Estate=4 Gets ScoldedFollow

I thought he was in Karachi this week?

Well, Mr Bush attempts to prevent ANY information about terrorist counter-measures being 'leaked' to any part of the press. Ideals no, but nuts-and-bolts yes. It is understandable to keep a certain amount(maybe a large amount) out of public knowledge. But the problem is the administration sees ANY knowledge of terrorist counter-measures being relayed to the public as 'helping the terrorists'.

I think that stance is aggravating(sp) media agencies. The administration wouldnt releae a drop of info if it was up to them. And possibly these media outlets would release EVERY drop of info if they could. When you have two agencies dealing with the same topics & information, and each having an extremely 'sided' view, its hard to draw an acceptable line in the sand.

Oh you'll see. Our fleet of sub-par aircraft will do the talking for us.

Because most people don't spend their time trying to figure it out? Are you arguing that, because most civilian people don't spend as much time as terrorists trying to figure out how the US is tracking them, that has to mean that either (A) the terrorists don't know either or (B) no civilian could have noodled it out if they tried?

Making someone aware of things occuring around them is not the same as telling them deep, dark secrets.

Link please?

If true as stated, I don't agree with Shenon's actions. Although the case (from 2002) isn't really here nor there in regards to the most recent story.

That said, and you can call it whatever you will, I'd be interested in reading a more unbiased account than one from Michelle Malkin. The first Yahoo link leads to an opinion column which cites Malkin's column as its source and Ms. Malkin isn't exactly a font of unbiased journalism.

I'm not saying it's untrue but, when every hit I got from "Shenon Fitzgerald" led to a Michelle Malkin column or a blog citing Michelle Malkin, I have to at least question if I'm getting the entire story.

Edit: Here's an NPR story that discusses the case although it focuses more on Judith Miller than it does on Philip Shenon

Edited, Jul 3rd 2006 at 2:20pm EDT by Jophiel

Sure, if he were a mongoloid idiot on crack.

As pointed out by others, any terrorist organisation (jeez, i hate that term)worth its salt is gonna know that their finances are going to be monitored by government agencies. The big boys in Al Qaeda, in the past, have all dealt with western intelligence agencies in the past and a boatload of money has flowed (is flowing still) from those agencies to those people.

They arn't stoopid.

Thats why the news that the U.S. government was snooping into international electronic banking transactions was less of a shock to the enemy being monitored than to the American people. Because terrorists have been aware of such surveillance by governments, they long ago started using the more informal Middle Eastern system of financial transactions – called hawala – involving couriers and money-transfer companies. But even the public should have been aware of such government activities, given the Bushies constant boasting about tracking the financial flows to terrorist groups.

That the gubbernmint is threatening legal action against a free press that has reported on a surveilance program, some aspects of wich are of extremely questionable legality, is ironic to say the least. Especially when the leakage of, for example, the name of Valerie Plame, in the yellowcake from Niger scandal, has emanated from very high up in the administration.

If the government employees who leaked the classified information can be identified, they should be prosecuted. They signed an oath agreeing not to disclose government secrets. But members of the press made no such pledge. If the government is useless at keeping secrets, the media, in a free society, should not be prosecuted for publishing them. It is much less dangerous to an open society to try to prevent government employees from leaking than it is to prevent the press from publishing the leaks.

Leaking the snooping program causes much less damage to the nation than does the harm of the government bullying a free press. The First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of the press, is the bedrock of your 'free' society. Threatening journalists with words like 'treason' and 'aiding the enemy' can only harm the 'ideals of freedom' that your country was built on.

But as usual, its not about that is it? Its about a paranoid administration (and their supporters) frantically hunting around for other people to blame for their their own ineptitude. Now that the war on terror is being exposed for the gigantic failure that it was always destined to become, the architects of the fiasco (as well as there loyal supporters) are becoming more and more desperate in the flailings to find others to blame.

"oh no!! the war on terror isn't working! Quick blame the journalists/antiwar types/the French! The voters are stupid, they'll fall for that (again)!".

Really? Then why did the NY Times own article contain this bit:


Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.

That's just *one*. People make mistakes. They leave behind clues to what they're doing. This program was successful. It was working. Now, it's in danger of being shut down purely because the NY Times chose to publically reveal it.



Again. Not everyone used that system. It's kinda hard to physically transport large amounts of cash across the globe. International banking transfers are still going to be the most common method. Hawala is great for moving funds from say Syria to Afghanistan. It's not so great for moving funds from Sudan to Indonesia...

Also. The government was not "snooping" on the bank transactions. That's a gross misrepresentation of how the program worked. Basically, the swift banking consortium already tracks international transactions from most banks. They do so specifically to spot fraud and theft. The US government essentially went up to them and asked for data tracking specific people and organizations so as to see where the money was coming from and going. The swift folks agreed to do so, but asked that it be kept quiet because they knew that even though they understood that this was legit, not all their customers would like it, and they might recieve pressure not to do it if it was widely known.

But then the NY Times comes along and does just that. Wow. Good job guys! It was not and never was about the American public's reaction. It was always about how the international banking community would view public knowledge of the program. They didn't want their customers knowing about it. That's the harm done here.



I could turn that around though and say it's interesting how the view on whether information is "private" or a "secret" (complete with conspiratorial undertones) depends on whether you agree with the purpose of the information. The difference in this case is that we have only allegations as to where and how Plame's identity was leaked. No one in the Bush administration has been charged with leaking it. But the NY Times has *overtly* leaked details about a program that they knew was "secret" and had been asked repeatedly not to publish.

Let's analyze this:

A senior white house official may or may not have told someone Plame was an employee of the CIA (not a crime in and of itself). It turns out after the fact that she *may* have been a NOC (in which case her employment was "secret"). This information (her NOC status) was *not* part of the leak. None of those alledged to have leaked this could have known this, or known that even if they did reveal the information, that they were revealing classified information.


A newspaper knows something is secret, is asked multiple times not to publish any information about it. Knowing this, and knowing the harm it would cause, they publish the information anyway.


Are you seriously trying to equate these things? In order to be in violation of any of a number of statues on national security, you absolutely have to *know* that what you are saying is classified. In the Plame case, you can't even prove that anyone in the administration actually leaked the information in question, much less that they knew her employment was secret. You have to have your Liberal goggles screwed on incredibly tight in order not to see the difference in those cases. One is a blatant violation of national security. The other is at worst an honest and unitended mistake.



Sure. And when they actually find any evidence of anything of the sort, you just let me know. This is wonderful speculation, but you are aware that they closed the investigation, and didn't charge anyone in the administration with any crime involving actually leaking any information, right? Just checking because you seem to be under the impression that the mere fact that it *may* have happened is significant enough to keep blathering on about it.



Well. Technically, the press is licensed. They also get credentials issued by government agencies that grant them greater access to areas that the general public cannot get to. This is part of why they are able to so easily figure out alot of this stuff. It's a privilege that it appears some of them choose to abuse.

Also, it doesn't matter if they made no such pledge. I didn't sign an oath stating that I wouldn't commit murder, but I can darn well be charged with it if I kill someone. Same deal. Knowingly passing on secret information is a violation of multiple federal laws, whether one is a member of the press or not.

The US legal code is pretty clear on the subject:



I've snipped out some bits in order to highlight the most relevant in this case. The NY Times is *clearly* in violation of this section of the US legal code. Absolutely no doubt about it. It's just a matter of whether the US AG chooses to actually press charges for it.

The press is absolutely not protected from this, hence the bolded section "or publish". The only reason they haven't been charged yet is likely because the US government is loathe to actually charge a major press outlet. But the NY Times is clearly abusing that priviledge. The press does have rights. But it also has responsibilities. They don't get to violate the law just because they want to. Nor do they get to decide what's right and wrong. That's what we have a democratically elected government for. In this case, they are so clearly in the wrong, and so clearly in violation of law, it's not even funny...



