NYT and State Secrets

[gtownspur]

i meant ingenouis

[RandomGuy]

i meant ingenouis

(respectfully)

dis·in·gen·u·ous

( lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness )

I think that is the word you were looking for.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know why Yoni ignores you, but i noticed that it could be that when you debate, you are a very pretentious person and are very ingenious.

I try to be intellectually honest, and demand as much. If that is pretentious, then I am guilty as charged.

I value good critical thinking. Again, if that is pretentious, I will admit to it.

Honestly, I have in the past been less than mature in my posts. I am working on being a bit more above name calling, etc.

I doubt Yoni would ever to the same, tho'. I think his thinking and methods of dealing with the world are a bit more ossified at a rather immature level.

[gtownspur]

I try to be intellectually honest, and demand as much. If that is pretentious, then I am guilty as charged.

I value good critical thinking. Again, if that is pretentious, I will admit to it.

Honestly, I have in the past been less than mature in my posts. I am working on being a bit more above name calling, etc.

I doubt Yoni would ever to the same, tho'. I think his thinking and methods of dealing with the world are a bit more ossified at a rather immature level.

Well i must say, that you've muched improved in this area, but you sometimes resort back to your old ways. ( i though am not claiming the moral high ground here, i sometimes lose my patience with peeps)

What i noticed from yoni, is that after he gets personally attacked, he just goes on with the subject at hand, and doesn't try to inflame anyone. If him posting info that are opposed to ohters is considered immature, then we as a forum have lost it.

[Yonivore]

doh! He had me until paragraph 4.

[boutons_]

Have dubya/ head/rove announced a prosecurtorial team to go after NYT, WSJ, LAT for treason? Maybe they're holding the legal attack until closer to the mid-terms with this purely political issue. It's not a NatSec issue.

[Yonivore]

part of me hopes the big newspaper companies take a hit

They are taking a hit. Circulation is dropping like a rock.

[xrayzebra]

Or running poll after poll and making that the lead story of the day.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm still trying to understand the public interest served by revealing the SWIFT program.

The New York Times would now have us believe that everyone but you and me knew about the “closely held” SWIFT surveillance program. Well, you, me, and Hambali the Bali Bomber, whom we arrested in 2003:

Let’s look at the public record and put a name to one of those “persons”, shall we? I happened upon this CBC broadcast story about the strange journeys of an apparent Al-Qaeda bag man, Canadian Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, who helped Hambali plan the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002:

It looks like Jabarah and the unnamed Al-Qaeda money man in Kuala Lumpur may have been the other two parties identified by Swift surveillance, and that Jabarah was the “link” who met with Hambali in Thailand and tipped off the authorities. In which case that makes at least four terrorists identified by the program.

The fourth being (according to Risen and Lichtblau) Uzair Paracha, a Pakistani man arrested in Manhattan in 2003 and thought to be a financial conduit for Al-Qaeda. Curiously, authorities attributed Paracha’s arrest to information received from the interrogation of Al-Qaeda mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed*, and not to the surveillance of the Swift data, the closely-held open secret that everybody knew about, except for you, me, and four terrorists (apparently including Al-Qaeda’s chief financial officer in Southeast Asia, whom you would think would know about this sort of thing if anybody would.)

Oh, maybe we should make that five, because Paracha’s father Saifullah Paracha, was arrested in Thailand and is now in Guantanamo:

So maybe the authorities thought that if the program had already caught three money men, a courier, and a major terrorist organizer there might be one or two more Al-Qaeda operatives somewhere in the world who hadn’t gotten the memo about the Swift program surveillance…and so it might be a good idea to keep it a secret.

Then, if you watched the "Vent," by Mic e Malkin, I linked to in another thread you find out not only were the Parachas financing terror, they were helping terrorist Majid Khan return illegally into the country to carry out the gas station bombing. Paracha Jr. even posed as Khan on the phone to INS and picked up Khan’s mail in Baltimore.

In other words, SWIFT monitoring not only led to the arrests of the five or six terrorists detailed here, but if it brought Uzair Paracha to light…

…then SWIFT monitoring disrupted a terrorist attack on the United States.

But the terrorists won’t be so careless next time. Thanks, New York Times!

You know, looking back over that CBC story linked above, I notice that Mohammed Mansour Jabarah’s brother Abdul Rahman Jabarah was also an Al Qaeda operative who was killed by Saudi police in 2003. His father told him in 2002 that the Canadian police were looking for him. Since Mohammed Jabarah was apparently discovered through Swift monitoring, and was being tracked and followed, and both brothers were wanted by the time they met in Dubai in January 2002, it seems logical that Swift surveillance of one Jabarah brother led to the revelation of the other as well—bringing the total to six terrorists probably identified and/or stopped by the secret Swift program. How many more leads these six that we know about turned up, we’ll never know—especially since all of their associates are now busily covering their tracks now that they realize how the Infidel Crusader CIA has been tracking them down and picking them off.

In the spirit of giving credit to those who actually concoct arguments:Patterico's Pontification (7/3/06)

[Yonivore]

In the spirit of giving credit to those who actually concoct arguments:Patterico's Pontification (7/3/06)

Now, care to respond to the argument?

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the FIrst Amendment freedom of the press is far from unlimited, but it's also far from limiting. And I don't think the First Amendment serves only to protect the press; it would be a fairly unique right if that had been the case. The First Amendment protects the American people by assuring that their right to know what the government is doing will always be protected. There will certainly be tensions between the right of the people to know (and the right of the press to publish) information and the desire of government to keep certain matters secret. But that tension is diminished pretty significantly when the matter to be publicized is one that is already a matter of public record, even if only obscurely public.

In a general sense, there is a public interest in knowing if the government is acting in a fashion that might be illegal. I don't know that I trust either the NYT or the Bush Administration to make dispositive decisions about whether a particular program is or is not legal. As such, the possibility that the government might be breaking the law will always be a matter that warrants media attention. That's particularly true where the government has already made even general disclosures about that program; if the specifics make the program illegal, it's an hetical to the First Amendment to say that the program should remain shrouded in secrecy because the government would prefer it that way.

As to the specifics of the SWIFT story -- I'll reiterate my previous statements that there's a strong argument that the NYT made a poor editorial decision. Nevertheless, there's also some suggestion that if exposing the program limits the desire of would-be terrorists to easily transfer money across international borders and compels them to seek means that are far less convenient or efficient, it might be that exposure will actually prove to be innocuous or perhaps even helpful to limiting terror attacks. The less streamlined the means for disseminating the money necessary to conduct a terror attack, the more likely that funding an attack will be foiled at some point along the way. Like I say, I'm not defending the NYT -- I think it probably made a poor decision; but I'm not convinced that the consequences of that bad decision will be as dire as your previously-anonymous bloggers are suggesting.

[Yonivore]

I think the FIrst Amendment freedom of the press is far from unlimited, but it's also far from limiting. And I don't think the First Amendment serves only to protect the press; it would be a fairly unique right if that had been the case. The First Amendment protects the American people by assuring that their right to know what the government is doing will always be protected. There will certainly be tensions between the right of the people to know (and the right of the press to publish) information and the desire of government to keep certain matters secret. But that tension is diminished pretty significantly when the matter to be publicized is one that is already a matter of public record, even if only obscurely public.

As to the particulars of the SWIFT story -- in a general sense, there is a public interest in knowing if the government is acting in a fashion that might be illegal. I don't know that I trust either the NYT or the Bush Administration to make dispositive decisions about whether a particular program is or is not legal. As such, the possibility that the government might be breaking the law will always be a matter that warrants media attention. That's particularly true where the government has already made even general disclosures about that program; if the specifics make the program illegal, it's an hetical to the First Amendment to say that the program should remain shrouded in secrecy because the government would prefer it that way.

I'll reiterate that there's a strong argument that the NYT made a poor editorial decision. Nevertheless, there's also some suggestion that if exposing the program limits the desire of would-be terrorists to easily transfer money across international borders and compels them to seek means that are far less convenient or efficient, it might be that exposure will actually prove to be innocuous or perhaps even helpful to limiting terror attacks. The less streamlined the means for disseminating the money necessary to conduct a terror attack, the more likely that funding an attack will be foiled at some point along the way. Like I say, I'm not defending the NYT -- I think it probably made a poor decision; but I'm not convinced that the consequences of that bad decision will be as dire as your previously-anonymous bloggers are suggesting.

Neither the New York Times nor the administration, nor anyone since, has suggested the SWIFT program was illegal.

So, again, I ask; what public interest was served by exposing it?

[FromWayDowntown]

Neither the New York Times nor the administration, nor anyone since, has suggested the SWIFT program was illegal.

So, again, I ask; what public interest was served by exposing it?

As to the specifics of the SWIFT story -- I'll reiterate my previous statements that there's a strong argument that the NYT made a poor editorial decision.

[Yonivore]

And, in doing so, exposed an important intelligence asset that was legal, effective, and vital.

What was their motive and what public interest was served? The administration spent weeks, from the Treasury Secretary on down, pleading with the Times not to publish. What possibly motivated them to do so?

That's the story here. I believe the New York Times is bent on damaging this administration and undermining the war. Cost be damned.

[FromWayDowntown]

And, in doing so, exposed an important intelligence asset that was legal, effective, and vital.

And? What do you propose should be done about it?

What was their motive and what public interest was served? The administration spent weeks, from the Treasury Secretary on down, pleading with the Times not to publish. What possibly motivated them to do so?

That's the story here. I believe the New York Times is bent on damaging this administration and undermining the war. Cost be damned.

You and your ghost writers assume a sinister intent. I and others think there was a poor editorial decision. I'm sure you won't be happy until the Times has been forced to shut it's doors. I'm certain that the Times serves public purposes that are significant, even if the editorial process is somewhat cavalier.

I'd think those 4 sentences sum up the argument. You'll now call me unpatriotic or sympathetic to terrorists and I'll ignore your name calling. is there anything else you want to find and quote here to make a point that is different?

[Yonivore]

And? What do you propose should be done about it?

They should be tried.

You and your ghost writers assume a sinister intent. I and others think there was a poor editorial decision. I'm sure you won't be happy until the Times has been forced to shut it's doors. I'm certain that the Times serves public purposes that are significant, even if the editorial process is somewhat cavalier.

I'd think those 4 sentences sum up the argument. You'll now call me unpatriotic or sympathetic to terrorists and I'll ignore your name calling. is there anything else you want to find and quote here to make a point that is different?

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014702.php

[FromWayDowntown]

They should be tried.

Then prosecute them. The choice is really up to this Administration -- it has control of the Justice Department. So, get it done.

Good luck.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014702.php

Then prosecute them.

[Yonivore]

Then prosecute them. The choice is really up to this Administration -- it has control of the Justice Department. So, get it done.

Good luck.

Then prosecute them.

I hope they do.

[FromWayDowntown]

I hope they do.

Well, and now this thread would seem to be done.

I think we've changed the world.

[Yonivore]

Well, and now this thread would seem to be done.

I think we've changed the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya

[RandomGuy]

Well i must say, that you've muched improved in this area, but you sometimes resort back to your old ways. ( i though am not claiming the moral high ground here, i sometimes lose my patience with peeps)

What i noticed from yoni, is that after he gets personally attacked, he just goes on with the subject at hand, and doesn't try to inflame anyone. If him posting info that are opposed to ohters is considered immature, then we as a forum have lost it.

The part I find immature (in an intellectual sense, not emotional one) is that he has never admitted that he was wrong about anything that I have noticed, and tries to put forth unsubstantiated opinion peices as "fact".

To be intellectually honest is to admit when others might have a point, or might look at evidence and reasonably reach a conclusion different than your own.

There are lots of good resources for learning good critical thinking skills, and I encourage anybody to read them.

[xrayzebra]

And pop goes the weasel. Poor old NYT, there going through some tough times.
I wonder why?

Print this article Close This Window
NYT to cut paper size and close plant
Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:36 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times Co. <NYT.N> plans to narrow the size of its flagship newspaper and close a printing plant, resulting in the loss of 250 jobs, the company said in a story posted on its Web site late on Monday.

The changes, set to take place in April 2008, include the closure of a printing plant in Edison, New Jersey. The company will sublet the plant and consolidate its regional printing facilities at a plant in Queens, the paper said.

The newspaper will be narrower by 1 1/2 inches. The redesign will result in the loss of 250 production jobs, the company said.

The New York Times said it expected the changes to result in savings of $42 million.

The narrower format, offset by some additional pages, will reduce the space the paper has for news by 5 percent, Executive Editor Bill Keller said in the article.

The Times will join a list of several other papers from The Washington Post to the Los Angeles Times that have reduced their size as they cut newsprint and other production costs and try to stem a loss of readers and advertising to the Internet and other media.

Separately, Chief Financial Officer Leonard Forman will retire in 2007 after the company names a successor, another article posted on the Times Web site said.

Forman was president of The New York Times Co. Magazine Group from 1998 until it was sold in 2001, the biography on the company's Web site says. He was senior vice president for corporate development, new ventures and electronic businesses from 1996 to 1998.

He also worked for the Times Co. as director of corporate planning and chief economist from 1974 to 1986.

©

================================================== ===========

Think the liberal rags will learn. I don't.

[FromWayDowntown]

Think the liberal rags will learn. I don't.

Learn what? That day-old news is difficult to sell when up-to-the-minute news is available for free from a variety of sources and that the paradigm of the newspaper is becoming obsolete whether the paper has a political bent or not? Gosh, that's a huge lesson.

You assume that this is somehow related to the stories that have been garnering so much attention. I'd assume that this was an inevitable consequence of the changing paradigm for news delivery.

[RandomGuy]

I find the conservative jihad against the NYT disturbing.

[boutons_]

"conservative jihad against the NYT"

absolutely anyting, any diversionary smoke and fog, to push the Iraq fiasco off the radar.

There's only one issue today that should be occupying the USA and that's Iraq.

The Repugs must be thrilled that Hezbollah and Israel have captured the 24 x 7 coverage to distract from the full-blown Iraq civil war.