NY Times and intelligence leaks

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Not trying to be snarky (seriously), but has there been an announcement that that there would be no investigation?

What I'm saying is, why is the focus on the newspaper and not the 20 people who went to the paper? Why isn't he coming out saying that he'd find out who leaked the info?

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The NY Times knew the program was classified prior to publishing it. They are not innocent.

They aren't innocent, but I'm glad I know about this program now. In fact, if the phone tapping story wasn't leaked we would have never heard about it. I'm someone who likes to know what's up.
Now certain politicians are saying the NY Times is being treasonous. Talk about McCarthy-esque!

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I know something about you. Someone told me a secret about you. I pronounce this to the world. Who are you mad at? Most likely the friend who told me and me for making it public. You aren't going to excuse me, are you?

It's not the same. It would be more like if I knew a secret, let a lot of people in on it and 20 of them leaked the story to you. If your job in the hypothetical situation was to report the news, you're doing your job... Of course I'd be mad at you, but I'd be madder at the 20 people I thought I could trust to keep my secret.
Then again, I wouldn't be doing anything shady that would cause a lot of controversy to begin with.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Now certain politicians are saying the NY Times is being treasonous.

trea·son n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (emphasis mine)

Would not reporting on (and leaking, for that matter) a classified program on the surveillance of terrorists who wish to bring harm to us be the very definition of treason?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Would not reporting on (and leaking, for that matter) a classified program on the surveillance of terrorists who wish to bring harm to us be the very definition of treason?

I find the act of questioning our government about as far from teason as possible. One of the things that used to separate the American ideology from the rest of the world is that information is not dangerous, information is not illegal, information is freedom. That's the beauty of the freedom of press, that's the beauty of the freedom of speech (which was written into the Constitution in order to protect our right to question our government, not Howard Stern's right to talk about vaginas).

It may be that all of these programs, including the wire tapping, turn out to be perfectly legal and justifiable. What angers me is Bush's attitude that to even question whether they are or not is inherently unamerican. As far as I'm concerned, it's about as American as it gets.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I find the act of questioning our government about as far from teason as possible.

Good lord, GD. There is a huge difference between questioning the government and revealing classified programs. Any cries of treason for questioning if we should be in Iraq are ridiculous. Cries of treason for revealing classified terrorist surveillance methods? Certainly not.

This is WAY beyond questioning the government.

Certain information most certainly can be and is dangerous. Loose lips sink ships and all. There is a reason certain things are classified.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Good lord, GD. There is a huge difference between questioning the government and revealing classified programs. Any cries of treason for questioning if we should be in Iraq are ridiculous. Cries of treason for revealing classified terrorist surveillance methods? Certainly not.

But it's gone beyond cries of treason for revealing the information. Bush has urged people to drop lawsuits that came up after the program was already leaked because "it might risk national security." Sorry, bub, but just because you want to continue to sneak around doesn't mean citizens have to give up their right to protect their freedoms.

I believe anyone who has classified clearence that leaks classified information should be prosecuted. But I don't believe the people who receive that information have any obligation to keep it a secret once it's been leaked. If Bush can't inspire his people to work with him on this oh-so-vital programs, that's a problem he has to deal with internally. It's not a problem that or should be solved by going after the messenger.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But it's gone beyond cries of treason for revealing the information. Bush has urged people to drop lawsuits that came up after the program was already leaked because "it might risk national security." Sorry, bub, but just because you want to continue to sneak around doesn't mean citizens have to give up their right to protect their freedoms.

Without addressing the merits of that argument, that steps beyond the original scope of what I was addressing, being whether or not the revealing of classified information in his instance could be considered treasonous. It is not unreasonable to suggest it.

As far as dropping lawsuits.....any discussion of this classified program would reveal more methodology, I would suspect. What is wrong with urging anything anyway? And as previously mentioned, bank records have already been ruled on by the SC to not be privileged information.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Without addressing the merits of that argument, that steps beyond the original scope of what I was addressing, being whether or not the revealing of classified information in his instance could be considered treasonous. It is not unreasonable to suggest it.

Perhaps, but that requires some pretty liberal stertching of the definition of "purposely aiding". I mean, if that's treason, than so is the many times we've all posted about how easy it is to get through Disneyland bag checks with knives in our pockets. Heck, that's worse as we provide a specific method for our enemies to defeat security.

What is wrong with urging anything anyway?

What's wrong is that it continues the implication that "you're either for us or against us." Either you simply take for granted that our government is doing the right thing, don't question it, waive your flag, and cheer 'em on...or you're trying to undermine America. I'm insulted by that attitude, and insulted that our leader has it.