Are liberals outraged over the NY Times incident?

Question

Of course not. The NY Times leaked information about a classified CIA-Treasury operation to track down financial leads of known terrorists through foreign banks. The leak served no real purpose, and didn't even challenge the legality of the operation. They were even asked by the White House not to go through with it.

Look at all the media coverage we saw when the "Karl Rove / Valerie Plame" issue came to fruition. There was all this talk about putting our undercover agents at risk. Now you see the mainstream media trying to sweep this one under the rug. What about the morale of our intelligence operatives or the success of their program? Liberals should be just as outraged.

Kind of ironic most aren't, don't you think?

Let's be clear here. The government did not "command" or try to "force" the NY Times from publishing the information. That shouldn't be part of this conversation, nor should the analogy to China which is way off base (but a typical liberal diversion).

At the same time, a media outlet or its editor should be held accountable for releasing information that it knows is a classified war operation. Nothing in this release tells Americans about any injustices or illegal operation against its citizens. It does nothing to aid the public interest.

And for those of you upset over the comparison...

Realize that any act that damages the nation's ability to win a war against a foreign enemy of the state is irresponsible (and in some cases, treasonous) You would be a fool to think that James Madison and other founders of the Constitution would say freedom of speech is meant to protect outrageous acts like this.

I'm glad when the media reports scandals like Watergate, Jack Abramoff, and the Valerie Plame incident. Don't cloud the discussion with conservate hate speech. Anyone that is true to themselves realize that there is corruption on both sides of the aisle. Liberals just refuse to stay balanced in their opinion. When an entity that supports their party is attacked, liberals will find any kind of rhetoric they can get their hands on for protection.

NY Times was flat out wrong in this situation. They had the right to publish, but certainly not the moral strength to refrain.

Hell, the NY Times even said shortly after 9/11 they wanted to see an extensive crackdown on the Al Qaeda's financial network. If liberals aren't contradicting themselves. the NY Times sure is...

Answer 1

I'm disgusted! Freedom of the press is one thing, but publication of classified material that breaches national security is a crime. The government official who leaked it is guilty of a much more serious crime. If people die when stories like this is published, should no one be held responsible? There are some limits on the freedom of speech. You aren't allowed to incite violence or criminal activity, and you are always legally responsible for the ramifications of your speech.

Bin Laden would be dead or captured right now, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have even happened, if a newspaper hadn't published a story about us tracking him by & listening in to conversations on satellite phones. He immediately went off the air & a few months later we were hit.

The NSA wire tapping scandal? We've been using the same technique against foreign drug cartels for 15 years, it's not news. Now that it's been applied to terrorism & the New York Times published the story the source has about dried up.

Now, we have a story from the New York Times in which the US is tracking money being sent by terrorists to individuals in North America, and money sent by people in America to known terrorists. The US follows this information by going in front of a court, presenting its probable cause, and obtaining a subpoena. This is again not news. It is how criminal investigations have always been done under the constitution. As a result of this, money will be transferred by currier, which may expose more enemy flunky agents, but will cut off our chance to track the money all the way to either end of the chain. Because of this, people will die & the war will go on longer.

The President should ask Congress to appoint a Special prosecutor in the matter of the leaked classified material being published by media & what aide this gives to the enemy. If it can be shown that the war may go on one day longer or that one person is killed as a result of any leak, the government officer responsible should be charged with treason & executed. Likewise any media person knowingly publishing such classified material resulting in the death of a US citizen should be charged with aiding & abetting the enemy & imprisoned for 15+ years. The is freedom of speech & of the press, and like all other rights there are consequences when individuals abuse those rights to the harm of their fellow citizens. That's the constitution & the law; it should be enforced to its fullest extent during time of war with people dying to protect our freedoms & relying on these programs to keep us safe. There are civil liberty concerns, but these should be addressed internally by Congress, and not tried in the public eye until this war is over.

Answer 2

The troubling part of both question and answers is that you set up a strawman for them to attack, meaning your question implies that news papers are assisting terrorist organizations. hence treason..... Whereas Rove, most likely Libby, and Cheney all participated in taking revenge on an opposing view point. and to send a clear signal to the intellegence agencies of how far they would go......

Comparing the two is dishonenst.

and is misleading and not the real issue at heart. The real issue is that the government tracks everyone.

This is the issue at heart the right of people to privacy, versus the right of government to collect infromation without probal cause for an infinite amount of time.

