Times Editors Explain SWIFT Decision

The NY Times editors are unintentionally funny in their editorial defending their decision to break open the SWIFT program:

When Do We Publish a Secret? 

By DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times

SINCE Sept. 11, 2001, newspaper editors have faced excruciating choices in covering the government's efforts to protect the country from terrorist agents. Each of us has, on a number of occasions, withheld information because we were convinced that publishing it could put lives at risk. On other occasions, each of us has decided to publish classified information over strong objections from our government.

Last week our newspapers disclosed a secret Bush administration program to monitor international banking transactions. We did so after appeals from senior administration officials to hold the story. Our reports — like earlier press disclosures of secret measures to combat terrorism — revived an emotional national debate, featuring angry calls of "treason" and proposals that journalists be jailed along with much genuine concern and confusion about the role of the press in times like these. 

Ann Althouse (via Glenn) has a good analysis.

But the Times delivered a laugh with the implicit answer to their "When Do We Publish A Secret" question - they publish a secret, like this defense of their decision, on the Saturday of Fourth of July Weekend.

I guess they didn't think they could hold off until Christmas Day.  But why couldn't they find space for this last week?

Comments

[windansea]

losers....

[lurker]

The Fourth Estate is dead. Long live the Fourth Estate.

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

Back in the 80's, it became popular for aggressive lawyers to use the R.I.C.O. statutes in Civil matters. I'm not in the 'getting sued' business anymore but the NYT sure seems to me to at least have the patina of a corrupt organization.

[Semanticleo]

Part of what's goin' on here is the lack of creditility assigned to members of this Administration. Perhaps the Times did not accept the veracity of the 'officials' pleadings as having merit. That is the physics of playing loose with the facts a few times. The attempt to control information is legendary with these guys. So if you want to blame someone, blame the WH.

[Semanticleo]

strike creditility, insert credibility.

[clarice]

Strike the whole stupid post IMO.

[SunnyDay]

They claim they were handed he same story in 2003. Why didn't they publish it then?

[lurker]

Patterico's already done his job at shifting the credibility from the WH to NYT and he's already won. NYT's losing subscribers and stock prices going down.

Check Bad News for Pinch

[SunnyDay]

Cleo, we have different starting points. You see lack of credibility. We do not. Those points have been hashed and re-hashed.

We do not believe Bush lied. You do. We will never agree. Your arguments are all based on the "fact" that Bush lied, Plame was covert, Rove is evil, etc etc etc.

[lurker]

SunnyDay, one of the arguments used by Hamdan's plaintiffs was that timing of the war against terrorism. Bush's INHERENT powers right after GWOT was not an issue but over time (e.g., after 6 years), the defense argument of INHERENT powers becomes less justifiable.

I don't understand this argument since this Hamdan case had been going on for a long time.

[Bob]

Good one clarice.

You can't make this shit up

"Perhaps the Times did not accept the veracity of the 'officials' pleadings as having merit. That is the physics of playing loose with the facts a few times."

So now lady leo, it's the WH fault! Give me a freak'n break... since when did the NY Times ever listen to anyone from the WH?

Boy that Rove is better than I thought!

[Semanticleo]

Bob;

Heard of Judy Miller?

Idiot

[boris]

And what happened to JM and why?

[boris]

clown

[boris]

clarice, lol

[lurker]

What is happening with Matt Cooper, Clown?

[Gary Maxwell]

I dunno Bob I would be worried if I were you. the great and powerful Cleo, who has an in the omnipotent astrolger the Great Jerome has proclaimed you an idiot. What are you going to do? Where will you go? Surely you will be shunned by all and have to forage for your meals. I guess you just should have been a little nicer to the the lout.

[lurker]

The Old Gray Lady is heading for extinction. Check Riehl's Op-Ed

So...where's the credibility of NYT, cleown?

[lurker]

Gary, more on Jerome

[Semanticleo]

"What are you going to do? Where will you go? Surely you will be shunned by all and have to forage for your meals"

LMFAO !!

Why, he should go to JOM, of course.

LMMFAO!!!!!

[Barney Frank]

"Strike the whole stupid post IMO."

LOL. Wish I'd said that.

[Bob]

Gary,

You never know if you hit your mark, but when you get a "name calling" like IDIOT, Ya jus noze yuz dun good!

I thing that amazed me is she didn't correct my grammar or spelling. Oh right she couldn't now could she... it would ruin her "creditility".

[Gary Maxwell]

Did the star charts give you that answer. Laughing at your own jokes must really suck but otherwise there would be only silence.

[Semanticleo]

trust me. I'm not the only one laughing.

And if you're not laughing, I certainly understand why

[boris]

it would ruin her "creditility".

That one's going to stick to ms clown forever. Ooops that should be ms MFA clown.

[Bob]

weak lady leo... try again. Go back to name calling. Now that makes us laugh!

[boris]

I'm not the only one laughing

But are you laughing at you like the rest of us are?

[Bob]

boris... she's not the only one. The NY Times has got a boat load of "creditlity" too!

[Semanticleo]

Boris;

When I consider the source, I say...........
LMMFAO!!!!!!

[boris]

whatever MsMFassclown

[Barney Frank]

"LMMFAO!!!!!!"

Not once, but twice.
Maybe it should be "Oedipaleo".

[Old Dad]

Speaking of "creditility," Stalin did not murder millions. Thus spake Walter Jayson Blair Duranty.

Who'd you rather have at your back in a fight? Pinchy or the President?

[Jane]

" one of the arguments used by Hamdan's plaintiffs was that timing of the war against terrorism. Bush's INHERENT powers right after GWOT was not an issue but over time (e.g., after 6 years), the defense argument of INHERENT powers becomes less justifiable.

I don't understand this argument since this Hamdan case had been going on for a long time."

I think I understand it. In the near term, executive powers are considered "emergency powers" so the Court refrains from getting involved. When (apparently at their discretion) the powers cease to be emergency powers the Court gets involved. Since the GWOT is expected to go on for a very long time, we are past the point of emergency.

At least that is my understanding of the argument. I don't buy it now, but I might buy it with a president I don't like in the WH, (my own personal litmus test) which makes me think there is possibly a point there

[Bob]

I wouldn't want anybody named "Pinchy" behind me whether I'm in a fight or just in line to buy a beer. You really need to wonder how one gets a nick name like that.

But the real test is who would want to be on a desert Island with? I'd eat "Pinchy" for lunch!

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Are we sure this was the real Semanticeo? I know it was stupid enough,but there have been a number of bogus Cements recently.

[boris]

I might buy it with a president I don't like in the WH

A fair argument would be that congress should step up to relieve emergency power with appropriate legislation.

If congress simply stands on the status quo doing nothing, that is their choice, albeit perhaps not a responsible one. Would prefer judges not step in to force the issue but understand that argument. Lets hope damage by precedent is minimal.

[PeterUK]

"trust me. I'm not the only one laughing."
You have "laughing piles" Cement?

[clarice]

"Bogus cements"? What a concept. What's next-- concrete concrete?

[PeterUK]

Does anyone find the picture of Cementicleo sitting in tha attic alone at her keyboard,
"Click tap click,"::Chuckle::"tap tap,"LOL",click tap tap "LMMFOA", like an excerpt from "The Shining"?

[Bruce Hayden]

I am repeating my comments made at Althouse:

Part of their problem is that the NYT is so obviously obsessed with taking down Bush and Cheney, that their objecctivity is suspect. Their behavior during the 2004 election doesn't help their cause - from obsessing about abu Ghraib and Bush's TANG record for months, without questioning why Kerry's discharge was so delayed (and ignoring whether he served even one day of his equivalent Naval Reserve committment), up through the Labor Day Surprise (that backfired). Needless to say, this continued through the Wilson article and their heated insistance that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate the Plame "outing".

So, the NYT editors have repeatedly listened to the Administration and concluded that they hadn't made a case that the NYT disclosing programs would harm those programs. Is it any surprise that many question their objectivity?

And, as pointed out above by Ann, et al., the question isn't about covering up Administration venality, but rather, about the Administration trying to protect relatively successful programs.

[Barney Frank]

Bob,

"I wouldn't want anybody named "Pinchy" behind me whether I'm in a fight or just in line to buy a beer. You really need to wonder how one gets a nick name like that."

Hilarious!

[Bob]

http://www.angryalien.com/0504/shiningbunnies.html>is this the shining your talking about?

