Posted on 06/23/2006 12:31:15 PM PDT by oxcart
NEW YORK Eric Lichtblau, one of two New York Times' reporters who broke today's story of a secret government monitoring of private banking records - which the Bush Administration sought to block - said the White House arguments to halt the story were not as strong as those that had kept a previous report on secret wiretapping out of the paper for a year.
"They were similar in terms of the objections raised not to publish," Lichtblau told E&P today. "That the bad guys knew we were listening to them, but they don't know exactly how." But he said the objections "did not rise to as high a level as last time."
But Lichtblau stressed that the paper gave as much consideration to the White House concerns on the banking story as on the wiretapping report, actually spending several weeks in discussions about the Bush Administration objections.
"I don't think we could reasonably be accused of moving too quickly," he said. "We waited so long that the competition caught up to us." This comment referred to the Los Angeles Times' posting a story about the bank records program on its Web site last night. That paper said it had also been asked by the administration to hold off.
Lichtblau said that in the case of the previous Pulitzer-winning story, which detailed a National Security Agency (NSA) program of wiretapping, President Bush himself had gotten involved. The president was not been directly part of the effort to halt publication of today's story. "It was done at the cabinet level this time around," Lichtblau said.
Lichtblau, who co-wrote both stories with Times reporter James Risen, said that in each case the newspaper believed that the information it was reporting would not put anyone in harm's way. "I think we came down on the same side in both questions," he said of the two stories. "That this is not giving away information that is tangibly helping terrorists know what they don't already know."
Risen declined to comment, while Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not return a call seeking comment.
In the wiretapping story, which ran in late 2005, the paper revealed that it had held off running the story for more than a year after Bush had intervened and requested it be held. In the latest case, Lichtblau said, the administration first sought to block the story several weeks ago, but declined to provide an exact date. "There were complex factors in each case," Lichtblau said, without giving specifics. "But the objections of the administration did not rise to as high a level as last time."
Lichtblau added that the reaction to the wiretapping story, which included both criticism and support for the paper, made it easier to go with this story. He noted that there had been no proof that the previous story had endangered national security.
"Our belief that it did not have any tangible impact has been borne out," he said. "That was in the back of our minds this time." He also said that "the intense public interest in the NSA story showed that this is obviously a matter of intense public interest. We see similar interest in both cases, the pendulum, as far as public disclosure versus national security, has swung in the direction of public disclosure....
"We went about this in a thorough enough way," he added.
Where is a good mechanic when you need one?
Of course. Because public disclosure of something that affects nobody but terrorists is more important than fighting those terrorists.
Time for a good cleansing.....protest.
Since when are reporters the legal arbiters of what is classified and what is not classified?
These asshats need to be tried for treason. And when convicted, they need to be shot, which is the penalty for treason during a time of war.
And no, I'm not kidding.
The key word is "pendulum" which by its very nature swings back, and often swings too far back the other way, never settling in a nice centered position. The world turns, er...swings.
"the pendulum, as far as public disclosure versus national security, has swung in the direction of public disclosure...."
That's the perception because we haven't had a major terrorist act in the US since 9-11. However, these treasonous asshats are doing everything they can to expose the methods GW and the administraion have used to prevent an attack. The inevitable result will be a major attack in the US sooner rather than later.
And then these traitors will want to play the "blame Bush" game.
I'll want to play the "try them, convict them, and then execute them" game -- as will most Americans. And yes, I am referring to both the terrorists and the traitorous reporters here.
If we can't send them to jail where they belong.. we can boycott every company who advertises in the Treason Times.
Hope to see you in court, Lichtblau!
How does he explain his treason?
Yes. Toward disclosure when a Republican is President and the information is believed to be damaging, toward security/secrecy when the information would damage a Democrat.
my thoughts exactly
And how exactly would he know what the terrorist already know????
Have any prominent Conservative figures called for a boycott yet? Radio talk show hosts? Bloggers? Its about time for somebody to step up on the national stage and start a campaign to bring the NYT down.
No joke! "the competition caught up to us" is what it was all about. Instead of taking the high road and say we knew but we didn't publish out of concern for the country they just printed it to keep up with the competition. Traitors all of them. "Off with their heads!"
A Yahoo search of the what this wuss has put out before, shows that he is probably another outraged marxist homosexual drive by journalist, employed by the Ny Slimes.
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/0606-08.htm
Published on Friday, June 6, 2003 by the New York Times
Justice Dept. Bans Event by Gay Staff
by Eric Lichtblau
WASHINGTON, June 5 — The Justice Department has barred a group of employees from holding their annual gay pride event at the department's headquarters, the first time such an event has been blocked by any federal agency, gay rights leaders said today.
Justice Department officials told the group, called DOJ Pride, that it could not hold its annual event at the department because the White House had not formally recognized Gay Pride Month with a presidential proclamation, Marina Colby, a department policy analyst who is president of the group, said. The group represents several hundred gay and lesbian employees at the department.
"This sends a real chilling message to Justice Department employees who are gay and lesbian," said David Smith, a spokesman for Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group.
"This says, `You're not welcome,' " Mr. Smith said. "It says that employees can celebrate Asian-American heritage month, and Hispanic heritage month and so on, but you cannot."
Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, refused to comment.
The gay pride event has been a tradition at the Justice Department since the late 90's, organizers said, and many other federal agencies have held similar events since the mid-1990's, when President Bill Clinton first declared a Gay Pride Month.
Last year Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson — the second-ranking official at the department — spoke to about 150 people at the event in the Great Hall of the department. Ms. Colby said the presence of such a high-ranking official "was a really big deal for us, a real sign of support."
But Mr. Thompson's appearance drew protests from some conservative groups. Some accused Attorney General John Ashcroft, a social conservative who has spoken out in the past about homosexuality, of abandoning them by allowing last year's event to proceed.
Public Advocate, a nonprofit group that describes itself as pro-family, has continued lobbying the Justice Department and other federal agencies in recent months to abandon the gay pride events because it says the events are an inappropriate use of federal resources, said Jesse Binnall, a group spokesman.
Told of the decision to cancel this year's Justice Department event, Mr. Binnall said today, "We're absolutely thrilled that the Justice Department has made such a bold decision to stand up for American families instead of giving in to special interest groups."
Gay Republicans have become a more vocal force in party politics of late, but President Bush, unlike Mr. Clinton, has refused to issue a proclamation declaring a Gay Pride Month. The White House has said that the president does not believe "in politicizing people's sexual orientation."
Mr. Bush has issued more than 250 proclamations, acknowledging events like Greek Independence Day, Leif Erikson Day, Save Your Vision Week and National Hospice Month.
This is the first time any federal agency has forced the cancellation of a gay pride event, Mr. Smith said.
Ethnic and racial groups have held annual events at the Justice Department. But Ms. Colby, the leader of DOJ Pride, said the gay pride event was the only one she knew of at the Justice Department that was not covered by a presidential proclamation, and she believed that the Justice Department was using the proclamation issue as a convenient way to cancel the event.
Ms. Colby said she feared that other events that her group holds at the department, like panel discussions, could also be in jeopardy and that the existence of the group could be threatened.
"This was a total surprise to us," she said of the decision to block the event. "Every other association at the department has its recognized month and event, except us."
Amen, and can I pull the trigger?
A penis with ears
See post #22
As for the leaker or leakers though - that's another story. Trading in national security secrets in a time of war merits severe punishment - up to and including the death penalty. Want to stop the leaks? Start enforcing the Espionage Act. Make the Times' reporters give up the names, and throw them in jail for contempt if they refuse. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact. It protects the Times' right to publish, but does not allow them to traffic in national security matters without having to reveal the names of lawbreakers who feed them our secrets and threaten American lives. Let's let the Supreme Court chew on that one.
Thanks for that post of clarity.
I just wish we could get the leaker and the messenger when it comes to issues like this.
andy - Please don't blithly assume that the media is on solid legal ground here. They are not. Please read the following well documented essay on exactly how they are prosecutable. The key is the Pentagon Papers case. Middle-of-the-road Justices Potter Stewart and Byron "Wizzer" White both said that the espionage laws would apply to any private individual who possessed or published classified information. See: http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/print.php?story=06/04/30/7217729
Just give these guys' addresses to OBL and tell him that they are mossad spies.
This would be a great story - homes and offices of these "journalists" attacked by terrorsts; follow-up investigation shows that the terrs changed their comm and finance tactics after reading the "exposes"...
Pinch Schulzberger = Pinch Sulzberger
He doesn't give a shit about this country. He's doing it for himself and his commie rag.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606093/posts
Lichtblau should have been fired after this piece of criminal cover-up. The testimony of the FISA judges was misrepresented to try to save his and Risen's original report . The next week, they got the Pulitzer instead.
Thanks for the link, my friend. I was thinking precisely about the Pentagon Papers when I posted my comment. I'll read on with keen interest.
You are welcome.
I forgot to mention that some disingenuous types (like Susan Estrich) will say well only 2 justices said that media is prosecutable. Of course that was not the issue before the court and the comments were what is known as obiter dicta (stray words), but the fact that the gratuitous observations came from the most well respected for being reasonable (not fringe) would help a latter court to go along with their line of thought.
Who remembers the debate in the media over the Monica allegations?
http://www.why-war.com/news/author.php?name=Eric+Lichtblau is a blogsite that suggests this Lichtblau guy is deeply involved in efforts to stop the United States from mounting a defense against the terrorists attacking us.
Forget boycotts, we need infiltration into their "newsrooms", a spy to find out who is leaking from the gov, and shut them down!
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The Times, in the frenzied throes of Bush-hatred, are indeed treading on thin ice.
The "New York Times" and "Washington Post" are not monolithic faceless alien oracles.
They are run by the the likes of the leftist homosexual on the right, ARTHUR SULZBERGER JR, and the socialist crook on the left, DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post.
Every day these 2 enemies of the state unleash a horde of minor league propagandists on the American psyche in a blatant attempt to topple any GOP government that is elected by the American people.
They do not care if innocent civilians or soldiers die as a result and national security be damned.
2006 is the year they will be stopped.
They will no longer be able to hide unde a cloak of annonymity.
They will be exposed and their names equated with treacherous acts.
They and their komrades will be surveilled and brought up on charges.
OFFICERS
Chairman Emeritus: Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger, age 71, $1,397,200 pay (prior to title change)
Chairman; Publisher, The New York Times: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., age 46, $960,200 pay (prior to promotion)
VC and SVP: Michael Golden, age 48
President and CEO: Russell T. Lewis, age 50, $882,235 pay (prior to promotion)
SVP Operations and Acting CFO: John M. O'Brien, age 54
SVP and Deputy COO: David L. Gorham, $796,000 pay
Lichtblau is a dweeb personified, he even has a little Lenin style beard.
A lot of people are reflexively mad at the reporter, Eric Lichtblau, and his left-wing newspaper, the NY Times, but in one way they are doing us a favor.
The classified information came from a traitor within the CIA or some related organization, after all. It's not as though Eric Lichtblau has a security clearance and is simply publishing something given to him legally.
The real crime is being committed by the leaker. The leaker's name is still unknown.
But given enough leaks, we'll eventually find the leaker...so at some level Eric Lichtblau is going to help us catch her.
Translation: "Lawyers quickly said the NYT could get away with it (again)".
It's a win-win for the MSM. If America gets attacked again not only will they sell more papers (and news media in general) but they can then blame Bush for "not protecting us". I believe that's their goal.
Bull. His motive is to hurt Bush and Republicans in general.
I agree. This statement should also apply to whoever his source was for this story. If these actions aren't treason, then what the hell is?!
Me for one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.