The AP Versus The Washington Post

[Nbadan]

Maybe the Washington Post isn't as 'liberal' as sterotyped by some wing-nuts....

Source: Editor&Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003561554)

'Post' Finds Nothing 'Nefarious' in Attorney Firings -- AP Suggests Otherwise
By E&P Staff
Published: March 22, 2007


NEW YORK - The Washington Post in an editorial today declared that it saw nothing unusual or "nefarious in the dismissal process" in the recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys. It called it "the supposed scandal." At the same time, however, The Associated Press is out with a story that suggests that something fishy -- or political, as the Democrats charge -- does seem to surround the move.

The Post warned, "The stubbornness and overheated rhetoric on both sides threaten an unnecessary constitutional crisis that would only bog down the inquiry in a distracting fight over process....

"Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here -- is the president not entitled to confidential advice on personnel matters? -- and to remember that the tables could easily be turned, as they were not so many years ago, with a Republican Congress eager to rifle through the files of a Democratic administration," the editorial stated. "At the same time, history does not support unlimited presidential privilege."

The AP story follows.

*

Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions....

The Post should tell us more about "Saddam has WMDs" and "Saddam caused 9/11" while they are at it. The Editorial board are whores, slime.

[Nbadan]

The Post makes another controversial decision...

Source: Editor&Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003562040)
'Wash Post' Publishes Rare Op-Ed by 'Anonymous' On FBI Abuse
By E&P Staff
Published: March 23, 2007


NEW YORK - "It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces," the newspaper declares on page A17 of today's edition. "In this case, an exception has been made because the author -- who would have preferred to be named -- is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter.

"The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author's attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents."

What follows, in the paper -- and in its opening passages below -- is the submission by "John Doe." The entire piece is available at www.washingtonpost.com .

*

The Justice Department's inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue "national security letters." It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled....