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.

Comments

Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Salvance]

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.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[The Living Fractal]

"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."

The co-author is a former employee. I fail to see the reasoning behind the censorship, given the circumstances. Perhaps, if it were some issue of national security, I could see the relevance. However, I do not believe it is. More like current administration security.

TLF

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[rblancarte]

Because the guys have government secrets that can be passed. I am sure they wouldn't, but you never know.

RonB

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[scotch]

The idea of the review is to determine if classified information is revealed by the article. Presumably, in this case it is. Or maybe not.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[arth1]

Because the guys have government secrets that can be passed. I am sure they wouldn't, but you never know.

That the white house is led by incompetents is hardly a government secret.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[IdleTime]

* sigh *

It said the article had passed the review board so it could not have included anything secret.

USA has become a 1st world economy with a 3rd world society.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

There were two review boards, though only one appears to be formal. The one run by the CIA said there was nothing there that couldn't be printed. The less formal board from the White House claimed that there was classified info that had to be redacted. I would think that the CIA would be a better judge of this, but oh well...

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Dunbal]

USA has become a 1st world economy with a 3rd world society.

      No, in a 3rd world society the article would have been published. But the author would be found shot dead in his car a few months later.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Amouth]

a few months later.. nahh we are faster than that.. i bet they could have gotten the paper and the pictures of the guy dead in the same days paper..

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

A system with proper checks and balances would allow the article to be published if either review board approved it, rather than both.

Anyway, this sort of crap is exactly why I refuse to work on anything that requires a security clearance.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[FinMacCool]

I would have been really surprised if the government would have allowed a critical article co-written by a government official to be published.

WHAT? Isn't there a freedom of speech thingamajig in that US Constitution-a-calit? I know it wasn't in the original but I thought we made an amendment to make sure people and the press could speak out against the government.
Why are we only surprised if we don't get censored? Is it opposite day or something?

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[hjf]

The saddest part of this, is the attitude of people like you. "Oh, so they censored a little, for the sake of national security, that should be fine." All dictatorships start like this, with government taking and people giving a little of their rights. So little that you don't notice, but looking back you see how much you lost and can't get back. It's a shame that "in the land of the free", it's normal, and perfectly acceptable to have a censor. And you know why? Because american society as a whole is so ignorant that they let the government do the thinking. That's what taxpayer dollars are for, right?. You know what Fidel Castro said to Barbara Walters? "Ignorant people are not ready to be free".

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw this guy talk about the issue on C-SPAN. As far as I know all of the following are true:

1. He does *NOT* work for the government anymore.

2. All information in his article is public knowledge combined from a variety of sources who have made public statements to the same effect.

3. The CIA reviewed the document and declared that it contained no sensitive information.

4. This isn't this characters first time doing this.. He's cleared some 30 different articles with the CIA and has not once including and until now had any issues.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[pla]

But the author would be found shot dead in his car a few months later.

You mean kinda like Cliff Baxter, the Enron guy who agreed to talk not only about Lay and Skilling, but also about the private "consultations" between Enron and Dick Cheney?

Funny how someone can commit "suicide" by shooting themself in the head from "two to three feet away". That takes some serious talent.


But hey, we've forgotten all about that little blemish. Why squabble over illegal manipulation of the energy market when we have a WAR on TERRORISM to fight, in a completely unrelated country formerly run by a secular semi-democratically-elected leader, that coincidentally happens to contain the second largest oil reserves on the planet.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Doc Ruby]

Nothing unconstitutional about the government infringing the freedom of the press of the NYT, or the speech of the two authors? With even the usual BS "national security" excuse obviously bogus, after the CIA released them?

What kind of "Constitution" do you have, that doesn't have a First Amendment? You praying for some kind of corporate anarchy?

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[TubeSteak]

A system with proper checks and balances would allow the article to be published if either review board approved it, rather than both.

If you add up enough un-classified details, you can end up with a "big picture" that would be considered classified information.

Don't forget, between unclassified & secret, there's a "confidential" designation. The CIA may have said "fine, there is no classified information" while the White House may have said "hold on, this isn't secret, but we think it should remain confidential."

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Charcharodon]

Doesn't matter if they are former or current. If the article is about anything doing with their job past or present the boss get's a say. That's how it goes when you work for the DOD or other security branches of government. That is also how it is in many civilian jobs in the tech industry as well. The moment you sign a non-disclosure or non-competition aggrement you pretty much are giving up your rights within the framework of the agreement. It's as simple as that.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Tablizer]

No, in a 3rd world society the article would have been published. But the author would be found shot dead in his car a few months later.

In the US, your wife ends up on YouTube dancing naked and drunk with another man.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[scotch]

link please

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Doc Ruby]

Workplace rules are trumped by the Constitution.

Are you defending a rule (uncited) that lets a White House squash the free speech/press of the authors and the NYT, even though the article contains no secrets, as proven by the CIA review clearance? In what is deductively certain to be a purely political move by Bush/Cheney, not to have public info endorsed in the NYT by a credible authority?

Rights cannot be surrendered. People can waive protections of them, but the rights to free speech and the press are inalienable.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Oligonicella]

Detail you forgot to quote from your own link:

"Wagner said that murder could not be ruled out, despite the evidence suggesting that the shooting was a suicide."

Mishandling of a case doth not beget governmental conspiracy murder.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[paganizer]

I'm just curious why I'm not seeing "prior restraint" anywhere; this should have only been decided by a federal magistrate.
Oh, sorry, forgot what century it was. all that posse comitatus, ex post facto, habeas corpus & prior restraint crap is Sooooo 20th century!

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[way2trivial]

I think scotch had comment #17349598 replied to the wrong post-it belongs here.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[BLAG-blast]

1. He does *NOT* work for the government anymore.

2. All information in his article is public knowledge combined from a variety of sources who have made public statements to the same effect.

3. The CIA reviewed the document and declared that it contained no sensitive information.

4. This isn't this characters first time doing this.. He's cleared some 30 different articles with the CIA and has not once including and until now had any issues.

And also:

5. xxxx xxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx x xxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx.

Hopefully that's all cleared up now.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[john82]

People can waive protections of them...

When these two went to work at the White House they would have signed a document doing exactly that. And please, let's not pretend that this arrangement began with this White House.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Anonymous Coward]

I always ask myself why Japan with the stelllar quality of life,has so much suicides.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mishandling of a case doth not beget governmental conspiracy murder."

Really? You mean like when the government actively prevented any actual investigation of the 9/11 "incident?" And now we see that there were enough anomolies in that one, like pretty clear evidence that explosives were used (9/11 Mysteries http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-670819007 1483512003), coupled with the obvious "cui bono" pointing to George W. Bush to make "mishandling" look a lot like an old-fashioned "coverup?" Or were you referring to Paul Wellstone's rather strange demise and susequent non-investigation?

Or maybe you meant the big one: Congress's steadfast refusal to look at impeachment or the possibility of war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and all the other rather obvious mass-murderers?

It looks to me like government "mishandling" of something as serious as a murder is a pretty good pointer to the likely perpetrators.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[morcheeba]

You need to hold the government to a higher standard.

"I would have been really surprised if the government would have allowed a critical article co-written by a government official to be published."

The government is not and should not be of one opinion, handed down from one branch. If anything, the government should be a free exchange of ideas where policies are rigorously and openly debated. That's what I'd expect from a dictatorship, not my country.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[modecx]

Oh right. It's not like anyone in this administration currently in the top government ranks have willingly leaked sensitive, no less classified information.

The idea that it passed CIA review would seem to indicate that it did not contain classified information... On the other hand, the fact that the White House blocked it despite this would seem to indicate that it contained facts or opinions damaging to The Administration--and that's a bogus reason to censor anything.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Doc Ruby]

Well, apparently there is some agreement they're willing to abide by, because their article is not being published.

Are you arguing whether Bush/Cheney are effective at infringing free speech/press, or whether it's right? And who said this is new? After all, Cheney worked for Nixon, and many of Bush's brains worked for Bush Sr and Reagan.

So let's not pretend that we're talking about any of the Republican fallacies you're rolling out. Let's talk about how Bush/Cheney are stomping on free speech/press to avoid public humiliation from an authority on how badly they're damaging the country in still other ways, like militarily and strategically. And while we're at it, let's talk about how you and the rest of the "nothing new here" crowd are helping them.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[jcr]

I fail to see the reasoning behind the censorship,

The person in question agreed to a contract as a condition for access to classified materials as part of his job. Those terms persist for many years after he leaves the position. He also (probably) has to tell the FBI if he travels to any foreign country, and report any contact with foreign officials.

My business partner spent 12 years at the CIA. He left them years ago, but he'll still have the travel restrictions for several more years, and anything he writes about the agency or his work there has to be submitted for review by the agency.

-jcr

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[jcr]

this should have only been decided by a federal magistrate.

That would be the case if the author hadn't signed a contract that said otherwise.

-jcr

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[jcr]

Rights cannot be surrendered.

Sure they can. Contracts are written every day where one party or the other gives up a right in exchange for some benefit.

-jcr

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Doc Ruby]

No, they are giving up privileges or prerogatives lawyers also call "rights", but which are not the inalienable ones in the Constitution. Unconstitutional contracts are void.

Waiving protections of those actual rights does not alienate those rights from a person. They're inalienable.

Of course, some moral relativists disagree with the fundamental philosophy on which America was founded. That's their right: the right to be wrong.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[JebusIsLord]

I have. And I'd rather live in Belize again than the ol' US of A.

(I'm Canadian)

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[GooseKirk]

Wrong. I'm an American who's lived in a third-world country for nearly three years now. Of course there are lots of differences, but still plenty to compare.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[networkBoy]

"A system with proper checks and balances would allow the article to be published if either review board approved it, rather than both."

Wrong.
Each review board is privy to information the other is not. CIA may not know FBI details, Oval office won't know CIA details to maintain plausable denial.
-nB

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[dangitman]

You mean kinda like Cliff Baxter [wsws.org], the Enron guy

I thought he was the guy from Cheers. You live and learn.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[kalirion]

There were two review boards, though only one appears to be formal. The one run by the CIA said there was nothing there that couldn't be printed. The less formal board from the White House claimed that there was classified info that had to be redacted. I would think that the CIA would be a better judge of this, but oh well...

I think it went more like this:

CIA review board: Nothing here endangers National Security, so you can print it.
White House review board: This makes us look bad, so you can't print it.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[E 99]

A system with proper checks and balances would allow the article to be published if either review board approved it, rather than both.

No, a system with proper checks and balances should redact the article on the advisement of either board. On one side you have a question of national security, and on the other side you have an ex-NSA guy who wants his name in the NYT. Hmm, tough choice.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Bobzibub]

I believe the US constitution reflects a "contract" between the government and the individual in so far as the government may not limit free speech; your employer, however may.

Of course this case is one of political expediency vs free speech but that's just nuance. ..must..not...break...Goodwin's...law.....

OK, fulfill. Whatever! = )

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I doubt it has to do with contracts. He said he was threatened with criminal charges. Breach of contract is a civil matter.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

So how do you propose to maintain accountability? It's not like the voters are in a position to decide directly.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[bigred85]

...like pretty clear evidence that explosives were used...

You're right, explosives were indeed used to bring the towers down. I'd say huge jetliners filled to capacity with fuel and flown into buildings qualify as "explosives".

Or are you talking about C4 (or something equivalent), which has pretty much been debunked by, let's see here, most of the credible scientific community? There's just something about "pretty clear" evidence that has them not exactly swayed.

Mod parent flamebait, please.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

How are the voters guaranteed that it really is a matter of national security, and not a political matter, as is being alleged here.

Or do you have some fundamental objection to the rule of law that you would like to elaborate on?

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware that plausible deniability was an essential part of republican democracy.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[corbettw]

Considering all the classified reports that have been published in the NYT over the last year, and the fact that none of the reporters, editors, or publishers are in prison or have been "disappeared", I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the USA is any kind of third world dictatorship.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[rbanffy]

I don't know if the US employs the same ideas, but in Brazil there are certain rights (sadly, the only examples that come to my mind are consumer rights) you just can't waive - they are yours and they remain yours independent of what kind of document you sign.

Things like these remind me that we _should_ have more civil rights one cannot give up.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Hal_Porter]

Simple, give me absolute power, and my army of mercenaries will kill anyone I consider to be unaccountable.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Hal_Porter]

You know, if you suspect that the current administration murdered someone, why aren't you out finding proof like Woodward and Bernstein did, rather than linking to dodgy conspiracy sites like the Worldwide Socialist Web Site?

Seriously, either it'd true in which case Bush and Cheney should be impeached and imprisoned, or it's not true in which case people should stop talking about it.

The BBC describe his death very differerntly from the wsws by the way
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1784945.stm

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[mrscorpio]

Close, it's:

5. ???
6. Profit

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[smchris]

I don't get the "1st world economy" thread. We're exporting raw materials, importing manufactured goods, and up to our eyeballs in foreign debt from unsound economic policies. What's the 1st world part?

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Somatic]

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.

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[mabhatter654]

Simple, these guys aren't actively working in govt positions right now. If they came to any knowledge on their own, that happened to be true, it's unethical for the prez to censor it because he doesn't like it. They can't know (or at this point shouldn't know) one damn thing about the White House policy on Iran.. if what they might write is TRUE and the White House does act in some manor they said, it's either "procedure" set up ahead of time, or they are planning something far in advance, for example an unprovoked attack on Iran, and the prez would have huge egg on his face if the report was to be published and the media started adding up the pieces to see the prez is acting disingenuous in the Iran matter...

The simple fact is that the CIA cleared the report... only THEY are authorized in international intelligence and illegal spying. They keep tabs on who we attack with our armies (national security) and who we don't. They also like to keep their secrets for a very long time. The FBI on the other hand, is a POLICE organization, not intelligence. They have no more right to secrets about the past than your local cop does about a traffic stop.... they are civilian, police, and law enforcement... they have no right or need for secrecy beyond immediate investigations. Again, this would lead one to believe that somebody is going to be "making up" an "attack" by Iran real soon now... because there have not been crimes committed in the USA related to Iran and terrorism.

IN short, it's a report policy and official opinion that are being censored, not the facts and not secrets. Like the "conspiracy" nuts have said about Iraq, that it was all a setup start to make sense for Iran also now.. more than likely the report contained "forward looking statements" about Iran from too long ago.. and when something DOES happen with military action in Iran, the Prez wants it to be a "surprise" to the congress and people and to hide knowledge that the game was rigged from the start. Remember, these guys have been moved on for a while... they shouldn't know secret stuff, unless the secret stuff is something PLANNING or SET UP to be done... and that should never be secret!!!

