Slashdot Mirror
White House Forces Censorship of New York Times
VE3OGG writes "It would seem that scientists are not the only ones facing censorship from the White House. According to several news sources the New York Times originally had intended to run an article co-authored by a former employee of the National Security Council, critical of the current administration's policies toward Iran. The article had passed the CIA's publication review board, but was later redacted on orders from the White House. Article authors Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann were former advisers to the White House, and thus all of their publications are scrutinized by a board before they can be published. Of the numerous documents this pair has published since leaving their positions, they say this was the first that was actively censored.
I would have been really surprised if the government would have allowed a critical article co-written by a government official to be published. There is nothing sinister going on here ... if the NYT is upset, they should have just interviewed the National Security Council employee instead of using that individual as a co-author.
Co-authoring any article with a government employee (or even a corporate employee) is always a risk. While the NYT is free to publish almost anything they want, the co-author (by nature of his/her employment) is not, which was the problem in this situation.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
It seems like the Bush admin. has really lost their mojo... This is so badly played. If this article had been allowed to run without obstruction, how many people would really have noticed it? Another dry opinion piece promulgating one aspect of one of the five dominant Opinions on What Ought We to Do with Iraq. Instead, with the NYT's unusual decision to run it redacted with an explanation, the spotlight is on every piece of information they wanted to keep out of the press, and it is making headlines in places it never would have (it certainly never would have shown up on Slashdot just as the story it was).
For the first time in a while I'm looking forward to the next year's politics... Not because "my team" is winning (my team doesn't seem to exist and if they did they wouldn't get on any ballot), but because it's just going to be such a clusterfuck... Watching that three ring circus known as the Democratic party try to joust its razor thin margin against this newly politically tonedeaf lame duck administration, while the GOP try to figure out how to put solid distance between themselves and the ever less popular Bush&Co while holding onto all those endearing litte traits that keep the various "bases" happy...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
While the NYT is free to publish almost anything they want, the co-author (by nature of his/her employment) is not, which was the problem in this situation.
Leverett is now at the New America Foundation, and left the CIA some time ago. Since he *used to* work at the CIA, the article had to be reviewed by the CIA. The CIA approved it. What is disconcerting in this instance is that the White House injected itself into the secrets review process. This raises flags because if the White House an override the CIA during the secrets review process, it could easily manipulate that ability for domestic political ends. Want to keep the discussion on Iran policy from going in a certain direction? Want to blunt an attack by a knowledgeable ex-CIA agent? Control the secrets review process.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
What should have happened:
1) NY Times runs the article
2) Attorney General investigates to see if any laws or contracts were broken.
3) Attorney General prosecutes or sues co-author for breaking law or breaking contract. Use FISA or other closed-court hearings if necessary to protect state secrets.
4) Message is sent to others: Don't do what he did.
5) Citizens see article and see the author is being sued or prosecuted, and make up their own mind at the polls in '08.
6) Next president considers Presidential Pardon.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
They *really* redacted the comments. I was hoping to find the juicy tidbits after looking at the page source. But unfortunately I found:
<"span style="color:black;background:black;">xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx x</span"&>"
On the other hand, looking at the source is always fun.
<!--Kim was here:
{} -->
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ever notice how new and emerging democracies have freer and more open press while the modern democracies are slowly retracting this fundamental right.
He basically tells C-Span what Dear Leader didn't want published in the New York Times.
Apparently the CIA had okayed it, but Bu$hCo didn't want that sucker out.
This boils down to
- the previous reports of Iran offering to negotiate a comprehensive deal for peace in the Middle East, and,
- The dialog that Iran had with the USA right after 9-11 and the lead up to Afghanistan.
Remember, the Iranians are Shiite, the Taliban are Wahhabi Sunni. Basically the Iranians don't like them, either.The conclusions of the Op-Ed were that we're being lied to in order for Dear Leader and Big Time Dick to get this war on again with Iran.
On You Tube here. [Thanks to Uncle $cam]
Billmon suggests the Cheneyburton Corporation wants Total War in Iraq. Read what Bernhard's barflies think about that here. This is doubtless the reason the Joint Chiefs are pissed: when you go to War, you need an objective endpoint, and a pogrom is not an endpoint.
9:07 PM
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The last censored word in that strip could very well be "to", as in "to set the stage".
By the way, my title is "Are you fucking kidding me ?!"
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
All hail the American Police State!!
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.
Well, american instutitions are much enthusiastic about advertising american values about free speech, transparent government, democracy, freedom and such to the world.
We listen to those, then we visit to slashdot and see that the u.s. government is actively censoring what it does not like, and than, to add insult to injury, we are seeing people here that can actually support such a blatant blashpemy of values.
I dont know which is worse.
Read radical news here
Sounds like the government's policy is security through obscurity. We all know the end result of that mantra.
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.
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.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
The authors provided ample evidence that the information that was redacted had already been publicly disclosed.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
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?
YouTube is the new defender of Freedom in the USofA.
Because if you *had* RTFA, you would know that every single redaction consisted of information already publicized, in several cases by members of the White House administration. The discussion of the article even links to citations where that VERY SAME INFORMATION is available, non-redact-stylee.
So really, what is the end effect of this censorship? To draw attention to both the attitude of Bush & Co., while simultaneously providing the curious with the information that they weren't supposed to know.
This administration must have lead in their water. I have never seen such ham-handed, short-sighted, and just plain dumb policy. Kind of like a class of Special Ed students who have read Machiavelli and think they know how to run the world.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
"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.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
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"
--
make install -not war
First they came for the people who quote Niemoeller.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I, for one, welcome our new xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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.
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.
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.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
"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.
"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!
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 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.
Um
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
"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.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself