Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

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

you're using the wrong term. it's not bureaucracy. it's national security. reference the previous post which was addressed to steven. the public interest angle has no bearing on national security.

[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.

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

Please try to point out the specific classified information in the article that you think ought not to be published because of national security concerns. You've been asked many times and have keept wiggling around. Thus my assertion that it is the very newspaper that you seem to object to rather than anything pubished in particular.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

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.

Please try to point out the specific classified information in the article that you think ought not to be published because of national security concerns. You've been asked many times and have keept wiggling around. Thus my assertion that it is the very newspaper that you seem to object to rather than anything pubished in particular.

asked and answered in a previous post, for the reason i'm not going to confirm or deny any part of said article is classified or not as such is against regulations. nice try, play again soon.

[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

you're using the wrong term. it's not bureaucracy. it's national security. reference the previous post which was addressed to steven. the public interest angle has no bearing on national security.

It is bureaucracy - you're suggesting that it doesn't matter what is in the "sealed envelope" (Rumsfeld's butt wipings for all you know - to use another silly example), the virtue that it is precludes any analysis or comment, and that people should go to prison for even hinting that Donald Rumsfeld wiped his ####### and put it in an envelope.

This article, as I've said doesn't contain any specific, identifiable details. Its highly unlikely that any judge would rule on this, because under the law journalists have a certain dispensation when it comes to their opinion (commentary) and printing the opinions of others (quotation) that precludes them from prosecution, in most cases. Hence Tom Cruise can't sue a newspaper in the US that accuses him of being gay (which happened), he has to go to the UK and sue a paper that picks up on the story (which he did).

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

It is bureaucracy - you're suggesting that it doesn't matter what is in the "sealed envelope"

that's correct, it does not matter as it's protected by regulation from unauthorized disclosure. releasing said contents to an unauthorized individual or discussing said contents is against the law.

---------inane reference to rumsfeld deleted as it has no bearing on said topic----------

This article, as I've said doesn't contain any specific, identifiable details.

according to you........i'm sure you have a strong background in national security that you can base that statement on.

Its highly unlikely that any judge would rule on this, because under the law journalists have a certain dispensation when it comes to their opinion (commentary) and printing the opinions of others (quotation) that precludes them from prosecution, in most cases. Hence Tom Cruise can't sue a newspaper in the US that accuses him of being gay (which happened), he has to go to the UK and sue a paper that picks up on the story (which he did).

it's unlikely in that most judges don't give a hoot about national security.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is bureaucracy - you're suggesting that it doesn't matter what is in the "sealed envelope"

that's correct, it does not matter as it's protected by regulation from unauthorized disclosure. releasing said contents to an unauthorized individual or discussing said contents is against the law.

---------inane reference to rumsfeld deleted as it has no bearing on said topic----------

This article, as I've said doesn't contain any specific, identifiable details.

according to you........i'm sure you have a strong background in national security that you can base that statement on.

Its highly unlikely that any judge would rule on this, because under the law journalists have a certain dispensation when it comes to their opinion (commentary) and printing the opinions of others (quotation) that precludes them from prosecution, in most cases. Hence Tom Cruise can't sue a newspaper in the US that accuses him of being gay (which happened), he has to go to the UK and sue a paper that picks up on the story (which he did).

it's unlikely in that most judges don't give a hoot about national security.

Well as I said its not new. And neither is the media publishing information that it considers to be in the public interest.

The difference seems to be that I actually read article, but I suppose you'll have a smart comeback for that too.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

The difference seems to be that I actually read article, but I suppose you'll have a smart comeback for that too.

you assume wrong on both counts.

[kirk and Jenny 0]

I wonder? If it had been 1/2 a million caucasions mass murdered by Mr. Dictator, rather than Kurds, if we would look at this situation differently.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder? If it had been 1/2 a million caucasions mass murdered by Mr. Dictator, rather than Kurds, if we would look at this situation differently.

What does that have to do with the report?

[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.

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

Please try to point out the specific classified information in the article that you think ought not to be published because of national security concerns. You've been asked many times and have keept wiggling around. Thus my assertion that it is the very newspaper that you seem to object to rather than anything pubished in particular.

asked and answered in a previous post, for the reason i'm not going to confirm or deny any part of said article is classified or not as such is against regulations. nice try, play again soon.

Asked and answered? Nonsense. Asked and avoided. Not going to confirm or deny... Trying to sound important, are we? You sound more and more like Rove. He doesn't impress me either.

I wonder? If it had been 1/2 a million caucasions mass murdered by Mr. Dictator, rather than Kurds, if we would look at this situation differently.

Well, I don't think skin color had anything to do with it. Or maybe it did and the Kurds are not dark enough to be completely unimportant as the Sudanese certainly seem to be. Edited September 25, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

Asked and answered? Nonsense. Asked and avoided. Not going to confirm or deny... Trying to sound important, are we? You sound more and more like Rove. He doesn't impress me either.

unfortunately, that answer from you indicates to me that you have no clue what you are talking about. do some research on my above answer and you'll find i'm right. additionally, try to keep your political rantings out of your replies to me as i find them most tiresome and highly unnecessary.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The simple fact is - this sort of thing is commonplace, has been for decades. I guess people might wonder - why are you so outraged now about this particular article.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

The simple fact is - this sort of thing is commonplace, has been for decades. I guess people might wonder - why are you so outraged now about this particular article.

asked and answered previously.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The simple fact is - this sort of thing is commonplace, has been for decades. I guess people might wonder - why are you so outraged now about this particular article.

asked and answered previously.

Asked and avoided again.

The Plame affair led to criminal charges - hence the reporter was ordered by the court to disclose his source.

Is that going to happen here I wonder. If not I wonder why...

Edited September 25, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

The simple fact is - this sort of thing is commonplace, has been for decades. I guess people might wonder - why are you so outraged now about this particular article.

asked and answered previously.

Asked and avoided again.

The Plame affair led to criminal charges - hence the reporter was ordered by the court to disclose his source.

Is that going to happen here I wonder. If not I wonder why...

since you insist on being dense, i'll repost it for you

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.

Edited September 25, 2006 by charlesandnessa