Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (172041)	7/2/2006 12:26:38 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793809

This is the emerging line of defense: The financial surveillance program was not much of a secret anyway, so national security was not compromised by the decision to reveal it. If true, that raises the question: if the program was not much of a secret, why was it considered worthy of 2000+ words on the front page? The greatest achievement of our founding fathers was to ensure freedom of the press and to protect individual liberties. The founding fathers did not think they needed to write a white paper on how to fight would be enemies. There was a good reason for them to put the emphasis on where they thought there was most need. They wanted to make sure that dictators do not come along and use any flimsy excuse to take that away from us. Enemies come and go. The enemies before us now are no more competent and dangerous than any enemies that we have ever faced or are likely to face. We have to fight the enemy without subverting our own laws or ethics. That is where we have to be most vigilant. our enemies will be defeated. There is no doubt about that. It matters how we do it.

To: LindyBill who wrote (172041)	7/2/2006 1:08:45 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793809

If true, that raises the question: if the program was not much of a secret, why was it considered worthy of 2000+ words on the front page? Reporters who report on the media are concluding that the NYTimes overplayed the story, and the right-wing overreacted. Comparing publishing general details about a surveillance program that's been known for more than four years to printing troop ship movements is one more example of overreaction. Oh, those whacky right-wingers, hot under the collar again! Too much hyperventilation, too much heat, not enough light. Somebody's got egg on their chins and right now it doesn't look like the NYTimes.

To: LindyBill who wrote (172041)	7/2/2006 1:36:08 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793809

Reading that, I wondered if the NYT and other media knew about D-Day in advance, what if anything they would have written. Searched some info about D-Day, and among other things, found that Patterico had similar questions... patterico.com 6/23/2006 If Today’s Journalists Had Been Around in World War II — Patterico @ 12:10 am It is May 30, 1944, and Bill Keller and Dean Baquet have just issued a joint statement: We have listened closely to President Roosevelt’s arguments for withholding publication of the full details of the Allies’ plans for next week’s invasion of Europe in Northern France. We weighed these arguments carefully, and gave them the most serious and respectful consideration. However, we have determined that it was in the public interest to publish these plans. We believe that the government’s use of deception in attempting to mislead our enemy concerning the exact location of our invasion raises serious questions about governmental honesty — questions that merit a public airing and debate. Additionally, the plans we have published anticipate severe casualties on the part of Allied forces. Publishing the details of such a plan is part of the continuing national debate over the aggressive measures employed by the government in attempting to win the so-called “war on Nazism and fascism.” I have no trouble imagining this. No trouble at all. Thanks to Sean M. for the inspiration. UPDATE: I see that Meg Q. at Goldstein’s did essentially the same riff. Well, I guess it’s just that obvious, isn’t it? Are you proud, Dean and Bill, that many people are having this exact reaction? Some blog comments from Patterico's note above.... 6. The distrubing thing to me is not only what is reported but what is believed. These journalists report in such a manner because they truely believe that WE ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE. Earlier this week I read a piece @ talkingpoints memo about polling figures in WWII. The piece was regarding Tony Snow’s assertion that if polling had been conducted during the war then nothing would have been accomplished due to fear of poll numbers. There was a chart attached to the piece that showed polling was conducted during the war and that Roosevelt had broad popular support. But there was some very interesting data in those numbers that astonished me….and was lost on the liberal talkingpointer. Consistently throughout the polling figures that lasted from November ‘41 to spring of ‘45 an average of approximately 15% of american citizens were “willing to make peace with Hitler”. Here’s the link www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wwii-polls/ The bottom line is no matter what the evidence or the potential for good there are people who just don’t want war. How can you possibly debate with people who refuse to see facts. We’re ALWAYS going to have people against war. FACTS ARE LOST ON THESE PEOPLE. The problem is some of these people are journalists and FACTS SHOULD BE EVERYTHING. I would love to see a follow-up poll conducted on those 15% who wanted to make peace with Hitler…now that the FACTS are out. History doesn’t judge them well and certainly is not on their side. Comment by tripp — 6/23/2006 @ 7:41 am >>>>>>>>> 9. […] I think most people would agree that the press should be able to publish information that has no real security value, but has been classified only to prevent embarrassment to a presidential administration — such as my example above. But I also think most people think that an administration ought to be able to punish people who publish classified information that has high security value, when there is absolutely no positive societal value to the dissemination of the information — such as my example from a previous post of publishing D-Day plans in advance of the attack. […]