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[networkBoy]

"I wasn't aware that plausible deniability was an essential part of republican democracy."

I'll feed the troll.
It's not. But that is why the Oval office may not know what the CIA knows. doesn't make it right, but it is true.
-nB

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[n00854180t]

Brilliant logic! I agree completely, former government workers should have no expectation of free speech at all. In fact, they should probably be disallowed from thinking of publishing as well. Hell, why not just arrest everyone, torture them until they confess to their charges, and put them all to death, that'd save PLENTY of time. Genius.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[jcr]

Breach of contract is a civil matter.

Ordinarly, yes, but the contracts you sign to gain access to classified materials also come under special legislation

-jcr

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Baricom]

Wait. Isn't that why the Department of Homeland Security was created? There's a double standard here.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[LordVader717]

If you add up enough un-classified details, you can end up with a "big picture" that would be considered classified information.

Are you implying that they should censor conclusions that people draw out of public information?

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[luckyguesser]

so what exactly is the difference between a secret and something confidential? the size of the group of people "in the know"? ... that doesn't make sense to me. sounds like a meaningless discrepancy with words... though, that IS very like politicians...

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[pla]

The BBC describe his death very differerntly from the wsws by the way

VERY differently. Although they do paint a picture making suicide sound more likely, they leave out the key detail, the size of the entry wound.

Even taking the lower end of the coroner's range, the physically-possible (for suicide) two feet away... People just don't shoot themselves from arm's length. And they rarely shoot themselves in the temple in the first place, generally opting to "eat lead". At the farther end of the range... Well, can you hold something three feet away from your head? My arms only measure 2'6", to the fingertips (meaning I couldn't actually hold something at that distance).


You know, if you suspect that the current administration murdered someone, why aren't you out finding proof

Because people just don't care. Every week, we learn about new violations of US law, the geneva convention, the US constitution, basic human rights, and no one cares.

We get an update on the administration's body count every morning on the news. "Six killed in a car bomb in Mosul yesterday", "fifteen dead and dozens wounded in an attack on a Mosque in Basra", "Baghdad police brought fifty-six bodies to the morgue this morning"... How much more could I do, if the US public just brushes that off?

And before you say the US government has nothing to do with that, ask yourself if the semi-democratically elected government we overthrew, for no good reason, managed to keep all those dogs under control...



like Woodward and Bernstein did

As soon as my own personal "Deep Throat" provides me with undisputable proof of Bush's misdeeds...



rather than linking to dodgy conspiracy sites like the Worldwide Socialist Web Site?

I did consider linking to a different site, due to the somewhat questionable bent on that one, but I that one had (IMO) the most meaningful detail from the coroner's report, even ignoring the rest of the tinfoil content.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

I _DO_ live in a third world country, i lived a good part of my life in the last years of our last dictatorship. and yes, the republican government in US is looking more and more like our former dictators.

censhorsip, arms race, beligerance, electoral fraud, media manipulation... it's all there.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Znork]

Confidential means it may cost the politicians votes.

Secret means it may land the politicians in jail.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

Security concerns of this nature don't stop with employment. Confidentiality is not limited only to current employees. It does seem though that it is the censoring of a former employee rather than the censoring of the NYTimes. Unfortunately, the Times has not been prosecuted for printing leaked classified intellegence in the recent past which has significantly damaged our efforts in the war on terror. If anyone wonders why we haven't captured or killed ben laden, just remember it was the NYT that leaked the information about our primary methods of tracking him. One can only wonder whether if the NYT had his phone number would they call and ask him for his views on the possible success of the pending secret assault force waiting just outside of his cave.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[sgt_doom]

If you RTFA one more time, you will see (even the blind can sometimes see) that the article PASSED the national security review. This is more crapola from the Cheney/Bush/bin Laden crime family.

Henry Kissinger - now advisor to Dickhead Cheney - has been a paid register foreign agent to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and government of China for a number of years (this is public domain information - the DOJ has the lists of said registered agents under F.A.R.A.). James Baker, now advising Bushie Wushie, is a legal representative to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, along with British Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil. Any of this starting to get through to you, Salvance????

While the NYT is free to publish almost anything they want.. ---- Huh? The NYT proclaimed the attempted coup of democratically-elected (and very similar to JFK) President Hugo Chavez to be positive (that is, at the time they believed this coup to have been successful). And that deceitful airhead Judy Miller (who, at that time was being boinked by the publisher, I believe) published false planted stories she had been told by Dickhead Cheney, draft-dodger extraordinaire. ..free to publish almost anything... --- think again, Kimosabe....

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Flendon]

... because there have not been crimes committed in the USA related to Iran and terrorism. I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but yours fails the logic test. One only has to consider that at the current time there is an ongoing terror plot by Iran being conducted entirely within the United States. You only consider past tense, not present in your claim. Being entirely within the US the case is no longer international, despite the fact that the players are international, and would be handled by the FBI, not the CIA. Under your own description this would fall under an open investigation for the FBI which merits secrecy. It could be a cover up of something, but you're reaching for straws claiming that we are going to fake an attack from Iran.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Adam.Steinbaugh]

If the "big picture" is classified, the details would be classified, as well. The "big picture", in this case, is an opinion that contradicts the White House's rhetoric. Can opinions now be classified?

All of the facts have previously been published. The author has, AFAIK, said similar things in print before. The White House didn't want that opinion published widely, period.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Darby]

Unfortunately, the Times has not been prosecuted for printing leaked classified intellegence in the recent past which has significantly damaged our efforts in the war on terror.

Can you back up your idiotic lie that there has been any damage caused by the NYT?

No, of course you can't, since there has been none.

What they did was very responsibly report on acts of treason by the current administration.

Now, since all you're doing is repeating nonsense lies spewed by the current treasonous administration, you have done nothing but demonstrate your complete lack of integrity or even basic common sense.

Now kindly take your treasonous lies elsewhere you stupid terrorist supporting shitbag.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Shaper_pmp]

Yes, but the CIA doesn't have the right priorities to make a decision of this type.

They're worried about silly, little things like terrorism, insurgency, defectors and people giving away classified information.

The Whitehouse is worried about the really important stuff, like whether the information makes them look bad, or contradicts any of the vast edifice of lies, spin and propaganda they've painstakingly erected. Especially now it's starting to show a few cracks.

Priorities, people, priorites...

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Shaper_pmp]

Right. And if you'd bothered to read TFA at all, you'd know that the CIA already cleared the article for publication, and the Whitehouse spiked it after that.

Jesus - is a little link-clicky and article-browsey too much to ask before mouth-openey and irrelevant-horseshit-spewy?

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Shaper_pmp]

Heh - good one. Someone mod parent "Funny"?

Now, once again for the slow kids at the back:

• He was employed by the CIA, not the Whitehouse.
• The CIA already cleared the material for public consumption.
• The Whitehouse spiked the article.
• The Whitehouse gave no reason, but since the CIA had no problem with it we can assume it had nothing to do with current operations or national security (that is, after all, the CIA's job, right?)
• The Whitehouse has a clear and well-known history of attempting to "manage" information and spin leaks just to make itself look good (ok, "less worse"), and isn't above bending, breaking or redefining the rules to do so.

Oh, and FWIW? When your own leaders start breaking the rules of your law, it's still illegal, it's still wrong, and they should be brought to justice.

The NYTimes should be lauded for protecting your freedom, not vilified because they made your team look bad. Stop cheerleading, put down the fucking pom-poms and think.

Oh, and the only leader who doesn't have to worry about breaking laws is a despot. Surely you don't think Bush is a despot, do you? And you wouldn't... be in favour of it if he was... would you?

That doesn't sound very American to me...

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[mi]

So how do you propose to maintain accountability?

This is not a new problem — certainly not one of the 21st century or brought upon us by the evil Bush-nazis.

These problems (secrecy vs. accountability) are generally solved by Congressional oversight, which is done by lawmakers with security clearances... Presumably, their desire to be re-elected keeps them vigilant — especially, when they belong to a party different from the Administration's. That, really, is the best guarantee you can have. If you think, this act of censorship was unwarranted, pressure your lawmaker(s) to demand explanations. Explanations, which can not be given to you directly because of the (alleged) security implications...

Just a reminder — the two reviewing boards described in the article weren't invented by today... I'm quite certain, this is not the first time, one of them blocked something either.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[emilper]

If you add up enough un-classified details, you can end up with a "big picture" that would be considered classified information.

back in the '30s there were a couple of UK journalists that compiled an almost complete list of German officers and where were they stationed. They used for sources only the mondene pages. I can't remember exact the details now ...

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

WOw impressive and persuasive arguments. Where were you when the clinton regime was discovered with hundreds of FBI files on their opponents? Why weren't you yelling your head off about their ties to the Chinese army and illegal campaign contributions?

Since it's obvious you know very little and remember much less, and are oblivious to anything even remotely resembling facts. I'll simply ask some questions which you might even know the answers to.

1. Has the NYT published articles about ben laden and the NSA's use of sigint to track him via his satphone?

2. When this became public knowledge did ben laden stop using his satphone (or perhaps ben laden is a total retard - far dumber than even you)?

3. Without this primary means of tracking ben laden, have they managed to find him and capture or kill him?

4. Can you think rationally enough to combine your answers to the above 3 questions and comprehend the ramifications of this?

checkmate

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

Sorta makes you wonder whether the person clearing stuff at the CIA is a loyal employee of that organization or a double agent working for some opposition political party or perhaps even a foreign entity.

In WWII, FDR would have closed down the NYT for their activities in this war, a war which has placed us at far more risk than that one.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[rthille]

What is it with the Bush appologists where they always say in response to complaints about the current administration, "but what about what Clinton did?"
At this point, I could give a shit about what Clinton did, I'm worried about the current moron driving the country into the crapper!

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[ultranova]

No, in a 3rd world society the article would have been published. But the author would be found shot dead in his car a few months later.

No, that's Russia - 2nd world society. In a 3rd world society the problem doesn't arise since no newspapers get printed.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

"...a double agent working for some opposition political party or perhaps even a foreign entity." (Emphasis mine.)
Okay, so you think the person clearing info at the CIA is a double agent. The next question is, who's infiltrated? Democrats? Libertarians? Greens?
During WWII, Republicans were free to roam the streets. (That's right, FDR was a Democrat, though I am aware that party lines have shifted since then.) America didn't even crack down on Communists until after that war.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

actually, the reference was to show something about the hypocracy of the complainer and has nothing to do with any attempt at justification of any actions presumably taken by the bush administration. Besides, with the virtually total absence of historical context now rampant in the country, I doubt the average poster around here even knows who lincoln was, much less the lengths he went to to preserve the union that directly and blatantly violated the constitution or the extreme lengths that FDR went to in wwii in violating the rights of american citizens.

Anything bush has been accused of so far pales in comparison to any of his predecessors. Perhaps bush's faults are more associated with a failure to act decisively and to treat world war iii as the threat that it really is. wwii was not a guaranteed win for the US and neither is this war.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

does it matter? A double agent is going to be acting on behalf of their real alliegence rather than for the CIA. Statistically speaking, a domestic political party would almost certainly be the democrat one since it is the only substantial opposition party and since this is the only party which was in power prior to the bush administration. One simply has to look at the valarie plame/ joe wilson fiasco to see what damage an embedded political operative can do to sabotage real efforts at intellegence.

As for the communists, back at the origins of the cia (OSS) they were accepted into the effort because many were familar with clandestine activities. Supposedly, most of them were dumped by the end of wwii. However, it is now evident that our intellegence service was more compromised over the last 30 years than the soviets ever were.

During wwii, republicans supported the war effort and politics ended at the water's edge. Consequently, there was no reason for an enemy foreign power to become involved in our domestic politics. In recent times, this has not been the case. Democrats, or at least a significant number of them have been involved in sabotaging the US war efforts and as a consequence, making it worthwhile for foreign enemies to get involved in US domestic politics. It's not new with bush because the red chinese army was fully involved in covert funding of the clinton campaign. Remember charlie tree or those budhist nuns? It happened, it's not debatable. In fact, even back during the nixon era, liddy's breakin of the watergate was done using cubans because it was believed by liddy and others that the dems were receiving illegal contributions from the soviets via castro. While that may well have not been the case, (there is little to no evidence that ever came out either way), it was believable enough to liddy to go out and commit felonies and for others to join him in doing so.

As for the CPUSA and its agents, they weren't a problem in wwii because joe stalin was made an ally and he needed the help of the US to keep from being done in by the germans. Had stalin remained an ally of hitler, I doubt that the US could have turned the tide in the war in europe. The publicity (or propaganda) war would have been lost, much like what happened with vietnam and much like what is going on at present. Then again, the soviets (or remnants of the soviets who seem to be regaining their power again at present) and the red chinese would like nothing better to see the US be taken down or otherwise be incapacitated so far as military actions are concerned while we severely weaken the radical islamic threat.

As for whether or not the cia censor is acting under a personal agenda, I have no particular opinion but I've made the observation that some things are getting out which probably shouldn't. Considering that the cia and the state department seem to occaisionally act on their own agenda rather than that of the duly elected government, it's apparent that something isn't right down at foggy bottom.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Shaper_pmp]

"Sorta makes you wonder whether the person clearing stuff at the CIA is a loyal employee of that organization or a double agent working for some opposition political party or perhaps even a foreign entity."

No. No it doesn't. Not at all.

Because nothing that presents a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of america could be recommended for disclosure by a single rogue operative in the CIA. Don't forget - the CIA analysis of the material was completed, and the CIA (read: the entire organisation) found nothing to object to.

Unless the entire CIA is completely infiltrated by agents of a foreign power, this organisation-level approval of secret meterial couldn't happen.

And frankly if the entire CIA was infiltrated, the Bush administration would have significantly greater and more visible problems on its hands than a single ex-operative talking frankly.

Are you serious? I'm beginning to suspect I'm being trolled...

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Shaper_pmp]

Jesus, where to start?

"A double agent is going to be acting on behalf of their real alliegence rather than for the CIA."

Of course, any conscientious CIA operative will be acting on behalf of the USA, not any faction within it. Interestingly, however, the Republican party (in particular, the neocon component currently running it) have a better and more documented history of subverting the machinery of your democracy for their own ends than any foreign or other-domestic party or group.

"As for whether or not the cia censor is acting under a personal agenda,"

Do you really think the approval process for releasing state secrets is so fatally flawed that one single disgruntled employee can cause the approved, public release of state secrets from the CIA?

Are you taking the piss?

"I have no particular opinion but I've made the observation that some things are getting out which probably shouldn't."

No, faced with the obvious conclusion that your party has been abusing its position of authority to suppress and censor non-classified information that may be embarrassing to it, you have immediately, baselessly and ridiculously made the supposition that an entity as huge and beaurocratic as the CIA allowed a cockup of enormous portions to happen, which was only averted by swift and decisive action by the group you support... neatly turning them from insecure wannabe-fascist fuckwits into saviour-of-your-democracy super-heroes.

I understand the urge to assume "your team" is perfect and anything which contradicts this worldview is automatically wrong, incomplete or biased information, but try to see that for what it is, ok? A knee-jerk reaction comfort belief - nothing more.

"Considering that the cia and the state department seem to occaisionally act on their own agenda rather than that of the duly elected government, it's apparent that something isn't right down at foggy bottom."

How about the fact that your "duly elected government" seems to have been acting on its own agenda rather than that of the opinion of the population of the entire country they supposedly represent? Or the fact that they've repeatedly ignored, overruled or frozen out the very people they pay to be experts because said experts keep injecting inconvenient realistic details into their nice, warm comfortable fantasty world.

Agh, I give up. Some people couldn't have their minds changed with a fucking sledgehammer.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

First off, the suggested liklihood was more probable to be a domestic political party rather than a foreign one as you attempted to present. Second, it's obvious that there is some - consider the valarie plame incident where a democrat political operative was sent on a sensitive mission and then used the supposed conclusions for political ammunition. This happened. It's not supposition.

As for the bush administration chosing to censor this for face saving purposes - that's a rather dumb ascertion. You'd think they'd try to save face on something that was actually worthwhile. There's been a particular absence of such efforts on the part of the bush administration - at least on anything worth trying to save face on. Heck, if you believe the official story, sandy burglar went in and stole secret documents from the national archives (ones with margin notes added)and then put them in a deaddrop - like an experienced spy - although evidently he did later retrieve them himself. Why was this supposedly done? It supposedly was done for the clinton administration to save face on some lack of involvement in pre 9/11 antiterrorist efforts. THAT is actual face saving by illegal activity (or most likely - somewhat worse). The absence of any context in these argument is the only reason they continue

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Charcharodon]

You are correct they are giving up privileges, as in the privilege of discussing information concerning their employment. The government does not have the right, once you sign the non-disclosure agreement, to monitor or filter everything you might say or how you might say it, just the ones covered by the agreement.

You are also correct to believe that there are people in government that believe that it is possible to waive one's rights with a contract and threats of criminal penalties, but there are also laws in place to protect people from reprisals from corporations or the government which are called "whistle blower" laws. If they go public with information that they swore to keep secret that proves criminal action on the part of a company or the government then they can't be held to the penalties of the agreement. Which in turn goes back to keeping people from signing away their rights and adds a needed check to those that would try to do so.

It would help people understand if you had explained it out further. They were correct in their statements, but they were using the wrong termanolgy for what they were saying.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Shaper_pmp]

"First off, the suggested liklihood was more probable to be a domestic political party rather than a foreign one as you attempted to present."

Yes, I know. I ignored that bit because it was fucking ridiculous. In a democracy people are allowed to disagree with their leaders, and even support other parties. That does not make them "infiltrators" any more than it makes the citizens who agree with the leaders "rulers".

You're trying to equate people who are loyal to America and tasked with defending it with people who (even violently) oppose it.

Not everyone who supports the democrat is a pinko lefty christmas-destroying homosexual commie athiest who wants to smash the USA to pieces and divide up the remains between Castro, Chavez and "t3h terr0ri5ts!!!11!one!".

In a democracy it should be allowed to support the opposition party and not immediately be labelled a traitor. The country and the ruler are not the same thing. One can be loyal to the country without agreeing with everything the ruler does.

I know I'm repeating a lot here, but you seem to have swallowed the "America=Bush=Republican, Democrat=Commie=Terrorists!!!!!" line to a degree that's either laughable or terrifying.

"Second, it's obvious that there is some - consider the valarie plame incident where a democrat political operative was sent on a sensitive mission and then used the supposed conclusions for political ammunition. This happened. It's not supposition."

No, it's a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

Joseph Wilson was a high-ranking diplomat during the Bush (Senior)'s administration. He was trusted as a diplomat to a number of other countries. He was not "an (implied democrat) political operative" - he was merely the guy who Bush's father sent to find things out.

Before the "outing" of his wife, he was sent to Niger to find out if Iraq was trying to buy contraband material. His (and the CIA's) conclusion was that they were not.

When Bush (junior) knowingly misrepresented the very evidence that Wilson had been sent to assess, to push his administration's highly questionable agenda, Wilson piped up and pointed out that actually what Bush was saying was already known to all concerned to be bullshit.

As they have before with other high-ranking critics, the Bush administration then snapped into full-blown character-assassination mode and alleged the entire Niger trip had been a junket, committing treason and outing a still-undercover CIA operative in the process.

Wilson wasn't sent with a political aim in mind, and the job was completed and conclusions offered long before Bush declared war on Iraq. Irrespective of his political leanings, thanks to his inside knowledge of the affair Wilson noticed Bush was intentionally spreading misinformation and propaganda, and publically called him on it.

You can try to paint that as a pre-emptive political action all you like, but the mud simply ain't sticking.

And even, hypothetically, had Wilson been sent all along as a scary anti-American Democrat-inspired anti-Bush propaganda move... how would this then make it ok for Bush to have lied, cheated and spread misinformation and propaganda to start an unnecessary war?

You can posture and wave your cheerleading pom-poms all you like, but it doesn't negate the fact that Bush was caught barefaced lying to the American people, and baselessly accusing the guy who pointed it out of minor indiscretions doesn't change that.

Jesus, I(really)HBT, haven't I?

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

First off, you assume I like bush and am a republican. In fact, neither is the case. I swallowed nothing hook line and sensor because my views are based on my own observations. The fact that the opposition party has chosen to play politics with a war violates the historical situation which dictated that domestic politics ended at the waters edge. I grew tired long ago of the brainless bush bashers parroting the bs from leftists in the mainstream media. Bush has severe problems though probably not as much widespread as carter or clinton or bush 1 for that matter but very bad never the less.

Wilson misrepresented what he saw in an effort to get in on the opposition party's next presidential campaign. What's more, I'm not sure if he ever even formally reported anything back to the administration.

What happened to the yellow cake sadam had? Some was shown live early in the iraq war. It was being dumped in the sand because looters were stealing the barrels it was in. I don't know why I've never seen that fretting reporter all worried about the people stealing those barrel in any repeats or best of programming. That doesn't mean it came from Niger but we do know that sadam was attempting for a second time to develop a bomb - Pollard is still in the clink for releasing the information that allowed the Israelis to bomb the hell out of the first effort years ago.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Shaper_pmp]

"First off, you assume I like bush and am a republican. In fact, neither is the case. I swallowed nothing hook line and sensor because my views are based on my own observations."

Apologies. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and so obviously passionately believes you're either with the ducks or against them... it's an easy mistake to make.

"The fact that the opposition party has chosen to play politics with a war violates the historical situation which dictated that domestic politics ended at the waters edge."

Well, I think it's more that a president of questionable legitimacy secured an unhealthy stranglehold over all three branches of government, then used this lack of opposition to take the country on a war of invasion against someone who posed no threat to the country, for since-provably trumped-up charges.

The whole "domestic politics ends at the water's edge" is generally when you're faced with... oh, I dunno... a serious and clear threat to your country, sovereignty, way of life... pretty much any threat at all, really. You know - how when you're actually under any serious threat at all you band together to fight off the attacker, then settle the differences between you later.

Politely and impotently questioning the legitimacy of a war which basically consists of wading in and beating up the military equivalent of a bunch of toddlers doesn't really constitute "clear and present danger", at least in my book.

Or do you really also buy that line about Saddam helping t3h T3Rr0Ri5ts!1!1!11!?

"I grew tired long ago of the brainless bush bashers parroting the bs from leftists in the mainstream media."

What, is this the same mainstream media that's the laughing-stock of the world for it's obsequious fawning bend-over-backwards-for-the-Whitehouse complete lack of journalistic independence?

That mainstream media?

"Bush has severe problems though probably not as much widespread as carter or clinton or bush 1 for that matter but very bad never the less."

Not as bad as Carter, Clinton or Bush I. Right.

"What happened to the yellow cake sadam had?"

What yellowcake?

But seriously... sure, they found some old remains of yellowcake Saddam had previously possessed, just like they found other evidence of Chemo-Biological-Nuclear weapon production, and briefly began to trumpet that as proof the war was justified.

Unfortunately analysis quickly demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was old remains, from around the time of Gulf War I, when Saddam was known to be pursuing WMDs... and that there was no evidence at all that Saddam had been pursuing CBN WMDs after this date.

"I don't know why I've never seen that fretting reporter all worried about the people stealing those barrel in any repeats or best of programming."

Probably because it was a non-story. Those deposits were already known about, and had been since Gulf War I. No conspiracy, just insufficient research on your part.

Think about it - if Saddam really had WMDs, or was even researching them, do you really think the media would have been able to suppress the Bush Administration from crowing about them? It would at least part-validate the entire Iraq war.

The media would have to have a stranglehold over the country more powerful than the Republicans had to suppress all mention of that. And in the previous direct confrontations between the two, it was generally the media having stories spiked, journalists indicted and pressure applied... not the Whitehouse.

"That doesn't mean it came from Niger but we do know that sadam was attempting for a second time to develop a bomb - Pollard is

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

Well, I think it's more that a president of questionable legitimacy secured an unhealthy stranglehold over all three branches of government, then used this lack of opposition to take the country on a war of invasion against someone who posed no threat to the country, for since-provably trumped-up charges.

Bush won the election despite massive opposition efforts to sabotage the win, including election fraud, attempts to keep overseas military from voting and to contest the election. It's the height of stupidity to think that republicans were the ones screwing up the votes in those democrat controlled counties.

As for bush's reasons, it was the democrats who hyped the WMD reasons. The invaision was justified primarily by failure to comply with the UN directives and didn't need a WMD excuse. However, since sadam had been providing 'rewards' for the families of suicide bombers for years and had attempted dialog with al queda and others, it's obvious there were growing ties.

Attempting to take over the middle east oil reserves obviously posed no threat to the US or the civilized world. Neither did sadam's first attempt at a nuclear weapon. We can presume his super canon designed by Dr. Bull was merely for show and that his biowarfare program was targeted only at Semites.

IF the bush administration were anything like you assume it is, they would have found plenty of WMDs, even if they had to be imported.

No, in the 18 months of bush's rush to war, there was plenty of time for sadam to hide, destroy or move his arsenal. As for bioweapons, he could have had a suitcase containing all research details along with seed stock and even enough to unleash some serious plagues.

As for the prowess of the bush administration to handle things with the media, they have been one of the most incompetent that I can remember seeing. As for the press fawning all over them, that's total BS and any press conference in the last 6 years proves it.

THe media's power isn't so much the ability to hide the truth but rather to obfuscate it and more importantly to categorize its importance. Reporting an important story once and spending weeks hyping something irrelevent places an importance to both. The fact that it works so well is evident in your posts.

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[Shaper_pmp]

"Bush won the election despite massive opposition efforts to sabotage the win, including election fraud, attempts to keep overseas military from voting and to contest the election. It's the height of stupidity to think that republicans were the ones screwing up the votes in those democrat controlled counties."

Actually, there was evidence of fraud on both sides, but if you read the literature (instead of just Fox News, or whatever) you'd see that there was massively more evidence in favour of Republican fixing than Democrat. Two of the three electronic voting machine companies had strong links to (and actually contributed money to) the Republican party. The CEO of one was quoted as saying he had "pledged to deliver Florida's votes to the Republican party" or similar. A programmer who worked on the Diebold machines implicated in the 2000 and 2004 election frauds has testified in front of congress that he was approached by a Republican senator to try to write software that would alter vote tallies undetectably. He did so on the understanding that this would be used to help spot people using similar software, and was somewhat surprised when, after giving copies of the binaries and source code to the senator, he heard nothing about it ever again. Hundreds of different exit polls for the election night in 2004 called a large win for Kerry, and proved massively "wrong" by the largest margin in recorded history. There was a marked correlation between the counties that used Diebold and ES&S machines and those where "surprising" results gave a win to Bush in 2000... need I go on?

It's been proven mathematically that Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2004 - even ignoring the possibility of vote-tampering, he only won the election as an artifact of the retarded "electoral college" system.

This is all common knowledge. Read around a bit and then we'll talk, mmkay?

"As for bush's reasons, it was the democrats who hyped the WMD reasons."

Errrm, no. That's why Bush's ratings and the Republican party's ratings have been in free-fall ever since the war, and not the Democratic Party's.

"The invaision was justified primarily by failure to comply with the UN directives and didn't need a WMD excuse. "

Man, your grasp of international politics is worryingly incomplete for someone with such a firm opinion on it.

UN resolution-breaking didn't justify invasion between 1991 and 2003, so why would it suddenly be fine in 2003?

Why did the Bush administration hype the fabricated WMD and terrorist threats so much otherwise? If (as you've maintained all along) Democrats were arguing against the war, why would they provide additional excuses for it? Your position isn't even internally-consistent, let alone consistent with known history...

"However, since sadam had been providing 'rewards' for the families of suicide bombers for years and had attempted dialog with al queda and others, it's obvious there were growing ties."

Bullshit. Already-discredited right-wing horse-pucky. Show me a single reputable source that hasn't subsequently been debunked half-way to Baghdad and back, and then we'll talk.

Speaking of which, I can't help noticing you haven't provided a single source for anything you've said yet.

Can you either provide some sources to back up your unsubstantiated opinion or just admit it's baseless heresay?

"Attempting to take over the middle east oil reserves obviously posed no threat to the US or the civilized world. Neither did sadam's first attempt at a nuclear weapon. We can presume his super canon designed by Dr. Bull was merely for show and that his biowarfare program was targeted only at Semites."

Right. And that was a great justification to go to war when it all hapepend around 1991 or so. Remember? The USA went to war with Iraq and so did everyone else? So how does causing trouble in 1991 justify getting invaded in 2003? You'll have to prov

Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here

[cbacba]

Without history and context, you are totally lost.

Until you can recognize blatant media bias by comparison with what was being done during prior administrations and what is going on now, then you will continue to have no clue.

I have no intention of presenting any facts on that as you've been trained - whether you know it or not - to discount them. What can break the hold is when you finally get two contradictory facts that you actually believe in - in your head at the same time - creating a bit of a cognitive dissonance. If you don't immediately sluff off one of them - the realization could be terrifying. Note that for leftist 'facts' there's plenty of erroneous ones to choose from. Offhand, it looks like your diebold exec quote might be one although it's probably not a suitable one to achieve that cognitive dissonance.

