered is actually germaine to the investigation. Ie, it is still unknown whether she was, in fact, covert.

I don't see how people can conflate the two investigations except to bludgeon each other with yet another politically contentious news-flutter de jour.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #9 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 09:43 AM
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

How about some outrage that the NY Times sat on the story for a year so that a book could be completed?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______


January 1, 2006
The Public Editor
Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence
By BYRON CALAME
THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency.

For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush's secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States.

I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future.

Despite this stonewalling, my objectives today are to assess the flawed handling of the original explanation of the article's path into print, and to offer a few thoughts on some factors that could have affected the timing of the article. My intention is to do so with special care, because my 40-plus years of newspapering leave me keenly aware that some of the toughest calls an editor can face are involved here - those related to intelligence gathering, election-time investigative articles and protection of sources. On these matters, reasonable disagreements can abound inside the newsroom.

(A word about my reporting for this column: With the top Times people involved in the final decisions refusing to talk and urging everyone else to remain silent, it seemed clear to me that chasing various editors and reporters probably would yield mostly anonymous comments that the ultimate decision-makers would not confirm or deny. So I decided not to pursue those who were not involved in the final decision to publish the article - or to refer to Times insiders quoted anonymously in others' reporting.)

At the outset, it's essential to acknowledge the far-reaching importance of the eavesdropping article's content to Times readers and to the rest of the nation. Whatever its path to publication, Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller deserve credit for its eventual appearance in the face of strong White House pressure to kill it. And the basic accuracy of the account of the eavesdropping stands unchallenged - a testament to the talent in the trenches.

But the explanation of the timing and editing of the front-page article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau caused major concern for scores of Times readers. The terse one-paragraph explanation noted that the White House had asked for the article to be killed. "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting," it said. "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

If Times editors hoped the brief mention of the one-year delay and the omitted sensitive information would assure readers that great caution had been exercised in publishing the article, I think they miscalculated. The mention of a one-year delay, almost in passing, cried out for a fuller explanation. And the gaps left by the explanation hardly matched the paper's recent bold commitments to readers to explain how news decisions are made.

At the very least, The Times should have told readers in the article why it could not address specific issues. At least some realization of this kicked in rather quickly after publication. When queried by reporters for other news media on Dec. 16, Mr. Keller offered two prepared statements that shed some additional light on the timing and handling of the article.

The longer of Mr. Keller's two prepared statements said the paper initially held the story based on national security considerations and assurances that everyone in government believed the expanded eavesdropping was legal. But when further reporting showed that legal questions loomed larger than The Times first thought and that a story could be written without certain genuinely sensitive technical details, he said, the paper decided to publish. (Mr. Keller's two prepared statements, as well as some thoughtful reader comments, are posted on the Public Editor's Web Journal.)

Times readers would have benefited if the explanation in the original article had simply been expanded to include the points Mr. Keller made after publication. And if the length of that proved too clunky for inclusion in the article, the explanation could have been published as a separate article near the main one. Even the sentence he provided me as to why he would not answer my questions offered some possible insight.

Protection of sources is the most plausible reason I've been able to identify for The Times's woeful explanation in the article and for the silence of Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller. I base this on Mr. Keller's response to me: "There is really no way to have a full discussion of the back story without talking about when and how we knew what we knew, and we can't do that."

Taken at face value, Mr. Keller seems to be contending that the sourcing for the eavesdropping article is so intertwined with the decisions about when and what to publish that a full explanation could risk revealing the sources. I have no trouble accepting the importance of confidential sourcing concerns here. The reporters' nearly one dozen confidential sources enabled them to produce a powerful article that I think served the public interest.

With confidential sourcing under attack and the reporters digging in the backyards of both intelligence and politics, The Times needs to guard the sources for the eavesdropping article with extra special care. Telling readers the time that the reporters got one specific fact, for instance, could turn out to be a dangling thread of information that the White House or the Justice Department could tug at until it leads them to the source. Indeed, word came Friday that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the disclosure of classified information about the eavesdropping.

The most obvious and troublesome omission in the explanation was the failure to address whether The Times knew about the eavesdropping operation before the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election. That point was hard to ignore when the explanation in the article referred rather vaguely to having "delayed publication for a year." To me, this language means the article was fully confirmed and ready to publish a year ago - after perhaps weeks of reporting on the initial tip - and then was delayed.

Mr. Keller dealt directly with the timing of the initial tip in his later statements. The eavesdropping information "first became known to Times reporters" a year ago, he said. These two different descriptions of the article's status in the general vicinity of Election Day last year leave me puzzled.

For me, however, the most obvious question is still this: If no one at The Times was aware of the eavesdropping prior to the election, why wouldn't the paper have been eager to make that clear to readers in the original explanation and avoid that politically charged issue? The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts.

On the larger question of why the eavesdropping article finally appeared when it did, a couple of possibilities intrigue me.

One is that Times editors said they discovered there was more concern inside the government about the eavesdropping than they had initially been told. Mr. Keller's prepared statements said that "a year ago," officials "assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." So the paper "agreed not to publish at that time" and continued reporting.

But in the months that followed, Mr. Keller said, "we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program" and "it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood."

The impact of a new book about intelligence by Mr. Risen on the timing of the article is difficult to gauge. The book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," was not mentioned in the Dec. 16 article. Mr. Keller asserted in the shorter of his two statements that the article wasn't timed to the forthcoming book, and that "its origins and publication are completely independent of Jim's book."

The publication of Mr. Risen's book, with its discussion of the eavesdropping operation, was scheduled for mid-January - but has now been moved up to Tuesday. Despite Mr. Keller's distancing of The Times from "State of War," Mr. Risen's publisher told me on Dec. 21 that the paper's Washington bureau chief had talked to her twice in the previous 30 days about the book.

So it seems to me the paper was quite aware that it faced the possibility of being scooped by its own reporter's book in about four weeks. But the key question remains: To what extent did the book cause top editors to shrug off the concerns that had kept them from publishing the eavesdropping article for months?

A final note: If Mr. Risen's book or anything else of substance should open any cracks in the stone wall surrounding the handling of the eavesdropping article, I will have my list of 28 questions (35 now, actually) ready to e-mail again to Mr. Keller.

The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.


430 is offline  
post #10 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-02-2006, 10:58 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: I am waiting for the outcry to investigate wiretap leaks

Quote:
430 - 1/2/2006 11:43 AM

How about some outrage that the NY Times sat on the story for a year so that a book could be completed?
Now that is warranted. If they sat on this for profit they should be prosecuted as being co-conspirators in an illegal wiretapping binge, should that be the outcome of the assessment of the legal status of the wiretaps. If the wiretaps are found to be legal the reporters writing the book should be prosecuted with the leaker as co-conspirators to harm the interests and safety of the United States.

The NYT is losing its reputation as the source of all the news that is fit to print, and becoming a haven for reporters with no ethics or journalistic standard who are allowed to exploit the institution's reputation for their own profit. It really is sad that the NYT is falling through the rungs on the ladder they built to hoist the paper to the status of an American institution, by the weight of the personal greed of the staff and management team charged with the responsibility to maintain integrity of the institution that was the NYT. Jim

edited for clarity
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome