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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (22662)	7/2/2006 1:28:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541495

To use an extreme example, if the Times knew during WWII that a troop ship would be at a specific location at a specific time, I don't think they should have published the info in time for a German U-boat to intercept the troop ship. If they find out that a specific person has infiltrated Al Qaeda, I don't think they should publish that, either. But, if they find something classified that is classified only for the purpose of preventing embarrassment to an administration official, that's a different thing entirely, and I'm sure you'd agree. The fact that the administration specifically asked the Times to not publish the story, for operational reasons, not political ones, makes it pretty clear where the Times stands on the issue. By which you're saying the NYTimes would publish troop ship movements and the name of persons who have infiltrated Al Qaeda? I recognize that's the party line, the administration's talking points, but don't you feel just a teensy bit embarrassed spouting something so patently ridiculous?

To: Jim S who wrote (22662)	7/2/2006 1:29:06 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541495

The issue here is that this wasn't sensitive operation information, it was an outline of a program already known to thousands of people, identified in the public record and obviously already known by our enemies. The "troop ship" metaphor is exactly wrong, IMHO. From the recent Fox News poll: "Only 43 percent are willing to call what the media did treason, and almost as many think the organizations that published the information were operating for the public good (37 percent)." So we both have partisan views because the public is evenly divided over whether heads should roll in this case. The NYT will litigate the case into the next century if necessary, so I doubt the White House wants the backlash from the left on the front pages every day for the next couple of years. SI has a new thread on this issue with the usual suspects from the right posting, plus the lefties who like to play the bash-bash game. I only saw 16 bookmarks on it so far. I doubt this issue has any deep resonance with most voters. We can agree to disagree from our respective partisan corners. There doesn't appear to be a center on this issue. ;<)

To: Jim S who wrote (22662)	7/2/2006 1:54:22 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541495

To use an extreme example, if the Times knew during WWII that a troop ship would be at a specific location at a specific time, I don't think they should have published the info in time for a German U-boat to intercept the troop ship. If they find out that a specific person has infiltrated Al Qaeda, I don't think they should publish that, either. Keller completely agrees with you and has written so. The example you've offered Jim doesn't fit this particular case.