Slashdot Mirror
White House Forces Censorship of New York Times
VE3OGG writes "It would seem that scientists are not the only ones facing censorship from the White House. According to several news sources the New York Times originally had intended to run an article co-authored by a former employee of the National Security Council, critical of the current administration's policies toward Iran. The article had passed the CIA's publication review board, but was later redacted on orders from the White House. Article authors Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann were former advisers to the White House, and thus all of their publications are scrutinized by a board before they can be published. Of the numerous documents this pair has published since leaving their positions, they say this was the first that was actively censored.
I would have been really surprised if the government would have allowed a critical article co-written by a government official to be published. There is nothing sinister going on here ... if the NYT is upset, they should have just interviewed the National Security Council employee instead of using that individual as a co-author.
Co-authoring any article with a government employee (or even a corporate employee) is always a risk. While the NYT is free to publish almost anything they want, the co-author (by nature of his/her employment) is not, which was the problem in this situation.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
How shocking! Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Film at 11!
In other news: Four legs good, two legs bad. And FP!
Ok I understand if they signed NDAs but if they didn't or this information doesn't fall under any NDA, WHAT THE FUCK.
Second, not that I argue the validity of the info, but are we at the point yet where blogs are considered "news sources"?
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Let the book burnings begin...
"I would have been really surprised if the government would have allowed a critical article co-written by a government official to be published .. While the NYT is free to publish almost anything they want, the co-author (by nature of his/her employment) is not, which was the problem in this situation"
Wrong and wrong again. He was a former adviser to the White House employed by the NSC. It just is what it looks like, the Bush regime trying to silence legimite criticism in the media.
was Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:3, Republican)
davecb5620@gmail.com
It seems like the Bush admin. has really lost their mojo... This is so badly played. If this article had been allowed to run without obstruction, how many people would really have noticed it? Another dry opinion piece promulgating one aspect of one of the five dominant Opinions on What Ought We to Do with Iraq. Instead, with the NYT's unusual decision to run it redacted with an explanation, the spotlight is on every piece of information they wanted to keep out of the press, and it is making headlines in places it never would have (it certainly never would have shown up on Slashdot just as the story it was).
For the first time in a while I'm looking forward to the next year's politics... Not because "my team" is winning (my team doesn't seem to exist and if they did they wouldn't get on any ballot), but because it's just going to be such a clusterfuck... Watching that three ring circus known as the Democratic party try to joust its razor thin margin against this newly politically tonedeaf lame duck administration, while the GOP try to figure out how to put solid distance between themselves and the ever less popular Bush&Co while holding onto all those endearing litte traits that keep the various "bases" happy...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
While the NYT is free to publish almost anything they want, the co-author (by nature of his/her employment) is not, which was the problem in this situation.
Leverett is now at the New America Foundation, and left the CIA some time ago. Since he *used to* work at the CIA, the article had to be reviewed by the CIA. The CIA approved it. What is disconcerting in this instance is that the White House injected itself into the secrets review process. This raises flags because if the White House an override the CIA during the secrets review process, it could easily manipulate that ability for domestic political ends. Want to keep the discussion on Iran policy from going in a certain direction? Want to blunt an attack by a knowledgeable ex-CIA agent? Control the secrets review process.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The problem here is not that the White House censored something. The problem is that they censored something that the CIA didn't. Typically it's the other way around with the CIA having to explain to other organizations (often the White House) that something needs to be censored (don't worry about why, we'll explain later) and frankly, they're usually right. If the CIA lets something go by, barring a massive screw up on their part (yeah, I know, I know), it means it doesn't contain anything that's going to cause harm to national security. So, is this politics? Uh, yeah.
What should have happened:
1) NY Times runs the article
2) Attorney General investigates to see if any laws or contracts were broken.
3) Attorney General prosecutes or sues co-author for breaking law or breaking contract. Use FISA or other closed-court hearings if necessary to protect state secrets.
4) Message is sent to others: Don't do what he did.
5) Citizens see article and see the author is being sued or prosecuted, and make up their own mind at the polls in '08.