I leave it to you to go research the nature of reality. However, you're nowhere close to it at present and your trusted sources shouldn't be. Just a reccomendation - look for the media bias - when you see it big as life - you've started.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

How shocking! Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Film at 11!

In other news: Four legs good, two legs bad. And FP!

Re:Hmmm

[Khabok]

"Four legs good, two legs bad. And FP!"

Ok, in my experience, FP means "Furry Porn." Couldja help me out here?

Re:Hmmm

[balloonpup]

You must be new here! ...Seriously! FP means First Post...or Frist Psot as the case may be.

Re:Hmmm

[kcbrown]

How shocking! Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Film at 11!

I'm sorry, but due to the newly passed Freedom Laws, the film will not be shown because it has not been approved by the newly formed Ministry of Freedom. Thank you for your understanding.

Re:Hmmm

[ChromeAeonium]

Correction: Four legs good, two legs better

WTF?

[A beautiful mind]

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

I can understand if current government employees have to go through this, or if they sign an agreement that they will allow this to happen for the rest of their lives, but come on! They are bound by law not to disclose classified information, so if they violate it, they can prosecute them, but noone should censor them! Especially when the administration doesn't understand the difference between "classified information" and "information we don't like".

Re:WTF?

[i kan reed]

Sure they do. Classified information is information that they don't like that they decided they don't like ahead of time.
We're a few years away from "instantaneous classification". Watch for it about 2 presidents from now.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Doesn't anyone remember the Pentagon Papers anymore?
Never mind if the source is supposed to supply classified info. The government shouldn't be able to prosecute the media for it. I mean, if printing classified info is outright illegal, why is Robert Novak walking the streets?
Of course, I understand why the NY Times is cautious these days. It wants to protect its source, and the White House probably won't allow that. (Remember Judith Miller?) We know the Times doesn't like this redaction: it did include the black bars, and it did print how to get to the redacted sections. Better than just running the redacted editorial without any hints, I guess.
One more thing: if the CIA didn't think that this editorial had classified info, why were they overruled by the White House? Is Condi still with the NSA?

Re:WTF?

[SlamMan]

pre-publication review. Its part of most security clearances for a long, long time after you're not longer in the position you became cleared for.

Re:WTF?

[Reality Master 101]

They are bound by law not to disclose classified information, so if they violate it, they can prosecute them, but noone should censor them!

That's just silly. If, say, someone had access to the Witness Protection Program files and decided to publish a list of names and addresses (from memory), we should just let them and slap him on the wrist later?

Free speech is not unlimited, nor should it be.

Re:WTF?

[NMerriam]

That's just silly. If, say, someone had access to the Witness Protection Program files and decided to publish a list of names and addresses (from memory), we should just let them and slap him on the wrist later?

Free speech is not unlimited, nor should it be.

With the Pentagon Papers, the Supreme Court clearly said that any information that is of genuine news value can be published, regardless of what government programs or policies it hurts. Protecting government programs and opinions is not, in and of itself, sufficient cause to override freedom of the press to print something of genuine interest to the public.

If someone from the NYT got a list of protected witnesses and in the course of reviewing it discovered there was some huge flaw in the entire system of witness protection, then they should responsibly disclose that to the proper authorities. But if the authorities do nothing, like any security vulnerability it may be proper to release the information necessary to prove that the program itself is not functioning as we are told. We cannot oversee the government if anytime something is broken we're prevented from having anyone with first-hand knowledge discuss the flaws. Then you wind up with a situation where the only people able to criticize are ones who have no hard evidence, and they can be easily dismissed as crackpots or tree-hugging liberals.

Re:WTF?

[fishbowl]

>If, say, someone had access to the Witness Protection Program files and decided to publish a list of
> names and addresses (from memory), we should just let them and slap him on the wrist later?

Censoring the *press* helps nothing. The person who actually had access to this kind of information and released it should be punished -- put to death, in fact.

Letting that person go, and hiding the whole thing under cover of persecuting the press, does not solve the problem.

If anything, this hypothetical scenario *supports* the idea of a free press. If the government is unable or unwilling to go after its own trustees who leak classified information, it should *not* become a fallback option to persecute the press. Officials who leak classified information are not expressly protected in the spirit and letter of the very fabric that the system of laws is built from -- but freedom of the press *is* protected. So why should the original leaker be allowed to walk free, even continue working in government for instance, while the press is persecuted and censored?

Re:WTF?

[poopdeville]

There is no leftward bias in the media, because there is no legitimate leftist political party in the US. The Republicans are extremely far right. The Democrats are right of center.

Re:WTF?

[UbuntuDupe]

It is impossible for you to waive/sign away your constitutionally-protected rights.

Oh, like how it's impossible to testify at your own trial? Or to talk to police after you're arrested?

Re:WTF?

[khallow]

I should be a bit more informative in my reply. As I understand it, the US is pretty far along to the right compared to Europe (though I don't know about the rest of the developed world). But relative to the US's somewhat stunted political demographics (which is where you should be making comparisons), the Democrats are left of center. The grandparent was a blowhard, ignoring counterexamples such as Fox News who have a blatant right-oriented bias. I haven't watched CNN recently, but they were aping Fox New's red, white, and blue motif. Score one for the "extremely far" right, I suppose.

Re:WTF?

[poopdeville]

We understand each other. My point was the claim that the media has a leftward bias is vacuous, due to the stunted political demographics you mentioned.

Re:WTF?

[canadian_right]

The problem is that that the CIA review board OK'ed the article, but the Whitehouse decided to censor it - likely for political reason, not security reasons.

former employee of the NSC ..

[rs232]

"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)

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[troll -1]

It just is what it looks like, the Bush regime trying to silence legimite criticism in the media.

Er, no. It looks like a bunch of blank lines. This article is only mildly critical compared to the thousands of others out there that are downright scathing. You think Bush came along and blanked out a few lines just because the authors criticized him?

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[yoder]

"You think Bush came along and blanked out a few lines just because the authors criticized him?"

Um, let me think long and hard about this.......yes.

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[igaborf]

"You think Bush came along and blanked out a few lines just because the authors criticized him?"

Sure. Their usual technique is to assassinate the character of anyone who criticizes them, substituting purely ad hominem arguments -- false ones -- for any reasoned defense of their policies (c.f. Joseph Wilson). In this case, they would be attacking someone they themselves appointed to the government. That would make them look bad (as though their complete diplomatic, military and administrative fecklessness wasn't enough by itself), so all they can do is try to shut him up.

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[E 99]

Their usual technique is to assassinate the character of anyone who criticizes them, substituting purely ad hominem arguments -- false ones -- for any reasoned defense of their policies (c.f. Joseph Wilson).

You're delusional. Or you're thinking of the Clinton White House. The Bush administration has never done this with anyone. Least of all Joe Wilson. Or is the "false ad hominem attack" that his wife worked for the CIA?

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[Rayin]

It just is what it looks like, the Bush regime trying to silence legimite criticism in the media.

Not quite. Lets take a look at what the facts show.

1. The NYT submitted an article for publication to the CIA review board. Parts were blacked out, and the CIA claims this came after one positive review by their board. While this may at first seem to incriminate the administration, in and of itself it does no such thing. The CIA is not privy to all the classified information in the US. In fact it would be more accurate to say that the CIA is not privy to a majority of all classified information in the US, or even a modest fraction. The NSA, for instance, vastly outnumbers the CIA in both personnel and classified material, most of which this review board probably didn't have access to. Senior administration officials, however, might have had such access and thus overrulled the board.

2. The NYT, after recieving the edited article, printed the government's version. Here is where I become a bit skeptical of the NYT's intentions (although the fact that the NYT is as far left as Fox news is right perhaps should have tipped me off earlier). The NYT doesn't exactly have a long and distinguished history of printing only things the government wants. Hell, they just sent several of their reporters to jail for printing classified information (well, failing to reveal the source thereof, but essentially the same). Now that might make them less likely to print classified material in the future, but if this material was classified, then the "censoring" was valid, and the attacks on the Bush administration have no basis. If the material was not, in fact, classified, then the NYT is at fault for not printing it.

My best guess at what is happening here is that the NYT is taking yet another attack at the administration. They sent an article in for review, it was declared classified, and they are trying to claim that because the CIA board reviewed it and found it ok, that that means it should be able to be printed. The fact is, they are wrong, and most likely they know it. If they felt that the information really was ok to print, and that information would be detrimental to the administration, obviously they would print it. This is just more of the same from the NYT.

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[dircha]

"You think Bush came along and blanked out a few lines just because the authors criticized him?"

Yes. Someone in the White House obviously did. Someone who decided to override the CIA.

According to the analysis of several sources, the redacted portions of the article probably deal with several specific actions and policies of the Bush administration, which are public knowledge, that have basically undermined our chances for success in Afghanistan by alienating coopoerating Arab states, particularly Iran.

The Bush administration does not want the public to know this. Why not? Because the Bush administration now, just as it has all along, wants to villainize Iran in order to prepare the American people for bombing Iran.

There are many people with high level connections making the lecture and talk show circuits who consider it a foregone conclusion that the Bush will order the bombing of Iran before he leaves office.

I think the administration sees in Iran a chance to get the American people on board. Just like our public institutions have managed to sustain the impression of WWII as "the good war", where we were fighting real evil, the administration sees the chance to frame bombing Iran as "the good war" of Bush. Iran is making it very easy for them. What with their president saying that Israel should be wiped off the map.

All signs indicate we are on our way to bombing Iran. We have all the telltale signs we saw in 2001-2002. We have villainized their government. We are starting a military buildup. We are calling for and passing UN resolutions demanding cooperation. And just as it was clear that Saddam was not willing - or perhaps could not if he wanted to - satisfy the U.S.'s demands, it seems clear that Iran will not cease uranium enrichment, which, by international treaty, it is permitted to do.

The very sad thing is that, it seems that whether we know about it or not, there is nothing we the people can do to stop this administration from going to war against Iran if they are determined to do so. It shouldn't be this way.

I hope that "Never Forget" for this and future generations will come to apply to the Bush administration as much as it applies to 9/11. Never Forget how not recounting ballots in a few Florida counties in one election, so dramatically changed the country and our standing in the world. We are always one election away from tyranny. We have come dangerously close.

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[Cyryathorn]

"The very sad thing is that, it seems that whether we know about it or not, there is nothing we the people can do to stop this administration from going to war against Iran if they are determined to do so. It shouldn't be this way."

The people elected Democrats to Congress, who now can deny funding for such a thing, and make things much more difficult by *not* passing the Iran-equivalent of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". And repeal the last one for good measure!

On an unrelated note, back to the original topic: I can see a useful distinction to be made for not censoring "random so-and-so's speculate that such-and-such happened", while censoring "fmr cia/nsc dude & the nyt confirm that such-and-such happened". So just because the "such-and-such" is available via other sources, it doesn't necessarily follow that the WH is doing something underhanded.

Oh, and finally, I certainly hope that the CIA can't operate indepdently from the president, running their own foreign policy and what-not. Goodness gracious, I remember when the CIA was the boogie man of the left, and now it's the protector of all that is good and true!

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[ScrewMaster]

Just like our public institutions have managed to sustain the impression of WWII as "the good war", where we were fighting real evil, the administration sees the chance to frame bombing Iran as "the good war" of Bush. Iran is making it very easy for them.

Um ... what exactly wasn't "evil" about the Nazi and Japanese war machines? Pointless, unrestrained brutality is one manifestation of evil, one that has cost the lives of billions of people throughout history. Such brutality was the Nazi hallmark, and their erstwhile ally Japan was no better. To claim that Allied efforts in World War II were somehow tainted or misguided is insane: as a matter of fact, the U.S. tried very hard to ignore what was happening in Europe. When England asked for our help, our response was to come up with "Lend Lease", hoping that the Brits could handle Germany by themselves. They couldn't, and that delay cost a lot of lives, when you get right down to it. Had we put paid to Hitler before he got moving World War II might have amounted to little more than the first Gulf War. The arguably even-more-brutal Japanese military regime was a perfect partner for Germany at the time, but they might not have gone to war had we not let Germany go as far as it did before doing anything about it.

So far as any war effort can be considered "good", I'd say that World War II was one of them. Ask the French how they felt about us when we moved into Paris. Ask the British how they felt when our men and war materiel started arriving at their ports. I understand your desire to provide valid criticism of the current Administration, but your comment demeans the thousands of Allied soldiers that died putting real evil back in the bottle, and the millions of U.S. citizens that worked hard to make it possible.

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[Adam.Steinbaugh]

Molly Ivins doesn't exactly have credibility. When a former CIA analyst speaks up, people will listen and the credibility of the government comes into question. Remember Joseph Wilson?

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[Alsee]

>Just like our public institutions have managed to sustain the impression of WWII as "the good war", where we were fighting real evil...

Um ... what exactly wasn't "evil" about the Nazi and Japanese war machines?

While I can't speak for the prior poster, I read his post very differently than you did. I do not think he was calling the Nazis or Japanese war machines "not evil". I think he was strictly referring to the way George Bush has been looking at war as a Public Relations and Public Perceptions exercise independant of any facts or reality. That George Bush created the Iraq war based on Public Relations, and that Bush is domestically losing the Iraq war issue based on Public Relations, independant of any facts or reality. That Bush wants a war on Iran, and that he wants to wage and win it based on domestic ublic Relations and Public Perceptions. That Bush wants to do this with WWII as the model of sucessful Public Relations and Public Perceptions, independant of any facts or reality about the Nazia and Japanese. This is not to say that the public perceptions of the Nazis and Japanese as "evil" are wrong... he is saying Bush sees it as irrelevant. That Bush views the domestic perception as all that matters, and that WWII is a model of sucessfull domestic support for a war and sucessfull domestic support of presidential leadership in a war. Bush decided that his policy goal was "regimechange" in Iraq and to forcibly instyall democracy in Iraq and start a "domino effect" of democracy transforming the Mid-east. He is saying that Bush's current policy goal is "regime change" in Iran, and to forcible install democracy there. He is saying that what Bush sees as important is the public perceptuion and public support for action.... that if the public would have the sort of perceptions and support that existed during and after WWII, that he expects the national unity and support would produce WWII style sucess in Iran and the national unity and support would supply his sucess in Iraq, and that history would view Bush as a hero. That Bush is blaming his abysmal failure upon his loss of domestic perceptions and support.

I don't think holding up WWII is a model of success was intended to imply that WWII was a dishonest success. Just that Bush sees and wishes to dishonestly replicate that PR enviornment. The idea that the US can militarly win anything and anywhere against anyone in any situation, and that the only war that really matters is the domestic PR war to back up the use of that military.

The idea that we would have won in Vietnam, that we would have won in Iraq, if not for the pesky hippy anti-american peacenick liberal atheist traitors undermining the president, undermining the military, destroying America.

-

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[Shaper_pmp]

"The Bush administration has never done this with anyone. Least of all Joe Wilson."

Boy, what newspapers have you been reading?

"Or is the "false ad hominem attack" that his wife worked for the CIA?"

No. The fallacious ad-hominem attack was that his wife had used her CIA connections to arrange a nice little junket for her husband. This was later found to be untrue (his wife didn't arrange it, and Joe Wilson was perfectly qualified to undertake the duty), but that got rather lost in the whole "Holy fuck, the Whitehouse just deliberately outed an undercover CIA operative on a personal grudge" thing.

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[bensch128]

The very sad thing is that, it seems that whether we know about it or not, there is nothing we the people can do to stop this administration from going to war against Iran if they are determined to do so. It shouldn't be this way.

I really, really hope you are wrong. Letting Bush drag us into a war with Iran would be even more idiotic then the iraqi f**kup.
Besides which, I don't think bush can get the backing he had in 2001-2. He's a lame-duck president and the congress is currently democratic.
If he tried to bomb without congressional approvable, he'd be impeached so fast it would make your head spin.

Just my $0.02
Ben

Re:former employee of the NSC ..

[Shaper_pmp]

"The NYT submitted an article for publication to the CIA review board. Parts were blacked out, and the CIA claims this came after one positive review by their board. While this may at first seem to incriminate the administration, in and of itself it does no such thing."

The guy worked for the CIA, not the NSA or the Whitehouse. The article he wrote did not deal extensively with ongoing non-CIA matters, but with the Bush administration's public actions and their (public) effects.

While hardly conclusive, given we aren't allowed to know what was being written about in the redacted portions, and given the CIA had already approved the material for release, and given the Whitehouse and Bush administration's penchant for using "National Security" as a get-out-of-jail-free card to restrict non-sensitive information that they nevertheless find inconvenient or embarrassing, it's a pretty strong circumstantial case.

"The NYT, after recieving the edited article, printed the government's version. Here is where I become a bit skeptical of the NYT's intentions (although the fact that the NYT is as far left as Fox news is right perhaps should have tipped me off earlier). The NYT doesn't exactly have a long and distinguished history of printing only things the government wants."

Indeed not. But to print information the Whitehouse has censored, ostensibly for "national security" reasons, moves them from the realm of "nonviolent resistance" to "premeditated treason".

If you don't appreciate the difference, try demonstrating ouside of a "free speech zone" near a political rally, and when the police ask you to move don't just take photos of them - instead, kill the cop who asked you to move. This should demostrate the difference between "resisting within the (unjust) law" and "breaking the law" nicely.

"Hell, they just sent several of their reporters to jail for printing classified information (well, failing to reveal the source thereof, but essentially the same)."

Wow - way to misread a situation. The reporters got themselves sent to jail - the NYT didn't do squat. In most newspapers the editorial team don't even know who the journalists' sources are. Would you like to try commenting on... oh, I dunno... something you know the first thing about instead?

"Now that might make them less likely to print classified material in the future, but if this material was classified, then the "censoring" was valid, and the attacks on the Bush administration have no basis. If the material was not, in fact, classified, then the NYT is at fault for not printing it."

Or, you know, the information was embarrassing to the administration but perfectly safe to release, but the Whitehouse abused its position to classify it. The NYT, not wanting to be done for treason, couldn't print the redacted portions but instead did the most it could get away with and printed the edited article to embarrass the Whitehouse for their heavy-handed and unjustified abuse of power.

Not saying this is the last word in the matter, but it makes at least as much sense as your ill-considered and ill-supported conspiracy theory.

another misstep

[nanojath]

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...

Re:another misstep

[Tablizer]

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?

It is remeniscent of the Plame scandle whereby their stubburn determination to punish critics or get their way makes for poor risk-to-reward assessments. This behavior is on-going, not due to lost mojo. These people are repeat General Custer's.

Re:another misstep

[Animats]

It's surprising that the White House would do something this dumb. Karl Rove is usually brighter than that.

This just about guarantees that Congress will look into the matter. Flynt Leverett will probably be testifying before Congress. With TV coverage of exactly what the Bush Administration tried to cover up.

I'm beginning to get the feeling we may be headed for an impeachment. One with bipartisan support. One more Katrina-sized mistake out of the White House and Bush is toast.

Re:another misstep

[darjen]

It seems like the Bush admin. has really lost their mojo..

Don't you need to have a mojo first, in order to lose it?

Re:another misstep

[Omestes]

I've always found it strange that no one criticized the people who PUBLISHED that information, for some reason all the people who actually acted on the information (the NYT journalists, for example) got sympathy for protecting their sources (ala journalistic "integrity"), while the "leak" is bad. The leak wouldn't have been bad if irresponsible journalists had actual integrity.

Just an observation. All rights are conditional to responsibility, sure you have the RIGHT to free speech, but that does not mean it is always the responsible action. The people who published the Plame information are as guilty as the people who leaked it.

Re:another misstep

[Shaper_pmp]

"The people who published the Plame information are as guilty as the people who leaked it."

A right-wing republican pundit. Gotcha.

The problem isn't Leverett's employment

[Infonaut]

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.

Re:The problem isn't Leverett's employment

[Usagi_yo]

And the CIA is a different branch of the Government?

Somehow this sounds something like: "The Military said it was okay, but the President said it wasn't".

Like it or not, the President is the Chief Executive and the CIA works for him at our behest.

Re:The problem isn't Leverett's employment

[Infonaut]

Like it or not, the President is the Chief Executive and the CIA works for him at our behest.

True. But the President's power as Chief Executive is not absolute. For example, while he is the Commander in Chief, he could send American forces to invade the UK because he doesn't like the way they they spell the word "honour," Congress can make it a short expedition by disallowing military funds to be used in such an operation. Similarly, the Director of the CIA works for the President but has to answer to Congress for his actions. See the Carter-era CIA reforms, in which Congress was the primary mover.

The fact that the CIA operates under the Executive does not mean that the President should be allowed to use it to advance his domestic political agenda. The failure of the Cheney/Rumsfeld duplicate intelligence aparatus should be proof enough that oversight of the Executive serves a useful purpose.

Re:The problem isn't Leverett's employment

[Usagi_yo]

Well, the problem with your statement is that it's simply your opinion that the President is using the CIA to advance his domestic political agenda. It doesn't hold any water.

The Presidents power with regards to his agenda is well defined. Simply throwing "political" in front of the word "agenda" is a cheap way of actually "politicizing" the issue as "big bad state" vs "little old us".

Congress and the Senate have panels that have oversight. That is true. But they do not control the executive branch and like it or not, the CIA is under control of the executive branch.

Re:The problem isn't Leverett's employment

[Infonaut]

The Presidents power with regards to his agenda is well defined. Simply throwing "political" in front of the word "agenda" is a cheap way of actually "politicizing" the issue as "big bad state" vs "little old us".

This is not about the big bad state vs. the people. It is about the President manipulating the CIA so it does not allow an ex-agent to bring into the public debate matters that the President finds unpalatable. It is yet another case of the Executive Branch under W routing around the rules of American government in the belief that the Executive should be able to do essentially do whatever it wants. I do think it holds water that the article was redacted specifically because it would cause some readers to question the President's policy with regard to Iran. Are you saying that the Executive redacted the article for legitimate national security reasons? That seems a rather difficult case to make.

"Politics" is not a dirty word to me, but if the President is stifling the public debate under the guise of national security, and in so doing compromising the CIA's ability to manage its own affairs, he is in essence treating the agency like his own fiefdom. The issue has already been politicized by the Executive's action in redacting the article when the CIA said there was no national security need to do so. If the CIA had simply disallowed publication of the article through normal means because it compromised national security, nobody, self included, would have been bothered by it.

The power grab by the Executive may seem fine now, if you feel that Bush is operating in the nation's best interest. But what happens when the next President steps in and uses the same broad powers in a way that doesn't suit you? That's the problem with stealth structural changes in government. They may seem alright at first if they fit your politics, but they can boomerang later.

The real problem

[gadzook33]

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.

Re:The real problem

[sycodon]

The Real Problem is that the New York Times insists on publishing again and again secrets that ultimately end up damaging the U.S.

You may argue that they are just publishing what the public has the "right to know", but they are actually censoring some opinions in favor of their own. So they are publishing what the New York Times wants the public to know.

Discussion and arguments of policy is fine and it should be discussed in a fair, open, and rational way.

I submit that when the New York Times, or most other media outlets, publish information, the discussion they present is anything but fair and rational, and since they often give only token space to opposing viewpoints, it is not very open either.

One thing these people need to understand is that their right to publish these things is guaranteed by the U.S Government. Not the U.N. not by the UE, or anyone else. When they publish information that causes harm to the U.S. in their zeal in pursing their partisan agenda, they are actually weakening the very institution that guarantees their rights.

Re:The real problem

[gadzook33]

I won't argue that damage isn't sometimes done by organizations like the New York Times. However, you need to understand that we pay a price for these freedoms. It is not always the case that just because some degree of damage is done, it implies the Times were wrong to publish! Take it from someone who has worked in the domain of federal government his entire life: Usually the damage is not as grave as the government would make it out to be. More often than not I say air on the side of caution with respect to civil liberties. It is insufficient to say that this or that is damaging to national security. The second you start censoring certain things, rest assured someone will abuse that. It goes without saying. Do I think ex-employees of areas like the White House need to have their publications reviewed? Eh, I suppose so. But ultimately, if the government is doing something wrong and the only way the public finds out about it is through a newspaper, I say power to that newspaper.

Re:The real problem

[jahudabudy]

The Real Problem is that the New York Times insists on publishing again and again secrets that ultimately end up damaging the U.S.

And the point is that there is a large difference between damaging the U.S., and politically damaging the current administration. If revealing to the public what the administration is doing (note, not what the military or CIA or FBI etc, but the White House administration) is somehow damaging to the US, then maybe the fault doesn't lie with the people that revealed the actions, but the actions themselves. There should be only a few specific areas that the public can not know what the government is doing in their name.

Discussion and arguments of policy is fine and it should be discussed in a fair, open, and rational way.
I submit that when the New York Times, or most other media outlets, publish information, the discussion they present is anything but fair and rational, and since they often give only token space to opposing viewpoints, it is not very open either.

And this provides a rationale for preventing them from presenting their view?

One thing these people need to understand is that their right to publish these things is guaranteed by the U.S Government. Not the U.N. not by the UE, or anyone else. When they publish information that causes harm to the U.S. in their zeal in pursing their partisan agenda, they are actually weakening the very institution that guarantees their rights.

Again, it is very debatable whether the NYT publishes information that harms the U.S., or whether it merely causes political harm to the current administration. There is not much question that when representatives of the US government seek to deny these rights "guaranteed by the U.S. government", they are actually weakening the very institution they swore to uphold. I definitely know which one I find more troubling.

Re:The real problem

[Pink Tinkletini]

Sorry, I fail to see that advocating policy change, when current policy has so clearly failed to protect American interests and American security, is in any way damaging to the nation.

Personally, I'm grateful that the Times is pushing for an approach to foreign policy that would actually make America safer and more secure.

Re:The real problem

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

"One thing these people need to understand is that their right to publish these things is guaranteed by the U.S Government."
How are those people to understand that if the US government doesn't let them publish these things? The government guarantees the right to publish such things, except when it objects to their being published? What sort of right is that?

Re:The real problem

[prandal]

Get real!!!!

The NYT doesn't have to say a thing, the current bogus Bush regime is damaging the USA all by itself.

Re:The real problem

[creysoft]

The Bush administration is not the United States of America.

Re:The real problem

[sycodon]

Look at just one incident. Abu Ghrab (or however it's spelled). When this was published, the culprits had already been identified, removed from the prison and were facing charges. The fact that this information was published accomplished nothing as far as policy change goes because the policy change was already made.

Let's look at what it did do. It horrified the public and embarressed the administration. Both goals at the top the list for outlets like the New York Times. Something that is also somewhat defensable in the political arena.

What it also did was weaken support for the war, embolden the insurgency, and diminished America's standing in the world. Are these goals of the New York Times? Do they want a peaceful and stable Iraq? Who knows. They keep doing things that help the radical islamists in term of propaganda. Do you think Bin Laudin is an idiot? They have made clear that they understand the lessons of Vietname and that if you weaken the resolve of America, they can win. Is that good for the the U.S? For the World?

If you are the New York Times, then the answer is yes. "Pinch", the owner of the Times as much as said so on several occasions. He would rather see an America soldier shot than a terriorist. Look it up. I suspect to that many of the people on DU and KOS would have the same opinion. I'm sorry, but that makes them scum as far as I'm concerned.

Re:The real problem

[gadzook33]

This is like arguing that because the president of Paraguay read the New York Times he caused the diminishing of America in the world stage. It goes something like this: The Administration does something stupid -> The New York Times reports on it -> The rest of the world reads it -> America diminishes. You look at this and decide that the NYT's reporting led to the diminishing? You should run for congress.

Re:The real problem

[dangitman]

What it also did was weaken support for the war, embolden the insurgency, and diminished America's standing in the world.

Weakening support for the war actually helps America. In time, that weakening support (if it results in withdrawal) will help boost America's standing in the world. I mean, America's standing couldn't really get any lower than it already was. Dealing with Abu Ghraib publicly at the time may have caused some short-term loss of standing. But keeping it secret would be even worse. Because it would not remain secret forever. Imagine if it were kept secret, then later America withdraws and world opinion of the US recovers to a more normal level. Then it comes out that there were these horrible atrocities that were covered up during the war. That would ruin America's reputation at a time when it was recovering. Best just to deal with the shit. You get a lot more respect for openly dealing with your problems than trying to pretend they don't exist.

Re:The real problem

[Fantastic Lad]

Look at just one incident. Abu Ghrab (or however it's spelled). When this was published, the culprits had already been identified, removed from the prison and were facing charges. The fact that this information was published accomplished nothing as far as policy change goes because the policy change was already made.