[clarice]

OT: The Schofield piece is up.http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5632

[Lesley]

The NYT's is a veritable font of information. Weekends With the President's Men

[JM Hanes]

Lurker

Yet another great link! Riehl's piece on the derivation of the http://www.examiner.com/a-164424%7EDan_Riehl__Long_live_the_Fourth_Estate.html>Fourth Estate is worth an UPDATE of it's own, TM. While first usage is usually attributed to Edmund Burke, apparently:

The term actually goes back 90 years earlier than when Carlyle invoked Burke. In 1752, Henry Fielding wrote, “None of our political writers … take notice of any more than three estates, namely, Kings, Lords and Commons … passing by in silence that very large and powerful body which form the Fourth Estate in the community … the Mob.”

Today, better educated, enabled through technology and afforded free time through societal advance, the Mob is becoming less a dingy group of field hands gathered round the public square to hear the news. It is fast becoming more wired in.

It may be five or 20 years away, but the day is coming when a member of the too long overlooked Mob clicks “send” to publish and declares: The Fourth Estate is dead. Long live the Fourth Estate.

What Baquet & Keller now feel nipping at their heels is the real Fourth Estate! Nice, eh?

[PeterUK]

Bob,
Cement is a lot uglier bunny.

[Jane]

"Would prefer judges not step in to force the issue but understand that argument. Lets hope damage by precedent is minimal"

Boris,

I agree with you. The majority really seems to have overreached and entered into the realm of legislating. I'd like to see Congress take action to nullify the decision.

[Wilson's a Liar]

Semanticleo,

What you say makes sense if that is your point of view. But it is JUST A POINT OF VIEW. I believe most of America has a different point of view about this particular program and believe what the Administration says about it. The problem is that your point of view when adopted by the media becomes a license to print anything, with no accountability. Some of us happen to think that isn't very responsible or good for our country. And that's a valid point of view too.

As I've said before, the editors are being very stupid and wrong here. If the decision to publish is a close call, the decision should be NOT to publish rather than to publish. If it wasn't a close call they should have no trouble defending it. The NSA warrantless wiretapping story ws not a close call, and they have had no trouble defending it. Clearly that is not the case with this story. We now have the third attempt in a week by the NYT to help us understand why they ran this story. They are simply confirming to us that the only reason this one was a close call for them is that they just don't believe anything this Administration says. That's fine up to a point, especially if they are willing to be honest about it. But they aren't.

And we have just as valid a point of view, that the revelation of this program has seriously harmed our ability to track down terrorists and was an egregious abuse of freedom of the press.

It's not the end of the world for liberals to just admit that their heroes in the press really screwed up this time.

[Bob]

PUK

Yes I agree, but are you talking about the "all wet" cement or the dry stuff?

[Seixon]

Ah crud. Larry Johnson banned me from his blog for writing this. He should have just done what the Think Progress folks did, out personal details about me in the comments.

[Bob]

"The NSA warrantless wiretapping story ws not a close call, and they have had no trouble defending it. Clearly that is not the case with this story."

Your right Wilson is a liar... it was just as irresponsible!

Please name one American that was NSA'd

[Barney Frank]

JMH,

I saw that too. Thanks for bringing it over here.
I guess it makes us mobsters?

Poor Burke. He didn't come up with "fourth estate" or "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil etc...."
Guess people will have to go back to actually reading him. :)

[SunnyDay]

The NYT's is a veritable font of information. Weekends With the President's Men
**************************

Very subtle hit piece.

[PeterUK]

Bob,
The stuff that is half and half,no use nor ornament

[Lesley]

Sunny - yup. Ranks right up there with some commenters on the Huffpo printing the names and phone numbers of the Swiftvets (some who have reported receiving threatening phone calls). I'm certain Sexion can relate. Geez.

[Wilson's a liar]

I'm still waiting for Keller and Baquet to NAME THEIR SOURCES. Both papers have been suckers for planted stories and biased leaks in the past. They have a huge credibility problem themselves. Millions of Americans do not trust them or their biased reporters to ever print the whole story. The only way we can really benefit from their revelations if if we know everything they know. But in their smug superiority, they have judged that our "right to know" ends with whatever they decide to publish.

What if Eric LIchtblau is another Jayson Blair? Remember, Janet Cooke once won a Pulitzer for a story that turned out to be made up. How do we know that Lichtblau is not just making shit up? I'm especially suspicious when I see nebulous weasel words like "some current and former officials expressed some discomfort about possible privacy violations." How about some actual quotes citing laws that might have been violated? When he can't even come up with that, you have to wonder how much "concern" he really found about this program and how little reason there really was to publish, other than just to sell newspapers.

I also found it incredibly relevant that both chairs of the 9/11 Commission asked the NYT not to publish this story. Yet the Times did not think this was important for us to know. Bill Keller still refuses to even acknowledge it. Why? Why should we ever trust them again when they withheld such an important piece of information from us?

[Barney Frank]

Seixon,

LJ is out of his gourd. Do they not screen for mental health at the spook factory? Or is that why he left? Sheesh.

And the TP episode makes one start to wonder about the nexus between the internet and the law.

[PeterUK]

"SINCE Sept. 11, 2001, newspaper editors have faced excruciating choices in covering the government's efforts to protect the country from terrorist agents"

What were the excruciating choices? On the one hand the New York Taqiya was asked not to publish the information,so what were the other choices,find another story for the front page,or look for another job,slowly and carefully lower their zips again? We should be told.

[Jane]

Seixon,

Scary Larry troubles me. After emailing me: "What makes you think I don't know who you are and where you live" I got the full picture. He's drunk with his utter lack of power. He's a wannabee. But if he ever attempts to get a public job again, we have a lot of clout to foil that.

[PeterUK]

Jane,
That is threatening behaviour,Larry Johnson is implying that by knowing your address he could take action,inform the FBI and his ISP.

[clarice]

That's what I think PUK..And she should block his mail as well.

Seixon's experience was also bad. I don't know what the chances of doing more than publicizing such a violation of a blog's TOS are, but I hope his report gets coverage.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
I don't know what you call men who browbeat women by claiming to know their addresses but we call them stalkers,and it is a illegal.
What would the MSM who give him jobs think about his threatening attitude towards women?
I hope Jane has kept the eamail.

[clarice]

I don't know if the media cares, PUK. It seems to me that once you've hit the Fenton jetstream into the media as an "expert" you are there forever. Sheuer,Clarke,Wilson,Johnson,McGovern will be cited as experts as long as Bush is in office.Even if it's from jail.

[jerry]

I've been obsessing over the idea that the lawyer who won the Hamdan case was named Swift, the agency enabling the financial spying is named SWIFT, and then of course there were the SWIFT boat swifties... what can if all mean?

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
But Jail might change Larry's perspective somewhat.

[Carol Herman]

Ya know, Clarice, I can just imagine you in a court of law; decorum and all. Jack Benny couldn't have delivered the "strike" line with better aplomb.

Shows ya, there are great ways to deal with stinkers.

As to the NY Times, what impressed me is that Bill Keller has such an "executive" title. They sure know how to lay it on themselves, thickly.

While even though this is the Saturday, similar to the 9/11 date, where one LUNATIC in the MSM said "oh, this is such a good date to release all the negative stuff we've been holding ... like a bag of shit ... Because no one will notice.

Gee, they sure teach interesting things in order to credential fools and call them journalists.

While even more interesting, TM, this story does not die. And, it has the left confused; because now (just like in the Pflame episode), they're at the receiving end.

It's almost as if they put their eyeball at the wrong end of the tube.

When I was a kid, they had a joke model tube, that you'd hand someone. And, when they'd look they'd shrug. Then they'd hand you back the tube, and they had a black eye.

Oh, yeah, everyone laughs. Except the person whose the butt of the joke. And, butts they are.

[Patton]

One thing the NYT appears to not comprehend is that the government officials are supposed to REVEAL ANY ADDTL CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WHEN THEY ARE EXPLAINING TO THESE NUMBSKULLS NOT TO PUBLISH.

They appear to expect the governemnt to reveal more secrets in order to attempt to convince them, when all that will do is give them more secret information to put into the paper.

[Patton]

Now how do you expect me to fully explain to you the ramification of revealing a secret program, without revealing any secrets....idiots.

[SunnyDay]

I don't think THESE papers will be getting any more secret info any time soon, to publish or not publish. Perhaps something to make them look stupid...

[SunnyDay]

Apparently the gubmint decided not to let the NYT have an exclusive, if the editorial in the WSJ is true, and I assmue it is.

[Patton]

Time magazine rears its ugly bias:

Can you believe how far these nuts will go? Time magazine compares the struggle of an Iranian dissident to a terrorist captured on the battle field and sitting out the war at GITMO.

Time says:
""Indeed, though the U.S. has condemned the hunger strikers at Gitmo, just last year the White House hailed a hunger-striking Iranian dissident for showing "that he is willing to die for his right to express his opinion""

That's it, those GITMO terrorist are just expressing their opinions ya know.
So I guess Time equates the Bush adminstration to the Mullahs running Iran.

[Carol Herman]

Don't Miss this!

Glenn Reynolds links to IowaHawk; and his utterly contemptuous, and very funny, piece on Bill Keller's previously unpublished drafts of his memo.

Here's how the LINK looks up at InstaPundit's site; where you'll have to go to find it in working order. "Plus, Bill Keller's discarded drafts."

Don't miss out! He's running a 2006 beauty contest for incarcerated hoozegow beauties.

Shows ya, Right to Center, the humor discarded by the left, has found resonance in a new home. Who knew outside of the bookends, and the borcht circuit people could write this funny? (Peter in the UK, this is for you! Don't press any liquids to your lips. My recommendation, here, comes with fair warning.)

Also, if anyone can Name the actor posing as Keller; I'd appreciate that, too.

[SunnyDay]

Bad keyboard. ;)

[Semanticleo]

"Are we sure this was the real Semanticeo? I know it was stupid enough,but there have been a number of bogus Cements recently."

You should know,Peter(Jason Blair)UK.

At least it is consistent with your character.

[Semanticleo]

"It's not the end of the world for liberals to just admit that their heroes in the press really screwed up this time."

Not excusing it. Just sayin'.

[Jane]

>That is threatening behaviour,Larry Johnson is implying that by knowing your address he could take action,inform the FBI and his ISP.

I know. But what's he gonna do with that info? I'm quite confident that scary larry is too cowardly to show up at my door.

I did keep the email. And if SC is ever considered for any position of prominance again, I'll go to town.

He's a bad guy.

[PeterUK]

Jane,
Of course Larry Johnson is a wimp,he was only a CIA analyst,but the man is getting delusional and needs a smack.
Having said that, Johnson's behavior has gone beyond acceptable.

[Jane]

Oh I agree with that. And I'm completely confident that he will get his.

[JJ]

Tony Snow last Monday said:

...if The New York Times wants a spirited debate about it, it's got it...

Today's editorial about to publish or not to publish (appearing in op/ed?) could have been condensed to the last sentence:

And it is not one we can surrender to the government.

None of the prior paragraphs addressed the question.

Some debate. More to come.

[Patton]

Ohh I misspoke, apparently the guy Bush was supporting in Iran was a journalist advocating for free speech...obviously that's just like those free speech Al Queda terrorist types.

Akbar Ganji, an Iranian journalist who since 1999 has been routinely sentenced to prison by the Iranian government for advocating free speech, is again in jail because of his political views.

[Barney Frank]

"Not excusing it. Just sayin'."

That's the problem Leo, you never just say anything.

It's all snark and bombast and schoolyard taunts. Then when you quite deservedly get smacked for it you whine and use that to justify more of your endless, tedious, drivel.
It was kind of entertaining for a time but its gotten to be only boring and dull.

May I suggest philately if you have too much time on your hands?
( I use the word knowing full well someone will abuse it )

[Semanticleo]

smacked? where?

And I am not here to entertain you.

But if it is true that I dont say anything, that may be the only thing I have in common
with my fellow drivelrousers, with the
caveat, (and this is what drives your adolescent rants) that I say it better.
Its too bad you cant just ignore me,
(like an adult exasperated with the tone or opinion of another) because your pre-pubescent tactics wont drive me off, if that is your intent.

[boris]

clowns are for laughing at

[PeterUK]

Piles playing up again Cement?

[Carol Herman]

Slow learners must use ear plugs. Or 'leo would know that the best lines go to Peter in the UK. And, everyone laughs.

The world's different since the NY Times lost altitude; and no longer convinces the public of either their importance. Or the issues of the day.

iTake-It, that the slow learners of the world, today, are getting to learn, at least in some places, that they've got to deal with low flying approaches, at Mach 1.2 speeds. These tend to knock out their windows. And, are not even allowing their chickens to lay eggs.

TIME Magazine, Patton, FIRED Matt Cooper! So, inside the building all is not well.

And, I agree with others, here, who suspect the NY Times may have burnt a number of bridges to their super-duper secret sources.

While to find out about Mark Felt, we had to wait for him to go senile.

[Jane]

According to Red State, Bill Keller is going to be on Face the Nation, tomorrow. Let's hope Dan Rather isn't sitting in for Schieffer.

[PeterUK]

Carol,
I don't think it is ear plugs,Semanticleo has misread the instruction on the suppositories,either that or she is going directly to the source of the irritation.

[lurker]

We are laughing at the source, which happens to be Cleown. And it looks like Cleown LOVES attention.

Keller draft

As for Riehl's Op-Ed, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Even the American Revolution War, Civil War, WWI, and WWII all had their share of detractors.

AJStrata had a few good posts:

1. "
Taking Benedict Arnolds To Court
Posted by AJStrata on July 1st, 2006

The leftward fringes are shocked, shocked that their paranoid delusions that led them to expose national defense programs have led to the logical conclusion: take these Benedict Arnolds to court for their crimes. All the leaks have been about paranoid conspiracy theories and some incredibly egotistical ideas about saving the world from the right wing of humanity. Not one revelation has had any foundation of wrong doing. They have all been about political disagreements wrapped in chicken little hype. But they have also had a core of truth to them. A core that has crippled our one and only weapon against attack (Intelligence) and given the advantage to the terrorists, who needed help in avoiding detection (since they had been stymied up until now). So now we see a world-wide press to take these Benedict Arnolds to task for exposing people to attack. And the press is going to learn a real hard lesson in life. While they jump to the defense of Al Qaeda against Bush and the Coalition fighting them, no one is going to jump to their defense. Yes, Ramsey Clark may take time from defending Saddam Hussein to help Keller out - but there will be no ground swell to keep the leakers out of court. In fact, most of us are looking forward to the trials.

2. NYT now feeling the HEAT! No, not the summer heat but the real heat from the public! Tehehehe

Don't forget to watch tomorrow's CNN Reliant Report (?). Eric Lichtblau and Hugh Hewitt will be on that show.

3. Palistine's grave error.

4. Corzine shutters NJ, boost for Reps! Yah!!

Gary, Captain's Quarters has a post about that Ronnie Earle / Dallas case. Earle...earle, earlie, early to obvlivion and retirement. Huh?

[paul]

Let's look at the way press deals with the 'concrete' v. 'intagible'.

They pillory Bush for the metic of death and don't address or try to explain the intangible, in regards to Iraq.

Now, when they must address the 'concrete' loss of a program, they mitigate it with 'intangible' gains.

In their own words:
"There is no magic formula, no neat metric for either the public’s interest or the dangers of publishing sensitive information."

This is where their bias is best shown.

They can argue both concrete and the intangible, but those of opposing views are forbidden to discuss the intangible.

[Semanticleo]

clowns are for laughing at

Piles playing up(sic?)again, Cement.

medulla to cortex: anyone home?

[Semanticleo]

best lines go to PeterUK......

LMMFAO

Carol, you are the real comedian here. Please continue.

[lurker]

So, Cleown / clown / semanticleo with the painted face and wearing clowny clothes, we laugh at you because it's acceptable to you. It also means that we know that you lack the credibility. For you to say that the lack of credibility should be directed at the WH this morning, when today's articles and recent Congress actions direct the lack of credibility towards NYT and LAT.

"ane, Of course Larry Johnson is a wimp,he was only a CIA analyst,but the man is getting delusional and needs a smack.
Having said that, Johnson's behavior has gone beyond acceptable."

Wouldn't do any good to contact the FBI. Didn't Tom Christiansen try this route?

Well, he wasn't much of a CIA analyst; having 4 years of experience AND...what 15 years ago? I don't understand why he's considered an expert. An expert would be the one having the most recent experience and years and years of experience (aka 30 years).

Jane, Re: Hamdan plaintiff's argument on INHERENT powers, I don't buy it either. This tells me that they don't think there's a war on.

MAC Ranger has something to say about the joint announcement by Keller and McManus.

Uh ho...Keller and McManus both know they are in trouble.

The culmination of leaks and the vehemenous attacks towards the WH adm is what set off the anger and hatred towards NYT and LAT.

[Barney Frank]

Leo,

"And I am not here to entertain you."

In this, you are uncharacteristicly, indubitably correct.

"Its too bad you cant just ignore me,
(like an adult exasperated with the tone or opinion of another)"

Here, you have unfortunately returned to form and are, as usual, mistaken. Despite what your psychotherapist may be telling you, you are eminently ignorable.

BTW I think you could have more accurately ended that sentence with (like an adult exasperated with an attention craving brat)

[richard mcenroe]

BTW, Tom, perhaos OT but apparently you and Zengerle have done Good Works in taking down Townhouse.

There hasn't been a mention of Hamdan, or SWIFT, or indeed any new issue by the MoveOnBots in Studio City for the last two, three weeks. Clearly they are having trouble reestablishing contact between the cells and getting their new talking points out.

Of course, the guys in monk's robes staggering around screaming "Landru help me!" are starting to creep me out a little bit...

[MikeW]

Cleo, going back all the way to the beginning of these comments, you've missed the obvious point entirely. IT ISN'T THEIR (media) DECISION whether or not to publish anything about ongoing classified programs.

The only matter worth discussing about this issue is that both editors admit the program was classified. Nothing else matters, especially while the GWOT is ongoing and our troops are still deployed. It matters not what these publishers and editors feel about veracity of any federal official. It is IRRELEVANT. The programs (all of those about which they've published) were ongoing classified programs, and they knew that. That alone is enough for the DOJ to prosecute them and their reporters and their sources.

Also their first amendment rights argument is moot and baseless. Neither the NYT, LAT, nor any other newspaper has a first amendment right as an institution. That right belongs to me and you -- see we're exercising it as we type. All of the first amendment rights are the sole proprietorship of each citizen in this country, not any business or other institution.

Using your argument about credibility issues, let's review some major figures who clearly have credibility black holes. If it comes down to belief in credibility, the NYT, et al, should commence slamming Al Gore for his global warming trash, John Kerry for his treasonous acts, Howard Dean simply for his idiocy and for his incredible misrepresentations, John Murtha for his horrendous characterizations of matters for which investigations are not yyet completed, etc. And don't think I've left out both Clintons, because they hold zero credibility. That means these newspapers should go after them day in and day out with no hesitation. There is plenty of fodder for them to wade through.

As a retired soldier, I want my government to run these programs to ensure that our enemies will have just that much less of an opportunity to wound or kill our deployed soldiers. I want them to run these programs to help press toward providing more security for our citizens. As for me, national defesne and the security of our citizenry are the most important functions performed by our government. For practically every other function performed by government, there exists a counterpart private sector capability.

My fervent hope is that we do the following about these leaked programs: Find out who the leaks are and prosecute them vigorously. If the NYT, WaPo, et al, refuse to give up those sources who have committed criminal offenses, we need to prosecute all who have a knowledge of their isentities at least as contributors after the fact. Ultimately, in addition to the leakers, we need to prosecute just as vigorously those (reporters, edtors, publishers) who published (knowingly by their own admission) anything about the classified programs.

Pardon me, all, for the length of this post.

[richard mcenroe]

Sematicleo — No, no, no, to paraphrase Joe Pesci, you are indeed put on this earth to amuse me.

Damned if I can think of any other reason.

[PeterUK]

Barney,
"Despite what your psychotherapist may be telling you, you are eminently ignorable."

Late psychotherapist,poor man died of terminal tedium.

[Syl]

Cleo

This is just a word game to you. Semantic tiddlywinks.

And you wonder why we laugh at you?

[PeterUK]

"Cleo

This is just a word game to you. Semantic tiddlywinks."

Yes, for Semanticleo,this is just another game to get beaten at.

[ghostcat]

Food fight! (Ya'll need more hard news to chew on.)