Just ask The New York Times.
Mohammed on a moped do these miserable excuses for human beings not understand the word “classified?”
Definitions of Classifications:
Confidential: Release may cause damage to the United States.
Secret: Release may cause serious damage to the United States.
Top Secret: Release may cause grievous damage to the United States.
Understand you fucking idiots?!!! It can and probably will damage the United States!!!
Once again the Times has taken it upon itself to disclose a classified program, this time where the CIA is tracking terrorist’s financial transactions with the Treasury Department’s oversite. We’ve had successful results from this program. We’ve caught bad guys using this program. Now everyone knows about it.
Thank you to the New York Times for once again telling the bad guys how we’re doing it.
UPDATE: Looks like the Wall Street Journal ran the story also.
The NY Times proves yet again to be the definition of the term “useful idiot.” Within hours of publishing the story, the same story was published on the Al Jazeera web site:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2470566-053D-4054-B4A6-841B67F1FDED.htm
Comment by Mark Martin — 20060623 @ 1532
How long will we have to wait before prosecutions are begun and indictments handed down for this pusillanimous behavior?
When I signed that document for my clearance lo these many years ago, I certainly read the part about 20 years and beaucoup bucks in fines if I ever even alluded to the information I was made privy to.
Comment by Jim C. — 20060623 @ 1728
They were just tired of having to make stories up. Its a tough job pretending to have secret meetings and making up the news every night. They probably just couldn’t control themselves when they finally got hold of a story that might be factual - they had to go for it.
Comment by Chief — 20060623 @ 1732
NY Times: Useful Idots
The New York Times proves yet again to be the definition of the term “useful idiot.” Within hours of publishing the story leaking classified info about tracking movement of terrorist funds, the same story was published on the terrorists’ Al Jazeera …
Trackback by the paperboy — 20060623 @ 1736
As long as we have journalists from the New York Times, we surely don’t need any enemies. I might also include out “friends” from the Associated Press too.
One AP correspondent in Vietnam who overheard some helicopter pilots discussing a clever “tactic” they would use anytime they encountered a situation where the enemy employed a shoulder-fired SA-7 heat-seeking missile.
Pulling the helicopter into a steep climb, aiming towards the sun and then suddenly cutting engine power and auto-rotating straight down would hopefully “confuse” the missile into “locking-on” the heat of the sun.
Of course, our “friendly” correspondent could hardly wait to “reveal” this bit of information to the entire world, including our adversaries.
As most of us know, we lost a lot of helicopters to SA-7″s…Thank You, AP from our “bottoms.”
Comment by Joe Gaudet — 20060623 @ 1901
Not biased, just on the other side. I assume it was the NYT that wrote the story; once it was on the wire publishing it seems to me to be a slightly smaller sin.
Comment by htom — 20060624 @ 1406
In RE the Wall Street Journal
That appears to have been a pre-emptive release (as in authorized by the folks who have the legal authority to do so) as a spoiler against the NYT’s and LAT’s pieces.
Still and all, I expect to see folks prosecuted for this, up to and including the executive editors of both the NYT’s and the LAT’s.
Out Here
Rodney Graves
rodney.g.graves@gmail.com
Comment by Rodney Graves — 20060624 @ 2013
I have to confess, after the enormous fuss made over “spilling classified information” which may damage the nation! with the Plamegate affair (and I’ll bet you anything that the fact Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA was common knowlege anyway!) and all the calls for the head of whoever spilled… I look forward to the squirmings of the MSM as they try and justify this with a certain amount of glee. Obviously it is OK to give away classifed info if it sells some more newspapers– I’d like to see the bastards come right out and say so, up front. So… popcorn, anyone?
Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20060625 @ 0606
On the contrary, perhaps they think there’s now executive precedent for publishing classified material. You can’t have this both ways, for crying out loud. Either the Plame publishing was breaking the law or it wasn’t. The “common knowledge” argument is patent rubbish, I’m afraid, and as someone who spent a long time in uniform you know that as well as I do.
Comment by Al — 20060625 @ 0714
Exactly— if heads should have rolled for Plamegate,both administrative or media — then heads should roll for this, on the same basis. It’s just delicious, to watch a sordid little political tit for tat being painted as a high crime, and revealing the Swift operation— which may do very real damage in efforts to trail terrorist funds— as just business as usual. I look forward to the detailed investigation with happy anticipation. You want extra butter and salt on your popcorn?
I still think that Plame’s job was an open secret on the cocktail party circuit, though.
Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20060625 @ 0722
It will take a grievious damage event to stop these clowns
Or Bush can step down.
What I fear is that event may kill enough Americans to make “Lynch law” for NYT a more likely occurence.
I hope NYT and gang realize they will just be the last ones to meet the Halal blade.
Comment by Barry 0351 — 20060625 @ 2003
I suspect the people at the New York Times thinks “Classified” refers to a type of ad.
Anything they get marked “Classified” is listed in the ads under “Stuff Bush Doesn’t Want Al Qaeda to Know About.”
Comment by Karl Lembke — 20060625 @ 2227
Just a thought, but….could there be a reason this was “leaked,” and those in power wanted the story out? I no longer feel outrage at such stories as I suspect (at least with most) that certain leaks are intended. Diverson? A plan to make very specific people nervous, thus capable of dumb mistakes?
MSM is no longer as “left” as it once appeared to be. Most are owned by large corporations who support this administration - canned news is more the norm and reporters who actually work at their craft are left to the pages of history. Now, cute little computer savvy types don’t want to muss their designer clothes, styled hair and perfect manicure (male & female). It’s easier to read AP then plagerize.
Working for a newspaper has made me cynical,longing for the hard drinking, chain smoking, gutsy reporter who risks life and limb for a story. Finding such a creature with talent, integrity and a drive to ferret out the truth is darn near impossible.
Comment by Kayse — 20060625 @ 2355
Academic question for anyone who knows their American constitutional law:
Here in the UK we have a thing called a “List D” notice. Basically it’s something the government can serve on newspapers to stop them printing stories which they believe would compromise national security; anyone not complying (and they always do) goes to jail. They’re very rarely used as there would be a “public interest” pushback if they were, but fundamentally they provide a last ditch mechanism for the government if they believe something would be genuinely damaging but can’t be covered by the Official Secrets Act (which is the thing that gets you jailed for publishing protectively marked material).
So, question is - is there anything similar in the US? Just curious.
Comment by Al — 20060626 @ 0302
Al,
Nope, nothing analogous to the Official Secrets act or List D. Once the press get a hold of it, all the govt can do is ask nicely.
This went to the supreme court in the Pentagon Papers case, which affirmed the press’ right to print leaked documents.
The leakers however are in breach of oaths, contracts, and the law. So the best we can hope for is to find the govt officials who are disclosing classified information without authorization.
Comment by RPD — 20060626 @ 0750
If you read it as follows their actions become much more understandable……
Confidential: Release may cause damage to George Bush.
Secret: Release may cause serious damage to George Bush.
Top Secret: Release may cause grievous damage to George Bush.
Comment by Michael — 20060626 @ 1101
Michael, I would be the last person to say that the President *IS* the United States, but I’m sure he appreciates your sentiment.
Comment by Timmer — 20060627 @ 0737
After the initial storm, I did some research. As one article pointed out, the President has said, repeatedly, that they were tracking the financial records of potential terrorists, so the Times really didn’t blow anyones’ cover. The real culprits already knew this would be happening, long before the general public ever did, so again, no big secret or surprise there.
If this includes tracking banking of legitimate Americans, we have a problem. If it’s just suspected bad guys, well d’uh. Of course they would follow the money.
Much ado about nothing new? Diverson? I have no clue as to the real answers here, just making observations of what has been stated by the Administration on several occasions. The word “treason” seems pretty extreme after reviewing past speeches and press releases.
Comment by Kayse — 20060630 @ 1621