6) Next president considers Presidential Pardon.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
They *really* redacted the comments. I was hoping to find the juicy tidbits after looking at the page source. But unfortunately I found:
<"span style="color:black;background:black;">xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx x</span"&>"
On the other hand, looking at the source is always fun.
<!--Kim was here:
{} -->
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ever notice how new and emerging democracies have freer and more open press while the modern democracies are slowly retracting this fundamental right.
He basically tells C-Span what Dear Leader didn't want published in the New York Times.
Apparently the CIA had okayed it, but Bu$hCo didn't want that sucker out.
This boils down to
- the previous reports of Iran offering to negotiate a comprehensive deal for peace in the Middle East, and,
- The dialog that Iran had with the USA right after 9-11 and the lead up to Afghanistan.
Remember, the Iranians are Shiite, the Taliban are Wahhabi Sunni. Basically the Iranians don't like them, either.The conclusions of the Op-Ed were that we're being lied to in order for Dear Leader and Big Time Dick to get this war on again with Iran.
On You Tube here. [Thanks to Uncle $cam]
Billmon suggests the Cheneyburton Corporation wants Total War in Iraq. Read what Bernhard's barflies think about that here. This is doubtless the reason the Joint Chiefs are pissed: when you go to War, you need an objective endpoint, and a pogrom is not an endpoint.
9:07 PM
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The last censored word in that strip could very well be "to", as in "to set the stage".
By the way, my title is "Are you fucking kidding me ?!"
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Why is this under "Your Rights Online"? It has nothing to do with my rights, nor does it have anything to do with anything online.
CmdrTaco should make a new category called "Somebody's Rights Somewhere", just for this sort of article.
Bush, idiot, AMERICA IS A CONTINENT
The "Americans" can't help it, since their country doesn't have a real name - they have to steal it from somewhere else. "The Republic of the United States of America" turns out to be too much of a mouthful.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
All hail the American Police State!!
What exactly does this have to with *MY* rights? I'm not in the CIA so I'm not subject to this review board.
And what is the "online" element here?
Well, american instutitions are much enthusiastic about advertising american values about free speech, transparent government, democracy, freedom and such to the world.
We listen to those, then we visit to slashdot and see that the u.s. government is actively censoring what it does not like, and than, to add insult to injury, we are seeing people here that can actually support such a blatant blashpemy of values.
I dont know which is worse.
Read radical news here
Sounds like the government's policy is security through obscurity. We all know the end result of that mantra.
The New York Times did not print the article, they printed a portion of the article.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
By signing up, you pretty much lose your right to free speach during your term of service. Those in uniform are not allowed to criticize the President. When Clinton was President, he made a big deal at one point about how nobody in the military was saying anything negative about the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky news, when in fact, if they would have, they would have ended up in big trouble.
The authors provided ample evidence that the information that was redacted had already been publicly disclosed.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
<!--Kim was here:
{} -->
I noticed the Kim comment, too. So who is this person? Somebody at NYT, or with Bush&Co, or a CIA agent??
There is a story within a story here, and I for one would like to hear it!
The YouTube video from C-SPAN is very in-teresting.
http://outcampaign.org/
Why would the white house not want the public to know that these were high rank diplomats?
YouTube is the new defender of Freedom in the USofA.
Especially since that's not the name for 'The United States of America'!
you must be one o them retard furrners I hear so much about!
This story is a few days old and this is the first I've heard of it. I haven't seen any mention of it on any of the major news stations. They have instead been preoccupied with the actions of Miss USA and the feud between Donald Trump and Rose O'Donnell's. Why has this not been seen as a major story in the mainstream media?
Because if you *had* RTFA, you would know that every single redaction consisted of information already publicized, in several cases by members of the White House administration. The discussion of the article even links to citations where that VERY SAME INFORMATION is available, non-redact-stylee.
So really, what is the end effect of this censorship? To draw attention to both the attitude of Bush & Co., while simultaneously providing the curious with the information that they weren't supposed to know.
This administration must have lead in their water. I have never seen such ham-handed, short-sighted, and just plain dumb policy. Kind of like a class of Special Ed students who have read Machiavelli and think they know how to run the world.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
The law only allows classification of information related to national security, and that's not something the President is legally above reproach on.
That's complete and utter horse shit. The Administration has added countless things to the list of "top secret" documents that have absolutely NOTHING to do with national security. I don't have time to document right now, but feel free to look. These days, EVERYTHING that the government does is related to "National Security"
The National Energy Policy Development Group would spring to mind, the 2001 Energy Task Force headed by Dick Cheney which has refused to reveal the information of their policy and meetings despite being ordered to do so by courts. The Executive Branch has hid behind the "National Security" moniker to ensure that information is not released. A small ammount of information was released to the public, but nothing of any significance or importance.
The NYT has been good about being willing to publish things the govt. doesn't want out--sometimes things that are important, like the wiretapping program. I applaud them for that. But then, sometimes they also go in for the fear-mongering tactics so common in today's media, and do so in grossly irresponsible ways--like suggesting highly vulnerable terrorist targets.
One kind of action looks out for the rights of the American People. The other looks out for their pocketbook at the expense of the American people.
...to come up with that witty, not-at-all-played-out, totally original gem of extraordinarily clever satire. Seriously, there have got to be at least five posts exactly like this for every post-9/11, Bush-administration-related forum thread on the internet. Quit wasting everyone's bandwidth.
--
make install -not war
Eli Lilly's motion to suppress the evidence has been denied by an inter-galactic court of appeals. Justice will be served over HTTP.
t ar.gz.html
As we speak, the slick marketing plans drawn up by the smartest boys in the drug dealing business are propagating across the Internet. Bittorrents have been internationally seeded; p2p networks like morpheus, kaaza, gnutella, and limewire are already trading vigorously; photos laced with the data have been posted to public photo sharing sites like flickr; movies containing slideshows are circulating on video sharing sites like YouTube; Usenet isn't obsolete yet, and yes, backups have been uploaded to freenet (freenetproject.org), the virtual data haven;
Information wants to be free. Look for a file named ZyprexaKills, or any of its l33t variants.
For those of you without easy access to these services we have temporarily posted these files in this convenient location:
http://files-upload.com/files/34036/ZyprexaKills.
Please be careful when obtaining them - we are up against some of the most greedy and powerful elites in the world.You may want to consider using the tor program (tor.eff.org) to preserve your anonymity. If its difficult for you to install this program, try www.torify.com, a web based surfing solution.
Send this message to as many friends and mailing lists that you can think of, especially the technically saavy and the media connected.
Please tag all netroots activity and distributed research relating to this campaign with the tag 'zyprexakills'.
This message is also available at:
zyprexakills.wordpress.org
zyprexakills.pbwiki.com
----------
Agent Fred
As soon as I saw that Slashdot was linking to the Huffington Post, an ultra-left wing liberal site run by Hollywood celebrities and such, I knew this was left-wing propaganda being posted on the Slashdot front page. As if Clinton didn't buy people off all the time, and even pardoned fugitive buddies of his in the last hours of his Presidency. How come Slashdotters never raised a fuss about that? How come liberals give their own party a pass?
A UCLA/Stanford study proved that the media leans left, and another media poll revealed that the vast majority of journalists report themselves as Democrats. And you people expect objective coverage?
I'm voting libertarian for the rest of my life. Fuck all of you guys.
If you actually listened to him, you'd realize the phrase is "Stop All Nucular Activity".
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
This is boilerplate contract for employment with the CIA or NSA or other US intelligence organizations. The US courts have consistently weaseled out of deciding such cases on strictly first amendment grounds, falling back on contract law (see Snepp or see Marchetti, Agee) when there is a dispute between a former govt employee with access to government secrets and the government about publication. The Supreme Court has said it is ok for the government to enforce a contract requiring prior review of publications even though it's an obvious prior restraint. And it is routine for such authors to submit their work to the CIA (or whatever agency they worked for) before being allowed to publish it. While this is considered justified as a means of protecting classified information, it has clearly been abused in the past to restrain information that is critical or embarrassing to the government. (I don't particularly like that situation, but that's where the common law currently stands on the issue, and it's not likely to change for the better in the near future).
What is strange in this case is not the prior publication review but the fact that Leverett's article was cleared by the CIA, who found it revealed nothing classified, and that the White House then prevented publication anyway. That is an unjustified prior restraint, IMHO, and it would be interesting to see how the courts deal with this situation.
I thought your post was attached to something else, and I want a link too!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Along with the WaPo, has insufficient credibility with me.
In this particular case, all the parties involved know exactly WTF is going on when it comes to publishing 'edgy' material.
The whole point of pushing this over the edge, and stirring an artificial controversy is to improve circulation.
I yawn at the NYT.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I think we need something like a Bill of Rights in this country, something that ensures the freedom of the people to question the government and to speak out when things are wrong. Something that allows us to defend ourselves from danger. Something that ensures our privacy and property all the time and makes sure that our rights do not disappear if we are "charged" with a crime, and we are treated fairly before trial.. yeah... that would be nice to have. Too bad we live in The United Police States of America
All I want for Christmas are my Constitutional rights.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I can't really find any reason for this to be truly discredited and pushed through the anti-bush agenda.
The fact that this went through the CIA and was then approved, has nothing to do with what happened. The issue at hand here, is simply the Whitehouse administration (which, the last I checked, is the "boss" of most of the agencies in question here), found the article to be disclosing information that IT found to be classified.
For those of us who have worked with companies that deal in products that require NDAs and other such classified contractual obligations, this should be no more a surprise than the fact that this issue has barely been hyped anywhere but relative blogsphere.
This looks to me as though he breached his agreement when he signed his life over to that position previously. I'm not a government official and nor do I know their policies, as I am sure their employment policies as well are somewhat under wraps, but I would highly doubt that it would be something so lenient as to let people go running their mouths about everything that went on while they worked there. No, that would be just the same as corporate espionage.
This is not politics, this is business. The Whitehouse made a good business decision, flat out. I have no reason to harp on bush because his administration decided something Leverette/Mann said was exposing something they didn't want exposed. Leverette/Mann have privileged information... and with that, comes responsibility. This is far too much stink for something I'd expect of any document coming out of the government. To me, it shows they're paying attention rather than getting caught up in all the anti-government sentiment all around.
is why everyone is blaming the White House. Sure it is their order, but Freedom of the Press shouldn't be considered just a right, but a responsibility. I say the NYTimes gives a big "Fuck You!" to the administration and goes ahead with the publishing anyway. It's not like the White House has censored every single copy of this article, at least set up as anonymous of a blog as you can and post it on the web.
Seriously people, grow a pair.
(Whops, ugly error in my subject line. I think I'm gonna flame my own post here for the misspellings and take the fun away from the grammar police ..And I'm not even going to spellcheck just to fire em up even MORE.)
;-)
You are SOO dum. Thats not evn funny. One thime I did abuncha coke backstage with Zeplin then used "E" before "I"! aHAHAHA Those where the mothafukken DAYS..
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I know I don't have to summarize the story again for you. The controversy here is plenty real. What you suggest amounts to the paper of record ignoring possibly criminal (that's right, fraud is illegal) action by our elected government. What is wrong with you? Yawn as much as you want, it won't make this go away.
Don't feed the troll.
When he went off about Iran wanting nuclear energy "for peaceful purposes" I quit reading. Anyone who believes Ahmadinejad, after listening/reading just one of his speeches, is hardly one whose opinion I would ever care about.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
What I think you are referring to here is the case of the New York Time eventually revealing the administration's unconstitutional abuse of power and the president's blatant refusal to uphold his oath of office (though that still could mean you were thinking about the presidentially authorized torture in the secret prisons, unlawful detention of US citizens, or unwarranted wiretaps); far from spiting him in these cases they held off on publication until after he was re-elected, possibly giving him a second term he never would have had without there help*.
--MarkusQ
* There help didn't stop there of course. You also have to factor in their unquestioning support for his war in Iraq, including repeatedly printing baseless claims of WMD.
Well this is just what I was talking about...
I agree that Ahmadinejad is some kind of religius-fanatic for the way he talks/write, but I believe in the peaceful goal of their nuclear initiative.
Do you think their only way of getting nuclear weapons is by starting a nuclear program with nuclear reactors like the one at Brushehr?
If they want nuclear weapons they can buy them, they can develop them secretly, etc..