Why infinite because you can not get a surrender or peace treaty against the war on terror, because terror is a tatic not a nation state.

The questinon again remains if the media does not report on the government and its potential deminising of the 4th amendment rights along with the Superme Courts conclusion that privacy is implicit.
At what point does the press remain quite, the press has an obligation to provide people with facts, so they can choose thier leaders or hold them accountable, the press is the fourth estate....without them how can we protect our freedoms...


At what point does america stop being the democracy and begin to look like the countries invade to give freedom too.

The question is not freedom of the press but the obligation of the New papers to tell, warn, alert, save, rally, inform the people that there is a serious danger looming not from terrorist but from our own government.

Again the real question is shouldn't newspaper do thier job and serve the people when government attempts to overreach it power especially in a perpetual war with no end.

The president swore an oath to uphold the constitution...he has failed.


**********************************************************

Answer 3

I think that the difference between this Plame chick and the NY times publishing a story that included sensitive information is like comparing apples and Mack trucks. Plame wasn't exactly a secret agent, and her husband outed her. Her neighbors knew what she did.

The NY times-or any other news media outlet-that is willing to put their own well being ahead of the country's well being, should be considered treasonous. Ten years from now, reporting this would be appropriate. Right now, when lives are at stake, when national security is at stake, it was downright negligent to publish this. How much longer will it take, now, to track this money down? Oh, but who cares...the NY Times sold a few more newspapers.

Answer 4

I don't think they can be outraged by it. It goes against their principles. The apparently little known facts are that this power has been in the Executive Branch set of emergency powers since 1917. Woodrow Wilson then FDR used similar programs under authority of the exective branch granted by congress during times of national emergency. What President Bush has done is no different than what Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton have done in the last 20 years, and during the last 90 or so by other presidents, including the beloved FDR and Kennedy.

Democrats, and unfortunately many other people in America, do not even realize what kind of government we actually have. For those of you who don't know, it's a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. The founding fathers never intended this country to be a democracy, they knew how democracies collapse on themselves, and they didn't want to see that happen. So, get it straight. REPUBLIC NOT DEMOCRACY. And don't get your panties in a wad because the government can look at bank records. They've been doing it since 1917 and nobody's been taken off to a gulag that I know or that you know or that anybody other than some conspiracy theory kook knows.

Answer 5

First off people leak things to newpapers. Newspapers report the news...so you can bet your Republican butt that the leak came from your own....Now as a citizen od the United States where W. has found new ways to wipe his butt on the constitution and call it legal..it is imperative that someone tells the people the truth reporting these things... that you assume is in the national security... but others believe to be an invasion of there privacy is the duty of a free press....I dont give a crap what you and the government decide what is best for me I intend for America to remain free not only from terrorist and foreign governments but also from the opression of this administration..Who has infringed more on the freedoms of the people of the United States terrorist or George W.? I for one am not in the least upset that the press is still free....I still believe that American people should retain there civil liberties and I cant for the life of me understand why you conservatives are against civil liberties that our forefathers died for....Why should we surrender our civil liberties to the government? why is that you scream to the world how we are spreading freedom around the world and you seek to limit it here at home?

Answer 6

The New York Times is a newspaper published in New York City by Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. ... access to readers all over the world on the Web ... Many liberals view the New York Times as a neoliberal ... young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously

Answer 7

Anytime the government steps in and tells a news media what it can or cannot publish sets a bad example, while I do not agree with the New York Times printing this story, I do defend their right to do so. So yes, I am a liberal and I am not outraged by them doing this.

Answer 8

lets see, ny times reported something we already knew. karl rove on the other hand leaked the identity of a cia agent because her and her husband were against the war and had stated there were no weapons of mass destruction before going to iraq. i think you need to ask a question about karl rove before attacking a newspaper.

Answer 9

Lies, liberal lies. A congressman was on television stating that because the subpoena's were not sent to a court, there was something wrong with them. Congress has passed numerous laws giving subpoena powers to agencies outside of courts. Congress can issue subpoena's. These don't go to court. The FCC for example can subpoena and hold hearing and impose fines without any court being involved. etc. etc. I don't mind mistakes but obviously a congressman who has used non court subpoena's would know that they are legal and proper.

Answer 10

It is a sad state of affairs that the nation that gave birth to Human rights and liberties now is crucify them in the name of a dubious threat.

Wake up Americans. In twenty years you will be like China or Burma.