Except when they actually are commiting treason and/or aiding the enemy. Sheesh! Are you seriously trying to argue that if one happens to be a reporter that this gives them the power to say *anything* with no repercussions? The first amendment guarantees their right to print anything they want. It does not make them immune to the laws of the nation though. As with all things, just because you have a right to do something does not make you free from harm should you choose to excersize that right in a really stupid way.

This is actually something that has become incresingly alarming to me. The notion that anything that you have a "right" to do must be completely free from all negative results. That's a scary idea because the implied correlary is that anything that *isn't* a "right" should not be allowed. This leads us to the idea that the government creates a list of what people can do, with everything else being restricted or regulated (which does seem in line with Liberal views now that I think about it). IMO, that's the wrong way to look at it.

Just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean it's always the right thing to do.



No. I'd say it's about paranoid Liberals, so afraid of the boogy man their leaders have told them exists in every conservative that they're jumping at every single hint or innuendo that might suggest something "evil" is being done by them. Meanwhile, they seem totally willing to set aside any questions or concerns in terms of the methods or agenda of their own leaders. Broadcast classified data? That's fine as long as it hurts the Bush administration. Broadcast people's private information? Yup. Fine. As long as it hurts the Bush administration. How far will you guys keep going with this? When will you stop and realize that someday the very tactics you are using to undermine and attack "the other guys" will be used against you? Only by then (assuming you succeed), there'll be no one left to block them.

You give up your own freedoms with every protest, and don't even realize it. That's sad.



Hah. More correctly it's "Oh no! The war on terror is actually working! Iraq is stabilising. Al-qaeda is collapsing. Their assets are being seized. Their movements being tracked. Their causes being marginalized. We'd better do something. Leak that raid on their front companies! Leak the details of the money tracking plan! Leak the information about the phone tracking programs! Quick do everything you can to prevent the government from succeeding in this! We need to be victims and failures in order for us to take control!!!".


That's what's actually going on here. The social liberalists thrive on failure. In order to take power, they must have a population that believes that the current system does not work. They must convince them that free markets don't work. That their medical system does not work. That their lives suck. That poverty is rampant. And that the legal system is incapable of preventing crime, and the government can't do anything about this stuff. They need people to believe that so much that they'll set aside their rights and freedoms and hand the keys to the kingdom over to them, so they can "save everyone", and "make the world a better place".

That's what's really going on here, even if most people don't get it. The social liberalist agenda had been steadily gaining ground over a 60 year time period here in the US. Yup. The bastion of freedom was slowly being taken down and enslaved. And they were "this close" to taking it all. But something happened. The people realized that this BS they were being fed wasn't right. And they voted. They kicked the Dems out of congress. They kicked the Dems out of the Oval office. And the screaming you've heard ever since has been kept at a continuous roar in a desperate attempt to retake power. That's what this is all about. Power. The Liberals lost it. They want it back. And if it takes using every nasty trick in the book to do it, they will. Because it's more important to them that they be in charge, then that the people of the US actually be protected by their government. They are willing to undermine any program, any secret, and anyone in order to take that power back. They'll use the courts (which they've been stacking for 40+ years now) to help them. They'll use the organizations they've virtually bought and paid for (unions and press) to push their "message" out as hard and as loud as possible.

And you don't see this because you've bought into it. You've bought the shiney wirly object that they told you to look at. Look! Free medicine! Look! Free housing. Free education. All could be yours! Just don't worry about what we do or how we do it. Oh. But make sure you focus all your attenion on the "evil" methods the other guys do. Or at least the evil stuff we say they are doing...


Don't you at all get suspicious when the 50th allegation gets tossed out there as fact and yet almost none of them ever end up being true? When will you get it? When will you wake up?

Edited, Jul 6th 2006 at 8:50pm EDT by gbaji

With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.