Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

...but nothing classified was actually published....

how would you know unless you've read the actual report?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

...but nothing classified was actually published....

how would you know unless you've read the actual report?

But that isn't reflected in the news story. Nothing classified has been published.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

you missed the boat....swim back to it and try again. you're trying to make this into a political issue and it's not. odds are, those who classified said document don't even work in the white house.

Charles, let me ask you then about when a government official comments on classified information. Turn back the clock to Clinton being in office. He tells the public that he has classified information that Canada has a nuclear missile pointing right at the White House and he tells the public we need to move swiftly to counter the possible attack. Then some unidentified government sources who have also seen the classified information go to the NYT and claim that report is inconclusive. Are you saying that Clinton has the right to comment to the public but if the NYT publishes a counter claim by an unnamed source it it treason?

clinton, along with every other president, has the authority to declassify said report ergo, no crime committed eh? (yeah i know, feel fre to have a heart attack, me defending clinton's actions there)

the question is, those who leaked this report to the times - do they have authority to declassify such? and did they do such for political purposes? and lastly, what about the responsibility of the times? keeping the public informed does have a limit when it gets into classified

Don't you see the potential for abuse? This is at the heart of the circumstances leading up the invasion of Iraq. The President was telling the public that he had classified information that confirmed a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. The CIA said that report was innaccurate - they told Bush it was innaccurate (false report) before he went telling the American public about the possible link. Without giving details of that report, I don't see how an unnamed government telling the NYT's that the CIA declared that very report as inaccurate as treasonous. To me, it is their duty to protect the truth.

If you can come up with a better way to ensure checks and balances within our government, I'd like to hear it.

And perhaps the bigger question - should we allow the President or Congress to go to war based on classified information that is hidden from public scrutiny?

Edited September 24, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

fact is, et, whether you like it or not, some things are classified due to the impact it will have on national security if such was released. this is primarily due to the collection methods used (imagry, intercepts, etc) or perhaps even man on the ground (called humint).

What particular part of what has been released to the public, in your opinion, compromises national security? That the President and his team has, yet again, been caught lying to the public?

you missed the boat....swim back to it and try again. you're trying to make this into a political issue and it's not. odds are, those who classified said document don't even work in the white house.

You missed answering the question.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

...but nothing classified was actually published....

how would you know unless you've read the actual report?

But that isn't reflected in the news story. Nothing classified has been published.

same answer. how would you know?

given the answers by steven and et, who keep trying to turn this into an iraq war fiasco again, i give up trying to educate any of you about national security and document handling. enjoy discussing it amongst yourselves.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

...but nothing classified was actually published....

how would you know unless you've read the actual report?

But that isn't reflected in the news story. Nothing classified has been published.

same answer. how would you know?

given the answers by steven and et, who keep trying to turn this into an iraq war fiasco again, i give up trying to educate any of you about national security and document handling. enjoy discussing it amongst yourselves.

I wouldn't know - because the story as published contains few if any recognisable details. All we are given is a broad abstract that names no names.

As I said I don't see the issue here - the published story does not reveal anyone's identity, it doesn't reveal military planning or troop strength and distribution.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

...but nothing classified was actually published....

how would you know unless you've read the actual report?

But that isn't reflected in the news story. Nothing classified has been published.

same answer. how would you know?

given the answers by steven and et, who keep trying to turn this into an iraq war fiasco again, i give up trying to educate any of you about national security and document handling. enjoy discussing it amongst yourselves.

I wouldn't know - because the story as published contains few if any recognisable details. All we are given is a broad abstract that names no names.

As I said I don't see the issue here - the published story does not reveal anyone's identity, it doesn't reveal military planning or troop strength and distribution.

do you suppose that is the limit of what could be classified?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

...but nothing classified was actually published....

how would you know unless you've read the actual report?

But that isn't reflected in the news story. Nothing classified has been published.

same answer. how would you know?

given the answers by steven and et, who keep trying to turn this into an iraq war fiasco again, i give up trying to educate any of you about national security and document handling. enjoy discussing it amongst yourselves.

I wouldn't know - because the story as published contains few if any recognisable details. All we are given is a broad abstract that names no names.

As I said I don't see the issue here - the published story does not reveal anyone's identity, it doesn't reveal military planning or troop strength and distribution.

do you suppose that is the limit of what could be classified?

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to. If we're looking for differences between this and the Plame affair look no further....

In this particular case, I think you'll have a hard time trying to explain how the designation of "classified material" outweighs the public interest angle.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Alex+R 0]

Charles, would you just tell us what information in that article, in your opinion, compromises national security?

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to. If we're looking for differences between this and the Plame affair look no further....

In this particular case, I think you'll have a hard time trying to explain how the designation of "classified material" outweighs the public interest angle.

there is no difference between this and the plame affair. classified information leaked.

i fail to see how the public interest angle outweighs the security classification.

Charles, would you just tell us what information in that article, in your opinion, compromises national security?

no

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to. If we're looking for differences between this and the Plame affair look no further....

In this particular case, I think you'll have a hard time trying to explain how the designation of "classified material" outweighs the public interest angle.

there is no difference between this and the plame affair. classified information leaked.

i fail to see how the public interest angle outweighs the security classification.

So your argument is essentially a bureaucratic one.

In the Plame affair one person's name was leaked to the media with potentially life-threatening implications for other CIA operatives that she knew and worked with. That is a direct, material breach of national security.

This story presents no specific, identifiable details as much as an "informed opinion" presented by people who were in a position to have read a classified report.

Bush says the war on terror is going swimmingly. This report says the opposite. Clearly something has gone awry here, no? Are you suggesting that a technicality should deny accountability. As I said, you'll have a hard time convincing people of that.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to.

Charles simply objects to the fact that the NYT publishes articles.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to.

Charles simply objects to the fact that the NYT publishes articles.

If I read him right, he's saying that if its got a red "top secret" stamp on it, its a breach of national security to talk about, or even print second hand information about the existence of such a document. Even if that information were a scrap of toiler paper with the words "Donald Rumsfeld is a pansy" scrawled on it

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to.

Charles simply objects to the fact that the NYT publishes articles.

incorrect. i object to them publishing articles based on classified information. please do try in the future to be accurate.

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to.

Charles simply objects to the fact that the NYT publishes articles.

If I read him right, he's saying that if its got a red "top secret" stamp on it, its a breach of national security to talk about, or even print second hand information about the existence of such a document. Even if that information were a scrap of toiler paper with the words "Donald Rumsfeld is a pansy" scrawled on it

bolded part is actually correct. i'm not going to waste my time addressing your political flaming.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to.

Charles simply objects to the fact that the NYT publishes articles.

incorrect. i object to them publishing articles based on classified information. please do try in the future to be accurate.

No - but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is about the article that you object to.

Charles simply objects to the fact that the NYT publishes articles.

If I read him right, he's saying that if its got a red "top secret" stamp on it, its a breach of national security to talk about, or even print second hand information about the existence of such a document. Even if that information were a scrap of toiler paper with the words "Donald Rumsfeld is a pansy" scrawled on it

bolded part is actually correct. i'm not going to waste my time addressing your political flaming.

I didn't flame you. It was a silly example - I just don't understand how someone can defend bureaucracy when it conflicts with the public interest angle. No need to be touchy

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose