Perhaps I’m missing something here. Isn’t it within the purview of presidential power to classify and de-classify? Didn’t Cheney reveal information at the request of the president?
Given the information presented in your cite, where is the indictable offence?
Please explain exactly how. It is my understanding that the “leaked” information supporting Iraqi WMDs and the Niger allegations were proven to be untrue anyway.
That would make sense as far as the WSJ is concerned. If they knew the story was going to break, why not hope for at least one semi-favorable write-up? (This is nothing new in politics.)
From what I understand of it, this wasn’t exactly publishing the Enigma Code. This isn’t going to be the fall of the Republic. I think what bugs me most about this situation is the overall immunity of anyone with any info just talking to a person that will publish it on the front page. Sometimes we need to expose wrongs. Sometimes we just need to accept that there are secrets.
This case doesn’t really fall under either of those two. It’s an overall view of the endless anonymous cites that by nature can never be fully proven that are published as fact. I see it as an endemic problem caused primarily by a bureaucracy so bloated there is no way to be able to trust anyone. Therefore there are no secrets that are secure. To the US as well as the rest of the world.
Probably a seperate issue than the OP, just wanted to try to clarify my earlier points. As far as this issue? I’m more surprised when the sun rises in the east than when something is leaked. Just something that happens and won’t change.
Ahh, but if you read the quote In post #331 again, you’ll see that while Bush expressed a desire to have the information declassified and out there, he expected it to go through the normal declassification process, during which such things as implications for national security are analyzed by experts, not covertly leaked according to the VP’s whimsy. The president himself doesn’t usually declassify on a whim, why would it ever be acceptable for Cheney to do so without explicit authorization from the president?
The Valerie Plame’s outing disrupted our intelligence efforts on Iran too.
You know, this issue is compicated as it is. Bringing in the phone tapping and the Wilson/Plame does not help. But maybe that’s the intent.
Well the whole NYTimes committed treason against the US by revealing classified information story has turned out to be a bit of a bust. What with there being no classified information revealed by the Times, the whole exercise in outrage is pretty clearly exposed as nothing but a politically motivated vote getting stunt by the republicans. That being the case, if anyone really wants to discuss the importance of keeping classified information classified, the topic has to shift to a situation where state secrets were actually leaked.
It seems that the issue of SWIFT being part of the financial tracking efforts is the part that was classified.
That’s like classifying the sink when you tell the world you’re going into the kitchen for a glass of water. We’ve known for over a decade that the government uses SWIFT to track financial baddies (see link I supplied 30 or so posts upstream). Are we suddenly supposed to not know about it or talk about it because some dimwit flathead thought it’d make a neat secret? That’s assinine.
Cite? About “classified”
I didn’t mean is was formally classified. Substitute secret. It is the part that, in spite of all the cites attempting to prove it otherwise, was never divulged to be part of the finacial tracking program put in place in response to 9/11.
Something called SWIFT existed: given.
9/11 caused the governement to begin a financial trackiing program: as per the NY Times article.
The evidence that the President or someone else in the administration shared the fact that SWIFT was being used in htese efforts: non-existent.
Ahh, it’s become politically incorrect to mention it. :smack:
But the way it was being used was different, pinpointing individuals. Hence, the outrage by the NY Times.
If, as you say, there was nothing new here, just old news because it was 1) revealed earlier on and 2) we were already using SWIFT in the way that so outraged the NY Times, why didn’t they write about it earlier?
Perhaps the reporters were busy writing about other stuff, or just hadn’t developed an interest in the program. Why do we get stories about Noah’s ark every few years? Why were shark attacks stories so big a few years ago, and kidnapped white chicks? Why are leggings, layered under skirts, going to be the hottest fashion this fall?
The world is chaotic, stuff happens, stories get written. There isn’t always some underlying big important reason.
I enjoyed reading the NYT article. I learned some things about funds tracking that I didn’t previously know. Apparently other people already knew those things. They weren’t secret, but I, along with many other people who don’t normally engage in international commerce, didn’t know them. Now I do. It’s interesting to learn things. That’s a major reason people buy newspapers or surf the web; the desire to learn things. A publishing business, such as the NY Times, that recognizes that fact can increase their readership by publishing articles about things that people don’t already know. That’s not a conspiracy to treason, it’s just good business sense.
I didn’t see any outrage. It was just a story until the Feds decided to single them out for censorship through intimidation. The only outrage I have seen in the NYT has been their reaction to the odd statements made by members of the administration and some of the congresscritters who are playing “distract the voters.”
I didn’t see any outrage. It was just a story until the Feds decided to single them out for censorship through intimidation. The only outrage I have seen in the NYT has been their reaction to the odd statements made by members of the administration and some of the congresscritters who are playing “distract the voters.”
Or maybe they revealed a secret program. From the NY Times article I was able to find again: (all emphasis mine)
Secret. In the Times own words.
“A significant departure”. Somehting different compared to what was done previously.
One of several secret equals secret.
There’s that word again. And not coming from the administration.
“Extraordinary access.” As in access out of the ordinary, a new, higher level of access.
Instigated by 9/11. Not an old mathod of tracking.
The Times keeps using that word for some reason.
Perfectly logical procedure for a secret program. One that has borne fruit and is expected to bear more.
Again, instigated by 9/11. Any mention of financial tracking prior to 9/11 is a different program. The fact that SWIFT had a website (even if it was up prior to 9/11 is immaterial.
They don’t mention the date of the mention, but from the context it appears to have been right after 9/11.
Fincial trackin pre 9/11 does not equal financial tracking post 9/11.
Again, the program was instigated by 9/11. It did not appear prior.
I hopr that takes care of the part of the debate having to do with whether or not this was a new and secret program.
By outrage I meant their reaction to learning of this program that caused them to compromise—even to a small degree —the administration’s effectiveness in fighting terrorism. I certainbly hope they were outraged, and didn’t out the program due to some minor quibble with it.
Was the WSJ outraged by it?
Or is it simply a story? Y’know, news?
I don’t know. I don’t know if the LA Times was either. But, for these two papers, it might very well have just benn, y’know news. Once they knew the NY Times was going with it, it was nes. Although, you could argeu that would have had to wait for it to appear in the paper before it became both news and fair game.
But if you don’t like the word “outraged”, pick another. How about “troubled”? That word had little if any bearing on the point of my post.