I think there must be a way to let Iran have nuclear energy plants, but for the Bush administration and people like you, there's no other way than ordering them to stop ALL nuclear activity impending the progress of their electric infrastructure.
Nuclear seems to be the way to cheap and clean energy, something any country should be able to achieve. Developed nations should encourage the adoption of alternative energy sources instead of discouraging them and opossing irrationaly.
As much as I seem a troll to you, I think you are the kind of short minded paranoid people I'm talking about (the one that abounds now a days).
So, now you can continue modding me down, or calling me troll, I don't care, I'm just expressing what I believe.
I, for one, welcome our new xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Oh sure, because world socialist publications are renowned for their objectivity.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
All of the information that the White House wanted redacted is already in the public sphere. If anyone was "running their mouths," it was administration officials. Please read this (note the citations for all of the redacted information, on the left of the page):
In other words, the Times showed the White House that all of the information in the article was in the public domain already, yet the White House still wouldn't allow it to be published in its complete form--even after the CIA had already cleared the article. Why do you think this might be?
Also, please note, the government is not a corporation, so your analogies to corporate NDAs and corporate espionage are not relevant.
They should just leak it. That's what everyone else in government is doing these days. And the NYT is a willing lackey in the process.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So even the US center is right of itself? Just because your political viewpoint is skewed even further leftward (as is a good portion of the global population) doesn't mean that US media aren't biased to the left.
When you accept a security clearance to work for the government, you sign a contract stating that you will not publish details about the job you did--even after leaving employment with the government--without having it cleared first. Nothing necessarily new or heinous about this.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Well???
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Hezbollah is Shia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Shi.27a_Isl amism.
Well, well, well. It appears that I'm not the only "paranoid." Seems that today the U.N. Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to impose sanctions against Iran for their "peaceful" nuclear ambitions. You can fool some of the people some of the time...
a /un_iran_nuclear
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061224/ap_on_re_mi_e
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
...to mention this: my cousin came up for Xmas today. He works for the USGS, which as was reported here and other places, has to now "clear" their publications with the administration prior to release. He's a primary research PhD, plus a super-anti-Bush ultra-liberal, so I'll go with what he says. I straight up asked him if he has to "censor" his work...suprisingly he answered that it's NOTHING like that. Apparently, the government has a long standing policy of requesting that info that may go against current administration policy be released internally for a period before it's released to the public, to allow the administration to prepare news releases tempering or even downright contradicting the USGS et al. info. It may not be fair, but it's far from censorship - his words not mine, and he's quite a bit more left-leaning than I so I will take his words at face value.
Don't know how it relates to this exactly but I wouldn't be surprised if it's much the same story - not censorship, but sort of pre-publication.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I find myself admittedly in the minority here, but I'd like to point out that:
... even when it would not censor pure fiction coming from itself.
(1) The New York Times ("The paper of record", as they arrogantly call themselves; seems a bit odd with British papers having been established some time prior) has published _sheer fiction_ made up by Jayson Blair, and kept that guy on long after everyone in the news room knew he was corrupt only because he was black; this caused a melt down in papers that ran articles from the Times, and had to retract them. This was an ideology problem.
(2) Routinely runs just about psychotic-level character assassination pieces in its Op-Ed from Maureen Dowd, who lives and breathes hatred for George Bush and cannot find what to do with herself now that Donald Rumsfeld is gone. This is an ideology problem.
(3) Printed an extremely questionable piece *in time of war* handing Al-Qaeda methods on how the NSA scans phone calls outbound from the United States, which not only gave out methods, but blew the operation in place. If you've read James Bamford's book on the NSA you understand how important SIGINT is in the war against Al-Qaeda (it's everything). They've quit using satellite phones and cell phones for a very good reason. They used to think land lines were secure. Now the fools at the NYT blew that. This is an ideology problem. Why did they do this?
Were they defending American's right to phone lines in America? Nope. These were international calls, outbound scans only. You concentrate your computing power and minimize the scanning load as much as possible.
Were they defending America's right to have phone sex with Pakistanis? Possibly this would explain a great deal about Maureen Dowd.
The words "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" come to my mind, but then, I'm just an old softie.