It's "Abu Ghraib." And actually, you are incorrect in your dates. --While the first report on the Ghraib was report was created in January 2004, the subsequent re-opening of the investigation didn't happen until after the public learned of the crime. Arrests, charges and sentencing of the criminals, as well as policy changes, also didn't happen until after the public had learned the truth of the matter. Those interviewed in the subsequent investigations alleged that the military was trying to cover the incident up after the first report was made. It is pretty clear that while there were definitely some good people and good intentions in the intelligence structure, it took leaks (probably deliberate), and the resulting public pressure to make a difference.

All of this can be learned by reading through the Abu Ghraib reports, (which actually make it quite difficult to nail down the exact dates when the various reports happened, no doubt on purpose. Read, "Butt-Covering". Still, it can be pieced together.)

I agree that during times of legitimate war, there are certain things you don't want to have published in the media; troop movements, the names of spies, etc., but in this case, neither the war nor the example you picked out are appropriate in illustrating this.

Also, that being said, the NYT is a joke. The story had already gone public through other sources before they touched it; the controlers and military editors assigned to the NYT did their jobs, it seems.

-FL

Re:The real problem

[sycodon]

There a difference between openly dealing with your problem and obsessing over it in the obsessive, sadomasochistic, way the MSM did.

Re:The real problem

[E 99]

there is a large difference between damaging the U.S., and politically damaging the current administration. If revealing to the public what the administration is doing (note, not what the military or CIA or FBI etc, but the White House administration)

Ok, got it. Damaging the FBI or the CIA or the military is bad, but damaging the Administration that runs them is good. Got it makes perfect sense. (not)

Re:The real problem

[gadzook33]

Well, I could pull the "I've done more for this country card..." but I suppose that would be a dick thing to do. Your problem and probably not coincidentally, most republicans' problem, is that you think winning the battle means winning the war. If the people don't trust their government then winning the "war on terror" or the "war in iraq" are both immaterial.

Re:The real problem

[dangitman]

WTF are you talking about? The content was sadomasochistic. That's not the fault of the media. What was the problem with the reporting of it?

Re:The real problem

[misanthrope101]

The Real Problem is that the New York Times insists on publishing again and again secrets that ultimately end up damaging the U.S.

What damage has been done, and what news story caused it? It isn't as if they outed a CIA agent or something. It's all fine and good to keep saying "they've done damage," but if you're suggesting that we curtail the freedom of the press, the burden of evidence is on you to show what dire damage was done to our nation, and how the NYT contributed to it. I've heard this allegation time and again, but the "damage" was always political--i.e. it just revealed that what the administration had been saying was factually untrue. This may undermine public support for administration policies (I certainly hope it does) but it doesn't put American lives in danger. The press is supposed to do this. It's a feature, not a bug.

when the New York Times, or most other media outlets, publish information, the discussion they present is anything but fair and rational, and since they often give only token space to opposing viewpoints, it is not very open either.

Actually, Tony Snow, President Bush, Secretary Rice, et al get more than ample time to present "opposing viewpoints." They get more press than everyone else combined, because every time they burp it's a press conference. This article is the opposing viewpoint to the administration party line. This is the voice of dissent that needs to be protected--the voice of the party in power is already protected, and already guaranteed airtime.

Re:The real problem

[Copid]

After the battle of Midway, some dumbass editor in the midwest, can't remember which, reported that the key to winning was the breaking of the Japanese code.

You can't seriously be suggesting that pointing out that our government was doing blatantly evil things and completely mishandling prisoners is analogous to leaking critical wartime intelligence, are you? Here's the difference: I *want* my government to break the enemy's codes and keep the fact that they've done it a secret. I *don't* want my government rounding up people, secretly torturing them, and generall acting like some backward bananna republic dictatorship. If they do the former, keep it secret. If they do the latter, blow the whistle on them.

Think about it. Every Administration makes mistakes. Many things they do can be misinterpreted by reporters and editors than have shown by emprical evidence to be not so bright. Regardless, they should all think...what good will come of this being published in this time of war? Will this help our effort to WIN? If not, then take a little responsibility and make some of that shared sacrafice they all keep whining about and DON'T PUBLISH!

Sometimes, when the government is doing evil things, they need to be called on it. I propose a simple litmus test. What kind of damage is caused by relasing information? If it causes embarrassment to our leadership and a general change in perception of our leadership abroad, that's not a material screw up that can be blamed on the media. It's the fault of whoever sanctioned the embarrassing activity. On the other hand, if they're leaking information that materially changes the balance of power in combat, it should be kept quiet.

So here's an interesting question: Should this guy be kept quiet?

Re:The real problem

[Darby]

The Real Problem is that the New York Times insists on publishing again and again secrets that ultimately end up damaging the U.S.

Name one you lying sack of shit.

Damaging the reputation of the administration by reporting the actual facts about what they've done is the fucking reason we have the freedom of the press you idiotic fascist scumbag.

You make yourself a fool when you blindly repeat nonsense spouted by the pack of liars and traitors currently occupying the white house.

Re:The real problem

[sycodon]

"Name one you lying sack of shit."

This is what the Left calls discussion and reason. This is a perfect display of their Hate.

Re:The real problem

[sycodon]

Not undercover, no indictment returned, no issue, no point to your post.

Re:The real problem

[Darby]

This is what the Left calls discussion and reason. This is a perfect display of their Hate.


Laughable on so many levels.
First, I'm not on the Left.
Second, you spouted a bunch of idiotic lies that nobody except extremist partisan hacks buy into and I called you on it.
You are apparently entirely unable to back up your ridiculous statement so instead you turn it into an attack on the strawman "left" and pretend that's actually an argument.
That's reason for you.

So, you still can't name one and you *are* a lying sack of shit. That's a simple statement of fact which you've done nothing but validate in this discussion.

Re:The real problem

[sycodon]

Irrationality and hate drools from your mouth, please use a handkerchief.

So mean spirited for a Leftie.

Oh, and read all the posts regarding my original post and you will find an example. Sorry, it's only one because I've not the time or inclination to archive everything I read just so when some idiot wants "proof" I can cite. It's the internet, deal with it. Something tells me you wouldn't listen anyway.

Re:The real problem

[Darby]

Irrationality and hate drools from your mouth, please use a handkerchief.

Well, it's true that I do hate 5th columnist terrorist supporting scum like you, but it's entirely rational. Your cowardice is directly affecting my way of life.
No hankie needed.

Oh, and read all the posts regarding my original post and you will find an example.

Which was thouroughly debunked as the complete crap it is.
The fact is that you have nothing to back up your point. The best you can come up with is the NYT doing *exactly* what the first amendment was put in place to allow them to do.

Sorry, it's only one because I've not the time or inclination to archive everything I read just so when some idiot wants "proof" I can cite.

The fact is you don't have one single example of what you're claiming. You are a coward, and you're pissing yourself over some largely overblown threat. In doing so you are supporting terrorists whose goal is to turn the US into a police state.

Your entire argument is that you think that pointing out the crimes of the current administration (which is why we have a first amendment) is a bad thing.

OK, we get it. You despise living in a free society. It's scary and you are not a brave person.
Why do you feel the need to work to destroy this one rather than just moving to a place where your values are respected.
Saudi Arabia or China would work out quite nicely for you.
If you have reasons you wouldn't like to live there, then consider the fact that what you are attacking here is exactly what was put in place for the exact purpose of preventing the US from becoming like you don't like about those other places.

Re:The real problem

[sycodon]

I would suggest that you, not I or others would fit better in a fascist society where opposing opinions are brutally suppressed. The Administration merely prevent two of its former employees from publishing something. The essentials of what they wanted to publish are now common knowledge.

You can fault them for not being very PR savvy, but they *did* work the Administration and the Administration *does* have the legal right to do what they did. Perhaps you would feel better if Bush went into the Times building and stuffed the documents down his pants. I guess that's your approved way of suppressing information.

My argument is that the New York Times and its allies believe anything the Bush Administration does is a crime, that crime being that they are not Democrats, Liberals, Leftists, Communists, etc.

They therefore feel free to publish anything, no matter how damaging it is to the U.S. and its efforts.

All I can say is it's a good thing I didn't say I was a Global Warming skeptic. You probably would have hunted me down and murdered me (like you seem to advocate).

Yes, I'd say you would be the one more comfortable in a country where slashing the throat of the opposition and ensuring that your ideas were the only one's allowed is the way to go.

Re:The real problem

[Copid]

Ok, got it. Damaging the FBI or the CIA or the military is bad, but damaging the Administration that runs them is good. Got it makes perfect sense. (not)

No, materially damaging the country and its people is bad. Embarrassing its leaders by pointing out that they're doing ridiculous stuff when they'd rather keep it secret is not bad. Ending some bonehead's political career by drawing attention to a bad decision he made is not analogous to leaking information that puts troops in danger or puts US interests at risk. HTH.

let it run, then prosecute the offender

[davidwr]

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.

Re:let it run, then prosecute the offender

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Problems:
(a) Your step 1 only just happened; the others can still happen.
(b) The CIA cleared this article already.
(c) You might be giving the current administration ideas.

Darn it.

[ColdWetDog]

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:
          {} -->

Re:Darn it.

[dangitman]

That's not the source, that's the compiled article. The source would be research notes, drafts, etc.

Freedom of Expression

[iOsiris]

Ever notice how new and emerging democracies have freer and more open press while the modern democracies are slowly retracting this fundamental right.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[prandal]

cross out "slowly" and replace with "rapidly"

Re:Freedom of Expression

[RealGrouchy]

Ever notice how new and emerging democracies have freer and more open press while the modern democracies are slowly retracting this fundamental right.

Sorry, you misspelled "established oligarchies".

- RG>

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Oligonicella]

No, I haven't. Perhaps you could provide some smidgen of evidence?

Re:Freedom of Expression

[WilliamSChips]

Next time you see a cable news Crossfire-esque program, just remember: Great minds think alike.

No, great minds think for themselves!

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

No, I haven't. Perhaps you could provide some smidgen of evidence?

"Each year new countries in less-developed parts of the world move up the Index to positions above some European countries or the United States. This is good news and shows once again that, even though very poor, countries can be very observant of freedom of expression. Meanwhile the steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France and Japan is extremely alarming,"

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002.

--Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Alsee]

Perhaps you could provide some smidgen of evidence?

I would, but it's been redacted. ;)

-

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

"...Meanwhile the steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France, and Japan is extremely alarming."
"The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002."
The November 2002 elections changed control of the Senate from Democrat to Republican. In January 2003, exactly one party controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Coincidence?

FROM Spacetimecurves Blog: Flynt Leverett Talks

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Flynt Leverett Talks

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

1. the previous reports of Iran offering to negotiate a comprehensive deal for peace in the Middle East, and,
2. 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

Re:FROM Spacetimecurves Blog: Flynt Leverett Talks

[Dachannien]

Remember, the Iranians are Shiite, the Taliban are Wahhabi Sunni. Basically the Iranians don't like them, either.

That hasn't stopped them from supporting Hamas, which is also a Sunni organization.

Re:FROM Spacetimecurves Blog: Flynt Leverett Talks

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Don't use absurd reductions to rebut salient observations!

Hamas doesn't share a border, with Iran and are antagonists to Israel - which is a barrier to Iran's regional aspirations.

Re:FROM Spacetimecurves Blog: Flynt Leverett Talks

[mabhatter654]

I like the fact the NYT published the redacted article anyway. It clearly shows that what's blacked out was purposefully meant to change the MEANING of sections of text and not to cover up facts. It's a great "slap back" by the NYT to show what "redaction" is and why it's silly!!! The point of the article can't be missed though... the USA has been asshats to Iran... even when they felt sorry for us after 9/11. One interesting partially redacted point was that they actually helped us catch fleeing Al-Queda operatives in 2001... but Bush in his "wisdom" called them an "axis of evil" in the 2002 State of the Union. It also pointed out Iran doesn't need the US to "control" Iraq so they can be "safe". They are capable of defending their own boarders if the US can't control Iraq anymore... if the US won't treat them as an equal, there's no point talking.

The present administration refuses to give them "brownie points" publicly for any good that they do... while still beating the same dead horses of "evil Islamics" and "evil nukes". It does paint a different picture though, the rumor mill has been painting Iran as the source of our Iraq problems for several years now...perhaps as an "excuse" for war like they made up something to invade Iraq? This article would refute that in some sense that they would really like to get along. More than that they don't want to get invaded! So interfering in Iraq doesn't benefit them politically. Of course, Cooperation is not helping them either. No matter how much they cooperate, the White House won't take certain "self defense" measures Iran wishes to have off the table and negotiate. They've tried to be good, and the US response is "our way or the highway". Unfortunately, the current leader of Iran LIKES that option! As it stands right now, Iran has got no credit for their help with Al-Queda, and the US President has openly advocated, perhaps even planning, an unprovoked attack on them... Unless Bush backs down on that talk he's not going to get anywhere! At that point why should they try to help us out?

Re:FROM Spacetimecurves Blog: Flynt Leverett Talks

[Dachannien]

Hamas doesn't share a border, with Iran and are antagonists to Israel - which is a barrier to Iran's regional aspirations.

You just proved my point, which is that, below the surface, Iran doesn't really care whether a group/nation is Sunni or Shi'ite - they'll work with or against whomever they need to, in order to achieve the political goal of becoming the dominant force in the region.

Re:FROM Spacetimecurves Blog: Flynt Leverett Talks

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I agree.

Your indication of the NYT changing emphasis and spin - not core content is insightful. I'd wager that the spin is that which suits Israel - nt the US. It's typically the way for the "Grey Lady'. She's a classmate of Kirkpatrick and Allbright.

Re:FROM Spacetimecurves Blog: Flynt Leverett Talks

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Not if they are the enemy of your enemy, and advancing them gives you prestige against your immediate neighbors - no.

You won't see them promoting Sunni groups in the near-Gulf - on the Iraqi side of the border, for instance.

Ultimately, the differences between Shii'a and Sunni are historical and political in nature. They are closer to eachother in theology and doctrine than Catholics and Baptists. These historical and local differences are exploited for political manipulation.

Unless you live in one of these contested communities, there is no injunction agains Sunni and Shii'a praying along side one another, keeping the same fast and festival, and attending Jumm'eh prayer at the same Masjid (mosque).

They both have a history of oppressing our older, indo-aryan faith. Still, we understand the muslims better than most of today's "experts", and can still admire the central profession of absolute devine unity...

xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx ?!

[Joebert]

I wonder if they were smart enough to at least alter the structure of the censored words.

But Tehran was profoundly disappointed with the United States response. After the 9/11 attacks, xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx set the stage for a

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 ?!"

Re:xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx ?!

[alphaseven]

You're right, some of this stuff could be guessable, and guessing the origin of redacted words by analyzing length has come up before on slashdot: Student Uncovers US Military Secrets.

Re:xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx ?!

