LV, first, may I suggest you link to the NY Times and not to Malkin's website so your readers can judge the article on its merits?
Second, who leaked this to the media? Why do you give them a free pass?
Third, what exactly did the Times reveal? That at a classified meeting there was a plan put forth to reduce troops over the next 18 months or so. If it was SO secret and SO classified, how come the Secretary of Defense is quoted?
"Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday that no final decisions would come on troop withdrawals until General Casey consulted with the new Iraqi government. 'We expect that General Casey will come back and make a recommendation after he's had those discussions, which he has not yet had' he said."
Well, how treasonous can it be to refer to a classified meeting when the Secretary of Defense is talking about it publicly on THURSDAY - the NY Times article was published today (Sunday).
Nah, LV, the real money line is this:
"Now, after criticizing Democratic lawmakers for trying to legislate a timeline for withdrawing troops, skeptics say, the Bush administration seems to have its own private schedule, albeit one that can be adjusted as events unfold."
This is neither treason nor sedition. This is just politics. A well-planted leak about a "classified briefing" meant to embarrass the administration.
Hey Roberto, I tried linking to the times but when I did the post it wasn't taking well. It is not precisely this story....hence the word "again". This is the third time the Times participates in "leaking" information that can compromise the nation.
I wholeheartedly agree that whomever is leaking should not be given a free pass. But honestly, I would expect more from the media in the nation - they need to have better judgment. If you read the story on the LA Times regarding SWIFT - they go on to say how they were asked not to print the story but they did anyway.
The leakers are at fault, yes. But the media is at greater fault for not choosing the high road. I will try again to link to the Times, on both articles this time.
I don't see how you get "treason " or "sedition" from this. Think about what really happened here:
1. It was disclosed that, during a classified briefing, the military discussed a potential troop reduction plan;
2. The Secretary of Defense acknowledged that any plan will need to have the approval of the iraqi government;
3. The plan may or may not look like what was discussed and it is subject to change based on future events.
In a nutshell, the military is talking about a plan to reduce forces in Iraq that will take place sometime in the future and may not look like what was discussed.
How is that threatening our soldiers or our nation?
Well for starters, the word classified might start meaning something. "General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity."
Secondly, we don't know what or what not they would consult with Iraq, and whether they would or would not disclose the amount of troop reduction. I don't think telling our enemies exactly how many and when are pulling out is a bright idea.
And if you add to this leak the leak of the SWIFT program, things start to add up.
Like I said before, the sole motivation here of the media is for them to look good and maybe up sagging sales. No one is thinking about security.
It's great to argue with someone that can argue normally.
Thanks for your continued visits!
LV, technically the SWIFT piece wasn't a leak. Someone with the Treasury department provided the information and later on other members realized that it shouldn't have been disclosed and asked the LA Times not to disclose it. That's more of an "oops" than a leak.
That the briefing was classified doesn't really tell me much in the larger scheme of things. It tells me that there was "a plan" to redeploy troops out of Iraq. That "the plan" is contingent on iraqi security making enough progress to actually take over security. That "the plan" is not subject to any fixed timetable. And that "the plan" is subject to discussion with and approval of the iraqi government.
That's it. As as you might have noted from the morning news today, nobody, not the dems or rep senators or congressmembers, were calling the NY Times reporters "traitors." It's really a big nothing.
And we can agree to disagree.
BTW, thanks for the kind words. It's usually lost to way too many people, but just because you don't know their names or what they look like or where they live doesn't mean there aren't real people at the other end. As such, I always apply the golden rule: treat others as you'd like to be treated and don't say anything online that you wouldn't say to their faces offline.
I find this whole situation of classified material being leaked to be very problematic. I wish the administration would be extremely aggressive in finding who the leakers are. After all, its against the law.
But the worst part of all this is that the Times is publishing information that will be very helpful to our enemies. Even after the government asked them not to publish information that would be detrimental to our safety or the safety of our troops, they did it anyway. If that's not sedition, then folks, at what point do we consider it sedition? How is this information serving the public good?
Israel, you need to keep your "Times" straight. The LA Times published the SWIFT article. The NY Times published troops withdrawal article.
And regarding the SWIFT article, what neither you nor LV mentions is that the federal agencies are circumventing their own constitutional limits by allowing SWIFT to do their work for them. That is the greater issue. If the Treasury department had tried to develop a database to track those types of transactions, they would have been prevented from doing it as a violation of the Fourth Amendment's right to unreasonable searches and seizures.
Remember that quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."?
My thoughts exactly.
Roberto, the NY Times published both stories, and the LA Times only published SWIFT. As for the Franklin quote, Essential Liberty is a very broad term that can vary in definition person to person. I understand your point, but I disagree. I think given the situation we are in, and that the terrorists could already be inside - some snooping will do more good than harm. "El que nada debe nada teme".
Mark my words, if something (God forbid) happens that could've been prevented by government snooping - the same people now dennouncing the snooping will be crucifying the government for not having snooped.
However, back to the post, I don't believe the newspapers/media should publish news that can compromise security efforts....be it what they be. Remember Geraldo Rivera?
I think we here again my friend, agree to disagree.
BTW, Israel & LV, the story about troops drawdown has been kicking around for at least a year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/
0...agewanted=print
Roberto,
First thanks for the link to the previous story.
But in that story - coincidentally also from the NYT 
- "three senior military officers and Defense Department officials said this week", were in this weeks story it was "an anonymous source". The difference, first story was legit, second story was leaked.
Like I said before, I love open respectful debate.
Yes, we must agree to disagree LV. However, I must note that the LA Times story was published on June 23 while the NY Times story was published on June 24. It appears that the NY Times wasn't going to publish the story but decided to go ahead after the LA Times did.
Actually, the NYT published it on June 22nd - Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror
Mea culpa. I got the dates wrong. Peace.
LOL Roberto...we are only human, so we will err.
Hey Roberto...
I find it interesting that the article you linked also happen to use anomonous sources to classified briefings. For me, that is the crux of the problem with these articles being produced by the likes of the NY Times. They are not official statements that have been vetted. This is information that should not be in the public domain.
Now as far as giving up freedoms, I don't see anywhere in the consitution that gives us "unlimited" freedoms. There has to be some reasoning in this whole process. Right now, we have the government doing checks on "international" transactions. How can that be infringing on our rights? Its within reason to expect government to do some type of checking. More importantly, they have lawyers checked into the legality and various members of the congress that are aware of the program. As long as both political parties are involve, I see no problem with the Swift program.
When it comes to the NEW YORK SLIMES its a paper your parrot wouldnt want in his cage
Commenting by HaloScan