There are people who seem to have retreated from the idea that the United States is at war with Al-Qaeda. Regrettably, Al-Qaeda has not.
I've read in this thread many, many people worried about censorship. But who worries about what the New York Times does every day? Its ideology warps what it prints. And, I think, it was more than happy to yowl about "censorship" as loudly as possible
If you want to read really good books, you'd best not rely on the NYT's reviews. You'll miss books that a bunch of people found good, but that did not pass the *ideology* test of the NYT. "The Purpose Driven Life" comes to mind right off.
And by the way, I too have been to a third world country or two, and if you can't tell the difference between that and the United States, you badly need psychiatic help.
Thanks, Dave Small
Look up the word 'ideology'. It does not mean 'bias'. It does not mean 'disruption'. It does not mean 'elite'.
I'm very sorry that your favorite book didn't get a review in the NY Times. Life just isn't fair, is it?
USA is a 1st world economy, about to become a 2'nd or 3rd world economy, due to 3rd world political scence.
For real? Nothing should be secret about government machinations. Government should be transparent. Anything less is a corrupt regime.
Secrets to protect us? I don't need any protecting, thank you very much. More like secrets to maintain a corrupt power base and tax base. Behind the facade of lies, our government is nothing but a bunch of corrupt men... a gang of thugs with connections, guns, and radios. And unbelievable weapons of mass destruction which keep getting more advanced and far more deadly and inhumane.
Want WMDs? They are stored all across the US of A. Nuke plants, chemical warfare stockpiles, B-52 bombers, bouncing betty bombs, nerve gas, napalm equivalents, you name it, the US has more weapons of mass destruction than all other nations on earth combined. If you poke around you'll find military bases in your states, naval shipyards, prisons by the bushel load, weapons factories, aircraft dumps, fema camps, national guard armouries, etc, ad nauseum.
Want terrorists? Again, look no further than home. The CIA carries out covert assination and drug running and false flag operations around the globe, and has been for the longest time. They train guerrila armies and hitmen to prop up corrupt regimes in the third world.
Hold on. I need to zip on over to wicktionary to check the definition on HYPOCRACY. All of America is nothing but a bunch of craptastic DOUBLE SPEAK. Say onething with SPIN to cover up its true meaning, or completly outright bold face lie about it. Because people forever cling to the belief their government is the good guys, they want it so bad to be true, that they are on the good team and safe, when on the contrary the dire opposite is most true. And who they have to fear most is not some camel herder with an AK-47 on the other side of the world, but the corrupt sherrif right down the road with an equally corrupt DA, and judge, who will lock them up in a heartbeat in a sensory deprivation concrete and steel blockhouse with no chance whatsoever of escape.
Look how State Power is emerging in the anarchy right now that is IRAQ. Its gangs of street thugs fighting for control, run by warlord strong men. Nothing matters to them but viscious use of force for their survival and projection of power. This is how the state evolves, it is always how the state has evolved. One gang fighting other gangs, to take control and expand its territory, and attempt to legitimize itself along the way. Its how Rome evolved. I dare say Egypt too. Russia for sure. One gang in Iraq will grow stronger than the rest by a margin, the US will cut a deal with them and leave them in control, and then they will proceed to irradicate the rest, and legitimize themselves into the legitimate government of Iraq. But its just spackle. Because underneath it all, its the same group of thugs with the same prime directive.
America formed no differently. And if it did, it was superceded by power grappling groups of thugs that came later.
What we need to do, is eliminate the STATE. Period. End it. Its a flawed and corrupt paridigm that will hold mankind back unti the end of his days, and keep us from acting in unity as a brotherhood of men on a single blue green world lost in the vastness of space. We should be reaching for the stars, but instead we're tearing paradise apart into a dungheap scrap pile of twisted broken and obsolete war machines wasting resources and energy in these retarded turf wars. Everybody loses in the end, even the winners.
I'm sorry, I don't know why I read otherwise.
Read the NYT if you want to, they get lucky sometimes.
-- MIB
All the flap about muzzling over global warming is hype, as anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge of how Public Affairs works knows. And now this.
If the WH was really censoring the NYT's, there have been plenty of recent articles outing classified information that they would have censored, if not just to save the lives and blood they cost.
Bush is kill on the side of the road and you guys are now officially the vultures chewing on the dead meat. Hope it tastes good.
Merry Christmas.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dd_1847_1.pdf
Section 4: In consideration of being granted access to SCI and of being
assigned or retained in a position of special confidence and trust
requiring access to SCI, I hereby agree to submit for security review
by the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to such
information or material, any writing or other preparation in any form,
including a work of fiction, that contains or purports to contain any
SCI or description of activities that produce or relate to SCI or that I
have reason to believe are derived from SCI,
that I contemplate disclosing to any person not authorized to have
access to SCI or that I have prepared for public disclosure. I
understand and agree that my obligation to submit such preparations
for review applies during the course of my access to SCI and
thereafter, and I agree to make any required submissions prior to
discussing the preparation with, or showing it to, anyone who is not
authorized to have access to SCI. I further agree that I will not
disclose the contents of such preparation to any person not
authorized to have access to SCI until I have received written
authorization from the Department or Agency that last authorized
my access to SCI that such disclosure is permitted.
Well, for decades, you've been screaming about liberties. Why aren't EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU calling the White House, and your Congresscritters, and DEMANDING that the White House stop censorship?
I see, because every one of you are hypocrites and liars, and meant "no censorship for anything that hurts anyone on the left", but it's Not OK if it hurts the right.
And for the guy who said, "why don't you let it go",
a) becuase the son of a bitch is still in power, and stealing
hundreds of billions of our tax dollars, and
b) we'll let it go when you apologize for EVERYTHING YOU'VE
EVER SAID ABOUT CLINTON, and swear on a stack of
Linux kernel source code to NEVER say anything
negative about Clinton ever again.
mark
A "publication review board"? Since when, in a free nation, does a government agency determine whether a *former* employee may speak of his *former* employer? (Except in the employment contract upon entering the government's service in the first place, so as to prevent the release of sensitive information?)
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Bush Logic:
1. Prop up violent dictator "The Shah". (check)
2. Pay Saddam Hussein and give him chemical weapons to wage 9 year war against country. (check)
3. Shoot down civilian airliner in cold blood during the last month of previously mentioned war. (check)
4. Profit!???
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
AMERICA IS A CONTINENT
No, it is not. "The Americas" could be considered a continent. "North America" and "South America" are continents. "America" as a single word to describe a single place is unambiguously used to describe one and only one thing. It is short-hand for The United States of America. Having been to multiple countries on every continent other than Antarctica, I have seen there be no confusion on that point. The people that claim the most confusion are the people that are obviously know the difference but complain because they don't like it, not because there is any confusion or ambiguity in the use.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not at liberty to say.
Along those lines, let me point you to one of the books that has most influenced my opinion of US foreign relations, and the CIA in general: The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks. They were former CIA employees who more or less blew the whistle on some of the despicable practices of the agency, to promote US business interests at the expense of thousands (maybe millions) of lives. The CIA tried to redact much of the book, and there was a court case which decided which pieces of info should be redacted, and which should not. The book has big white spaces where the redacted information was, and boldface text for info that the CIA requested to be redacted, but the courts disagreed. Very interesting.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
You touched briefly on the key issue of Israel and its relationship with the U.S. An interesting subset of questions relates to the financial aspect of the relationship. Why is there absolutely zero public debate about these issues? And why is any attempt to start such public debates sophistically stifled by offensive and false allegations of racism? If there is nothing to hide, why the extreme sophistry? Is nobody entitled to debate these issues even with friendly and absolutely non-racist motives?
Since you've apparently grown up in a country where the government controls people writing criticism of itself, I'll explain the United States government to you. First, we have a Constitution that creates the government with only explicitly assigned powers. Controlling criticism is not among them. For good measure, that Constitution includes a section that explicitly makes clear that the government is required to protect such criticism, especially in print.
That kind of defense of liberty, rather than government tyranny, surprised the British king when we kicked him and his army out of our country at its beginning. It still surprises many people who familiar with only tyranny, strangers to liberty. At least now you can't be surprised from any claim of ignorance.
--
make install -not war