[Alsee]

I had the same thought about using word lengths as a clue to reconstructing the text, but then I came across this:

In December 2001, xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx x Tehran to keep Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

Note the single x in bold. The only single letter words in english are 'a' and 'I'. Neither 'a' nor 'I' can fill in that position to yeild any reasonable approximation of english, and I cannot come up with any way sensibly place a non-word single character in that position. I therefore conclude that the x clusters are randomized length fillers. I'd guess that the total blacked-out length is still correct though. For example from the surrounding context I strongly suspect that:

xxxxx xxxxxxx so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists.

Is actually:
Tehran agreed so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists.

The x's don't match up, but the total length does. Filling it in that way makes the whole paragraph make obvious sense. I think the only other reasonable way to fill in that blank would be with "Iran" plus some eight letter synonym for "agreed", or maybe an Iranian offical's name + some synonym for "agreed".

Basically what the White House demanded be blotted out there was the the concept of Iran being agreeable or cooperative, particularly against terrorists. And that is exactly in line with other characterisations I've seen about what and why things were censored. That the White House action here is a 1984ish attempt to rewrite history to for PR purposes to better support current policy. To redact from history the idea that Iran has ever helped us or offered help to us in the war on terror. To protect the idea of Iran as a memeber of the axis-of-evil and to protect the black-and-white view of Iran siding with terrorists. I agree that the Iranian nuclear program is indeed a nuclear BOMB program and that it is a very serious problem, but this sort of deception and 1984 style manipulation is exactly why I hate Bush so much. He 1984'ed us into Iraq, and now all of his games are biting us in the ass and have fuxored our ability to stop Iran from going nuclear. 1984'ing the public is not merely an unacceptable tactic in his effort to prevent an Iranian bomb, it is a dangerous tactic. That sort of deception is a good way to get the US to blindly stumble into an even worse mess... again.

-

Re:xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx ?!

[Joebert]

I stopped on that paragraph after wondering if there was a North & South Tehran, AKA X=N|S.

Wish I had some mod points, you've made some good points there.

Re:xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx ?!

[radtea]

I agree that the Iranian nuclear program is indeed a nuclear BOMB program and that it is a very serious problem, but this sort of deception and 1984 style manipulation is exactly why I hate Bush so much.

Believe it or not, it is actually possible that the Iranian nuclear program is exactly what they say it is. It's just that every single time the word "Iran" gets mentioned in a news story that contains the words "enriched uranium" those words are followed by the false statement "which can be used to build nuclear weapons." Some enriched uranium can, some can't. Making a blanket claim like this is like saying that "Harley-Davidson Motorcycles is a manufacturer of internal combustion engines, which can be used to power main battle tanks." Despite the low-end torque your average Harley can supply, this is still a logical error of the form:

Some X are Y.
A is an X.
----------
A is Y.

Until we have more hard evidence, I think we should be cautious about drawing conclusions regarding the Iranian nuclear program. The odds are that they will build a bomb, because almost every country that has developed nuclear technology has done so, and they are pugalistic enough and probably scared enough to think it is a good idea. But if we've learned anything in the past five years it is that we should be very cautious about interpreting claims regarding the weapons programs and intentions of Muslim nations, and even more cautious about carefully orchestrated American press campaigns to get certain ideas fixed firmly into the public consciousness.

Re:xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx ?!

[Alsee]

I certainly agree it is possible that the Iranian nuclear program has no weapon intent, but I think it is pretty well pushing the bounds of "reasonable doubt".

Some enriched uranium can [be used to build nuclear weapons], some can't.

I have some casual familiarity with the science, and essentially the only distinction is how long / how many times you cycle the uranium through the enrichment process. Either you have enrichment facilities, or you don't. The only meaningful way to divide "civilian enrichment" from "weapons enrichment" is oversight, participation in the International Atomic Energy Agency or similar.

Almost every nation on earth has signed on to the nuclear non-proliferation pact and virtually every nation on earth (including the non-nuclear ones) do not want all of their neighbors going nuclear. Any meaningful non-proliferation requires IAEA or similar oversight of civilian enrichment, and it requires a general international expecation that it is reasonable and proper to expect that genuine civilian enrichment programs participate in IAEA or similar oversight.

That even if Iran's program were truely intened for non-weapons purposes, Iran is behaving in an internationally unreasonable and internationally unacceptable manner. Even if the program is currently absolutely non-weapon, it could almost instantly be directed to weapons simply by feeding the civilian-grade enchiched uranium back into the enrichment facilites to raise it to weapons grade.

carefully orchestrated American press campaigns to get certain ideas fixed firmly into the public consciousness

Iran publically admits they are enriching uranium. Iran has vuiolated and barred the standard international processes for certifying and overseeing civilian nuclear programs. That in itself I would say is justification for agressive dimplomatic measures to certify and potentially even assist a certifiable civilian program, failing that to be followed by agressive international sanctions, and failing all efforts to bring the program within international accepted processes for civialian programs, as a last resort to strike the facility before a bomb can be produced. Not an Iraq-style invasion, just a facility strike. Like Israel struck the Iraqi nuclear enrichment facilities 25 years ago, back when there *was* an Iraqi nuclear bomb program.

The fact that Iran has made very disturbing militerisic statements escalates the urgency, but does not fundamentally change my reasoning above. Note that the "American press campaign" does not appear in anything above, and does not change anything above. The fact that Bush is actively trying to manipulate the press against Iran does not contribute to any of the reasoniong above. However it would also be absurd to suggest that it would somehow diminish or invalidate the reasoning above.

if we've learned anything in the past five years it is that we should be very cautious about interpreting claims regarding the weapons programs and intentions

We've learned Bush is a lying jackass that cried wolf. And I would say (and I think I did say) that we are in horrendous situation with Iran rigth now exactly because Bush cried wolf. Many people, most of the world, quite justifiably disbelieves anything that comes out of the Bush administration. They have a strongly emotional affirmative disbelief of anything he says, a strongly emotional affirmative disbelieft hat taints even an obvious truth. Hitler said 2+2=4, just because Hitler said it doesn't make it false.

If there had been no Iraq war, if Bush had never been present, I don't think people would be so accomodating of the stretch that maybe Iran isn't making a bomb and that they wouldn't be nearly so skitish of the idea that the diplomacy-sanctions path must lead to an if-all-else-fails military strike, that the success of diplomacy and sanctions efforts largely lie in the credible threat of escalation.

I would say that Iran is explicitly exploiting the Bus

Who shot who in the what now?

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:Who shot who in the what now?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

First, the NY Times has an online edition.
Second, if you ever choose to print a high-profile expose from a former government agent, or create one, then it might be good to know in advance that it could be redacted without notice.

Re:Who shot who in the what now?

[Dewin]

It's been argued in the past that "Your Rights Online" means "Your rights, discussed online", not "Your online rights". I believe this is the intended nature of the category.

And this could easily be classified as first amendment rights.

Re:Who shot who in the what now?

[Cheapy]

The government censoring anything they want isn't going against your rights?

Re:Stupid Bush

[Dunbal]

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.

The New America

[Anonymous Coward]

All hail the American Police State!!

Re:2 things

[arth1]

So No, BLOGS are not news sources.

These days, neither are US newspapers, since they're subject to censorship from many directions. For trustworthy news, we now have to go to foreign news media (and even then double-check that they didn't get their news from censored sources), which I find rather sad.

YRO?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:YRO?

[psiclops]

howabout, your right to revieve information via a free and open press.

Re:YRO?

[Oligonicella]

That has never meant, nor should it, "retrieve all information".

Re:YRO?

[psiclops]

we're not talking about all information, were talking about one article. with seemingly no valid reason to be withheld.

Talk about american values

[unity100]

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.

Re:Talk about american values

[A beautiful mind]

we are seeing people here that can actually support such a blatant blashpemy of values.

You seem to be under the assumption that the people who post here are true americans who support the american values.

It has to be concluded that slashdot is full of Al-Quaeda operatives, chinese government officials and iraqi terrorists, therefor the Bush administration feels morally justified in dumping 500 tons of nerve gas on the internets users. No true american hates freedom, so they must be terrgrorist, after all freedom is about paying lip service to that abstract ideal, while doing the contrary what they said they think when it comes to actions.

Re:Talk about american values

[Tablizer]

Well, american instutitions are much enthusiastic about advertising american values about free speech, transparent government, democracy, freedom and such to the world.....and [now] 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.

There is a culture war in the US that is actually a microcosm of the al-quida-versus-civalization battle. Religious fanatics beleive that the ends justify the means: that is, lying, cheating, and dirty-play is "okay" if it acheives "God's goals". The far right in the US is becomming like the Taliban, just with a different brand of diety. Thus, they are slowly starting to use similar tactics.

Actually, it is all a three-way war between world-wide moderates, Christian fanatics, and Muslim fanatics. The moderates are the only group that puts principle over results.

Re:Talk about american values

[Overly Critical Guy]

No offense, but if you come to Slashdot for accurate news coverage to form an opinion from, you're already going to get a skewed image. This place has political leanings and is well-known for its sensationalist news coverage. Despite all that, we're still the most free place on Earth, or else we wouldn't even be allowed to post sensationalist coverage of this story and talk about it and the so-called "Bush regime."

Re:Talk about american values

[radish]

Despite all that, we're still the most free place on Earth, or else we wouldn't even be allowed to post sensationalist coverage of this story and talk about it and the so-called "Bush regime."
You actually believe that no other country is allowed to criticise their own government? Wow. Go explore the rest of the world and realize that the US is really nothing special when it comes to "freedom". By no means the worst, for sure, but certainly not the "most free place on earth".

Re:Talk about american values

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Despite all that, we're still the most free place on Earth, or else we wouldn't even be allowed to post sensationalist coverage of this story and talk about it and the so-called "Bush regime."

According to Reports Without Borders, the USA has fallen to 53rd (from 16th in 2002) in terms of the freedom of the press.
That is one hell of a long way from most free place on the Earth.

Re:Talk about american values

[BgJonson79]

>>[A]nd then, to add insult to injury, we are seeing people here that can actually support such a blatant blasphemy of values.

And this is why true democracy doesn't work - it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Re:Talk about american values

[smash]

Despite all that, we're still the most free place on Earth, or else we wouldn't even be allowed to post sensationalist coverage of this story and talk about it and the so-called "Bush regime."

For some reason, the phrase "hook, line and sinker" springs to mind :D

Re:Talk about american values

[Tuna_Shooter]

Well done bud.... your post has to be the most intelligent prose of the lot. And i agree with you !!!!!!

Re:Talk about american values

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Off the top of my head, France has laws against insulting the president. And they rank 35th in that list.
Ditto for most European nations and their anti "hate speech" laws.

Wow, unsubstantiated anecdotes versus broad-based survey of thousands of incidents.
No wonder you posted AC.

Re:Talk about american values

[0x0000]

Despite all that, we're still the most free place on Earth, or else we wouldn't even be allowed to post sensationalist coverage of this story and talk about it and the so-called "Bush regime."

For some reason, the phrase "hook, line and sinker" springs to mind :D

... yet even the apologists now avail themselves of [respond to] the "Bush Regime" meme; it'll probably take them another 8 years to "get" what's happened to the "free-est place on earth" chestnut they're still toasting ...

I feel like I did last time I yelled "Hey, you - asshole!" in a crowd, and the person I was talking to looked around...

Fwiw [OT], I keep seeing your tagline as 'cat BSD > GPL' - sorry, I just thought it was funny.

Re:Talk about american values

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Despite all that, we're still the most free place on Earth,

I presume you mean slashdot it still the most free place on Earth?

Re:Talk about american values

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Here's an anecdote about European hate-speech laws. I think this might be the final installment. This is from the Boston Globe, but other places have covered it, too.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2 006/12/20/irving_wins_austrian_holocaust_denial_ap peal/

Security Policy

[aaron_ds]

Sounds like the government's policy is security through obscurity. We all know the end result of that mantra.

Re:Security Policy

[smash]

I doubt that their *only* defense is "security through obscurity". I'm against censorship as much as anybody, but when you're dealing in "security" issues, a multi-layered approach is a good thing.

What i'm saying is that relying soley on security through obscurity is bad, but using obscurity as an additional layer provides *some* increase in protection.

Re:Security Policy

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

True. Just remember, people, the extra layers include the FBI and the National Guard.

Step 1 did not happen

[davidwr]

The New York Times did not print the article, they printed a portion of the article.

public information

[Nasarius]

The authors provided ample evidence that the information that was redacted had already been publicly disclosed.

Who is Kim?

[mysticgoat]

<!--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!

Re:Who is Kim?

[ColdWetDog]

I think he's the guy who redacted the comments. (Yes, I know, it's in a different part of the article, but this is all cloak and dagger stuff, no?).

He is leading us on. In a week or so he'll leave yet another tidbit in the next redacted, non confidential, not-so-secret NYT article.

Soon we will have enough clues to decide who Kim really is. Then the NYT will sneak some adverts in the source code (did you notice the one at the bottom of the page?)

Poof. Viral marketing for geeks and bored web page designers. I'm gonna patent this thing right now.

Re:Who is Kim?

[Lars T.]

<!--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!

Duh - the story was originally written by Kim Yong-Il and the White House wanted to not keep that a secret.

MOD PARENT UP

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The YouTube video from C-SPAN is very in-teresting.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Yeah. I'm guessing he didn't have a prepared statement. Either that, or he did, but he couldn't issue a written press release for some reason, so he was delivering his statement slowly to give the reporters time to write down his own words, rather than misquoting him in their haste to keep up.

Mod parent up! (It's a video)

[khasim]

YouTube is the new defender of Freedom in the USofA.

Why no major coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Why no major coverage?

[Todamont]

Americans are apparently no longer interested in freedom, just give us a slutty Ms America and a Trump to keep us entertained... I bet they took out the sentence that read: "... and then the Iranian diplomat asked why we had built so many secret prisons all across America..."

Re:Why no major coverage?

[photomonkey]

I recall a paper I read a couple years back, hailing from the Poynter Institute IIR, indicating that since about 1960 or so, political/government coverage has declined proportionally to increases in sports and entertainment/pop-culture reporting.

I work in mainstream media as a stills photographer, and I can tell you firsthand that I have seen this decline even in my relatively short career.

Why has it happened? For several reasons, I think. First off, reporting on politics is downright difficult (and even more so under certain administrations). For as good as journalists have gotten at catching people with their hands in the cookie jar, government and corporations have been allowed, by the people nonetheless, to hide information behind laws and lawyers. Second, I think the 'quality' of the person (speaking to newer-hires) working for newspapers and TV news has gone down dramatically. People are assigned to beats they know nothing about, and the editors don't have enough of a clue to help them. Plus, the industry pays so poorly they have a hard time wresting the brilliant people away from politics and PR.

Finally, it comes down to corporate ownership/parentage. It's not that NewsCorp TELLS the newspapers/TV shows what to air so much as the almighty dollar tells them what to air. Most publications are required to 'maximize shareholder value' of the parent company, which means running more boobs, blood and fluff than they used to/want to. These days, a headline like "Hot chick caught drunk, talks to Donald Trump (With Pictures)" sells more papers than, "Bush administration caught doing something we don't understand with a committee that may or may not exist." Corporate parentage has diverted more effort to selling papers than reporting the news.

Throw these three things together, along with smaller problems in the industry, and you have, in my opinion, the short explanation of the downfall of modern mass media.

Re:figuring out the original text

[topham]

I thought "dipp shit" fit better, in spite of the error.

Next time, RTFA

[ArcSecond]

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.

Re:Next time, RTFA

[Slur]

Kind of like a class of Special Ed students who have read Machiavelli and think they know how to run the world.

What do you mean, "Kind of" ?

Re:Next time, RTFA

[catchblue22]

Here is some more information about what was actually blacked out. The links on the left bar presumably point to articles that refer to the redacted information. If the information in the NY Times article was already public, then the White House is directly interfering with free speech. This is surely unconstitutional, should qualify Mr. Bush for prosecution for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

What line will this neo-conservative administration have to cross before the public realizes that Bush/Cheney and their neo-conservative friends have more in common with Benito Mussolini than with past presidents of America. Neo-conservatism and 1930's fascism have substantial overlap in that they both worship the strong and despise the weak. Typical modern neo-conservative quote: "I don't want my tax dollars going to help broken down single mothers and drug addicts. If they can't help themselves then they are weak and don't deserve help" Compare this with the way Hitler and Mussolini felt about the weaker and genetically deficient members of society. There is substantial overlap.

Re:Next time, RTFA

[tsotha]

I guess I would be more sympathetic to these folks if the CIA hadn't conducted a six year campaign of leaks to undermine the president. I worked for Uncle Sam. When you do anything connected with the military you sign away your right to discuss it. Ever. There's nothing here that has anything to do with the first amendment.

And if you think the administration is fascist you should probably crack a history book and actually try to understand the meaning of the words you're writing. If Bush was really a fascist you wouldn't be reading this, since you'd be in a shallow mass grave somewhere. Are you so disconnected from reality?

Re:Next time, RTFA

[bky1701]

"I guess I would be more sympathetic to these folks if the CIA hadn't conducted a six year campaign of leaks to undermine the president. I worked for Uncle Sam. When you do anything connected with the military you sign away your right to discuss it. Ever. There's nothing here that has anything to do with the first amendment."

Great way to rid yourself of those pesky whistleblowers...

"And if you think the administration is fascist you should probably crack a history book and actually try to understand the meaning of the words you're writing. If Bush was really a fascist you wouldn't be reading this, since you'd be in a shallow mass grave somewhere. Are you so disconnected from reality?"

Nazi Germany wasn't built in a day. These things take time, and if you refuse to speak up, you can bet your life they will turn out the same.

Re:Next time, RTFA

[Travoltus]

"Nazi Germany wasn't built in a day. These things take time, and if you refuse to speak up, you can bet your life they will turn out the same."

Typical neo conservative response:
"Will it be built tomorrow at 12:00pm? No? Then shut up!!!"

You have to remember, these people do not think very far ahead in life. They're the same people who reduced Corporate America to the quarter-by-quarter system while Japan and other countries think 3-5 years ahead (and which is why they're eating us alive in the automobile market with their fuel efficient cars).

Re:Next time, RTFA

[catchblue22]

I didn't say that neo-conservatives are fascists, merely that there is substantial overlap between them. It is more a question of values. The 1930's fascists worshiped self interest as the guiding principle of society. In their society, the strong rose to the top, while the weak and inferior were suppressed. The state was set up as a partnership between the government and the strongest private organizations (the largest corporations). The government acted in the interests of these organizations, and the large organizations acted in the interest of the government. I would argue that this model bears more than a passing similarity to the neo-conservative ideal. Neo-conservatives and fascists have shared values in that they worship the strong and despise the weak.

Neo-conservatives differ from 1930's fascists not least because of the extent to which they have acted on their values. Hitler took these values to their logical extreme, in explicitly seeking to destroy the weak. Mussolini's actions were I believe less extreme and explicit, though he still did some terrible things and was allied with Hitler. Neo-conservatives have not, as of yet acted as explicitly as 1930's fascists, though the invasion of Iraq might be seen as a baby step in that direction. But they have been busy solidifying the power of the huge corporations with which they are allied. What neo-conservatives might do if they gain a stronger lock on power is a frightening prospect.

I am also not convinced that many neo-conservatives understand the implications of their values and ideologies. I think that most neo-conservatives honestly believe that they will bring "democracy" to the world at the barrel of a gun, and that the free market will bring untold riches to society. And as with most ideologies, there is an element of truth in them; markets are an extremely effective method of distributing labor and resources. What they don't see is that their worship of self-interest above the public interest is fundamentally at odds with the ideals of democracy itself. Taking neo-conservative values to their extreme will result in our country becoming a democracy in name only.

Re:Next time, RTFA

[Alsee]

I guess I would be more sympathetic to these folks if the CIA hadn't conducted a six year campaign of leaks to undermine the president.

I guess I would be more sympathetic to the White House here if the they hadn't conducted a six year campaign of abuses to such an extent that many CIA employees felt compelled by conscience to risk their very freedom by becoming whistle blowers.

-

Re:That's how it works

[NineNine]

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"

secrets

[commodoresloat]

That the white house is led by incompetents is hardly a government secret.

True, but many in the White House believe it is. This is just one of many instances where they holler about "national security" but what they are really protecting is their own asses from embarrassment. John Dean's book Worse than Watergate documented this a couple years before the current crisis; this is just one more incident in a long string of attacks on openness in government. I

Re:That's how it works

[PixelScuba]

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.

Re:2 things

[TubeSteak]

For trustworthy news, we now have to go to foreign news media (and even then double-check that they didn't get their news from censored sources), which I find rather sad.

There is one catch: the US Gov't is not prohibited from injecting propaganda (aka lies) into foreign news sources.

They were doing this heavily pre & post Iraq invasion, but got pulled up short when their actions were reviewed. Basically, the review process showed that the propaganda was filtering back into US media outlets. This forced the Pentagon & Co. to both curtail and change the way they pushed out their propaganda.

Here's a Decensored Version

[Doc Ruby]

Raw Story has published its analysis of the probable original version of the redacted op-ed:

RAW STORY has examined these sources and has attempted to connect the previously published materials to the redacted paragraphs in the op-ed. What the information reveals is a series of events in which US-Iran dialogue broke down. In the aftermath of 9/11, the cooperative spirit around the world sparked by America's victimhood encouraged Iran to collaborate with the United States in its effort to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the goodwill that might have been sustained by those early negotiations was undermined by a series of disputes between the US and Iran.

[...]

Re:Stupid Bush

[Frumious Wombat]

If you actually listened to him, you'd realize the phrase is "Stop All Nucular Activity".

Leverett did sign an agreement

[commodoresloat]

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.

Re:I see it only took you about 4 years...

[jb.hl.com]

See also that "first they came for the..." poem, which crops up in every single Slashdot thread even remotely related to censorship and/or minorities.

My apologies- you had it right

[way2trivial]

I thought your post was attached to something else, and I want a link too!

After reading (and searching)

[OffbeatAdam]

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.

Re:After reading (and searching)

[nitemayr]

Sadly, the Whitehouse is not a business, it is the building that your employee lives in. If you have lost sight of that fact with your two-dollar civics understanding; then little can be said about you other than that.

Re:After reading (and searching)

[Adam.Steinbaugh]

Most businesses are founded under and driven by Adam Smith's ideals, in search of profit. Our nation is not a business. It was founded to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", the freedoms of speech and press being among the first enumerated rights in the Constitution. But I guess that this is what we get for electing our first "CEO President".

Re:2 things

[dfenstrate]

These days, neither are US newspapers, since they're subject to censorship from many directions

And nevermind the fact that they just make things up. Rather Gate, the recent Jamil Huissen problem (does he exist? doesn't he? Shouldn't that be simple?), AFP rank amatuer photo editing, etc, etc.

For trustworthy news, we now have to go to foreign news media

Bwah ha ha. That's cute. The 'news' industry is shit worldwide for a great variety of reasons, very few of them having to do with Bush and Co. Your fawning xenophilia clouds you from seeing that the world is covered with assholes who have agendas, imperfections, and external influences.

These things make the as-reported news from anyone, anywhere in the world highly suspect. The fact that someone is outside US influence does not earn them an automatic stamp of purity.

Mod Parent troll - nothing artificial about this

[sr. bigotes]

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.

Re:I see it only took you about 4 years...

[WilliamSChips]

First they came for the people who quote Niemoeller.

Re:Stupid Bush

[RiffRafff]

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.

What I think you meant to say...

[MarkusQ]

The New York Times revealed covert operation just to spite the Bush Amninistration and they should have been prosecuted for treason. This "censorship" is weak namby pamby stuff.

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.

Re:Stupid Bush

[MorseKode]

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 can't believe...

[nutshell42]

...noone's posted this already:

I, for one, welcome our new xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx.

The redacted info was in the public sphere anyway

[Rescate]

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

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):

Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration's first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins. (emphasis mine)

These aspects have been extensively reported in the news media, and one of us, Mr. Leverett, has written about them in The Times and other publications with the explicit permission of the review board. We provided the following citations to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain. Unfortunately, to make sense of much of our Op-Ed article, readers will have to read the citations for themselves. (See links at left.)

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.

Just leak it

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.

Heh

[khallow]

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.

Meh...nothing to see here

[element-o.p.]

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.

Were your freedom of speech now.

[Dan541]

Well???

Wrong

[DavidShor]

Hezbollah is Shia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Shi.27a_Isl amism.

Re:Wrong

[dircha]

"Hezbollah is Shia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Shi.27a_Isl amism [wikipedia.org]."

He said Hamas, not Hezbollah. Hamas is indeed Sunni.

Re:2 things

[dfenstrate]

What troubles me is that terrorist/insurgent propaganda is uncritically forwarded as the truth, and any release that supports American activities or interests is mindlessly decried as propoganda.

Propaganda- media efforts to garner and maintain support for any serious national undertaking- is absolutely vital to an endevour's success. We seem to have forgotten this and yielded the propoganda floor largely to the islamists we're fighting.

I certainly don't expect you to agree that we should be making much more serious efforts to 'sell' this war- and we can do it without lying- but hey, it's the topic of conversation, so what the hell.

By the way, Fox is a piss-poor propoganda organ for the USA. But it's resistance to being endlessly supercritical of the administration and occasionally supporting it gets it labeled as such.

When your only basis of comparison is typical 'if it bleeds it leads' and 'no news is good news' outlets, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.

Re:Stupid Bush

[RiffRafff]

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...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061224/ap_on_re_mi_ea /un_iran_nuclear

Re:Left-wing propaganda

[glarbl_blarbl]

WTF are you talking about?! There is no left wing in America! Every Democrat I could vote for was right-of-center, and the media is totally corporate. Maybe there was a bit of a liberal bias 10 years ago, but these days it's all corporate, all the time. The only news show I can stand on TV these days is Keith Olberman, at least he says what he thinks.

If the democrats don't even try to Impeach this cesspool of an Administration I'm never voting for another democrat. Unfortunately it seems that they are intent on letting every broken law slide since they think it will win them more votes in 2008... It's going to be interesting to see what they do when no Liberal will vote for them anymore. Can they live on centrists alone? I doubt it.

I guess this is a good a place as any...

[caveat]

...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.

Re:I guess this is a good a place as any...

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

This material was already pre-published. In fact, the Times pointed out other places that had published it first. So why the black bars?

Re:2 things

[multisync]

are we at the point yet where blogs are considered "news sources"

They're sources. And, just like any source, should be accorded the amount of trust they have earned with you. A well-written and researched blog can be just as worthwhile of a read as a column in any newspaper. And plenty of "traditional media" types have been caught stealing or lying.

Re:WTF

[marsonist]

Do you honestly think that someone working for the CIA doesn't sign documents wavering rights to talk about certain things? Do you think he has had over 30 articles proofed by the CIA because he wanted to? Last time I checked non disclosure agreements in positions such as what he had do not expire and are held on file for a minimum of 70 years. (With the assumption that even the youngest person eligible for such clearances/positions would likely be dead from old age or polonium before their NDAs get shredded)

Not everybody has freedom of speech... They just let you talk because you don't know anything that threatens them.

In Soviet Russia, NYT Censors White House

[Guuge]

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?

Your right

[DavidShor]

I'm sorry, I don't know why I read otherwise.

Re:That's how it works

[misanthrope101]

The law only allows classification of information related to national security, and that's not something the President is legally above reproach on.

This is factually wrong, and you would have to have been in a coma for 30 years to not know better. This administration recently redefined the term "civil war" and then classified the definition. Governments have long hid behind secrecy to conceal their failures, peccadillos, corruption, and so on. It didn't start with Bush, but neither did it magically stop when Bush became President. Don't act like politicians don't try to hide behind secrecy just because you think there is some liberal conspiracy to make this President look bad.

good grief

[pease1]

The guy's presidency is trashed, his agenda is trashed, his "party" is trashed, NYT's played a major role in ensuring a major defeat of US foreign policy that will haunt us for years and you folks just can't let it go. He's bargaining with the Dems to raise taxes, raise the min. wage, let millions of illegal aliens brush their law breaking under the rug and finally cut and run from Iraq and you guys STILL can't let it go.

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.

Where are all the libertarians?

[whitroth]

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

U.S. becoming more like Iran than I thought

[Money for Nothin']

The article had passed the CIA's publication review board

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?)

Re:I see it only took you about 4 years...

[Copid]

Absolutely brilliant. Consider that line stolen.

Bush Logic

[GrEp]

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!???

Re:Stupid Bush

[AK Marc]

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.

redaction

[bodrell]

I like the fact the NYT published the redacted article anyway. It clearly shows that what's blacked out was purposefully meant to change the MEANING of sections of text and not to cover up facts. It's a great "slap back" by the NYT to show what "redaction" is and why it's silly!!!

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.

Against the *US* Constitution

[Doc Ruby]

I would have been really surprised if the government would have allowed a critical article co-written by a government official to be published.

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.