Posted on 06/24/2006 9:24:07 PM PDT by airedale
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."
"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.
SNIP
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....
(Excerpt) Read more at editorandpublisher.com ...
The fourth estate is a fifth column.
The NY Slimes are just fighting the war against the war on terror.
Truth stolen from Scrappleface and Mr. Ott.
Since when have we had to get permission from the NYT to conduct war?
Al Qaeda intelligence collecting sure us a competitive field.
us = is
And you basically ignored them last time, so why stop now? It's only the war against terrorists, after all.
Do these people just figure that Al Qaeda is goign to hit a Republican-only target next time? You know, something in "flyover" country, which they don't give a damn about?
If it was MoDowd instead of Barbara Olson who died on 9-11, I think we would see a very different press these days.
There's SO much wrong with this. But two things stand out: their (dwindling) readership interest dictates everything. There is little to none consideration of what the right thing to do is.
Hell, I'd be interested in reading all sorts of stuff, in my more bored moments. But that doesn't mean that should be published! They're treating their (dwindling) readership like the worn-down parent of a spoiled toddler: it whines for something, so they provide it.
Shameful.
This nugget reveals that whoever "leaked" the story had an agenda and had contacted at least two reporters at two newspapers.
This leak has Mary McCarthy's fingerprints all over it.
I'm not sure why Gonzales is waiting to get this in front of a Grand Jury and then call these reporters to disclose their source(s) or go to jail?
My guess is a Democrat member of Congress which was my guess in the NSA leak
Do you suppose Eric Lichbinladensyouknowwhat will invite this writer for a threesome?
I heard people were high fiving at the Ny Times on 9/11. Never believed it until today.
You said:
"If it was MoDowd instead of Barbara Olson who died on 9-11, I think we would see a very different press these days."
No, these liberals abort their own children, what makes you think that they would be mad if someone removed a bit of the competition?
So, we've got Al Qaida in Iraq and now it's confirmed that we have Al Qaida in New York Times. Al Qaida in Washington Post is also coming on strong.
No!! Where did you hear this? Who could DO that?! It was in their own city!!!
"We waited so long that the competition caught up to us"
So, just like the dems, it's about competition. It's not about America.
Because they would be--they think fetuses are things, but someone who writes for the New York Times is one of the Beautiful People.
Huh? How on earth would this scumbag Lickblow know THAT?
Awwww, at least let him have a cigarette........ (sarcasm)
OK, I'm not an idiot, so I realize that the purpose of this story and the wiretapping "scandal" story, among others, is to provide fodder for the vile MSM to attempt to sway the sheeple.
That said, I distinctly remember hearing, a while back, news about any financial transactions over a certain number being scrutinized. If you sell your home, that transaction is easily linked to the deposit so it wouldn't raise red flags. But if $30,000.00 suddenly showed up in your account without being traceable to a salary, sale or loan, it would be subject to scrutiny.
In the same vein, I distinctly recall hearing about "Echelon" which would review our emails and telephone calls for certain terminology. This, during the Clinton administration.
When my husband lived overseas, I was acutely aware that our conversations could be monitored, even the non-DSN calls. It never crossed my mind that they would be totally private, as I was placing or receiving international calls to a Middle Eastern country.
It is much ado about NOTHING!!! Why isn't the administration pointing this out, repeatedly!!!
"the intense public interest in the NSA story showed that this is obviously a matter of intense public interest."
this guy's really articulate, isn't he ?
How would he know, the stupid SOB. And why should we wait for proof that our national security has been endangered, anyway? What an a**. No wonder people are turning away from newspapers in droves.
Well thank you for saying that! I said something quite similar last night. The President said after 9/11 that they were going to choke off AQ's money flow. I assumed then that they were going to be surveiling transactions all over the world, including the US. How else were they going to trace the money? A crystal ball? I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone with this being major news. But as I said last night, I guess the press wanted to be sure that our enemy "got it". They had to come out with something after Zark and some of his top people got roasted.
The fact that he's an idiot is prove positive that he's an idiot.
Licorice: "You stupid dhimmis should hang all these seditious traitors
who repeatedly, willfully, and with absolutely NO FEAR, continue to violate 18 U.S.C. §798,
beginning with Keller and Lichtblau, or what is coming will only help the New York Times' circulation."
18 U.S.C. §798. Disclosure of Classified Information.
(a) 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—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (b) As used in this subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; .........
The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Folks, we are living in a fascist dictatorship now.....not under President Bush and VP Cheney, as the nuts on the left would have us believe....no...the dictators are Eric Lichtblau, James Risen, and Dana Priest....they have declared themselves as the new arbiters of what we have the right to know and what our government is allowed to do in prosecuting a war...
How long are we supposed to put up with this before the revolution?
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.