Times Reveals Enigma Codes

Tech Central Station ^ | 29 Jun 2006 | By William S. Smith

[.cnI redruM]

WASHINGTON (SatireNewsService) -- Yesterday, September 11, 1943, the New York Times reported that allied cryptanalysts had been, for several years, decoding top-secret Axis war messages. The Times story revealed that thousands of code-breakers working in a suburb of London had broken Germany's Enigma military codes. The vast operation, code-named "ULTRA", had succeeded in regularly reading secret military orders broadcast through the German airwaves. In addition, the Times reported that American code-breakers, in an operation called "MAGIC", had broken Imperial Japan's highly secret military code. MAGIC reportedly had successfully intercepted thousands of secret war messages from the Japanese high command to forces in the field and at sea.

"ULTRA and MAGIC were extremely powerful weapons in our arsenal," said General George Marshall U.S. Army Chief of Staff, following the Times revelations. "Our ability to read enemy orders in real time led directly to our great and critical victory at Midway as well as the defeat of Rommel in North Africa and the shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto's plane last spring. ULTRA was considered an irreplaceable element of our future invasion plans for Europe and MAGIC would have played a powerful role in successfully concluding our war against the brutal Japanese military government."

The decision to publish the story has sparked passionate controversy and was preceded by intense lobbying of Times executives from President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill to withhold publication.

Mr. Churchill in a transatlantic telephone call reportedly pleaded with Times executives to suppress the story, stating that in wartime, "the truth is so valuable to our enemies that it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies and deceptions."

Mr. Roosevelt reportedly argued that the ULTRA and MAGIC operations had prevented "dastardly acts" by the enemy and that the revelation of these secrets would set back the allied invasion of Europe and the defeat of Japan "by years", causing the unnecessary deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Times publisher Arthur Hays "Paunch" Sulzburger defended the decision stating: "it is in the public interest to know how this war is being fought. It is part of the continuing national debate over the aggressive measures employed by this administration and the British government." Sulzberger reported that Times executives weighed both governments' arguments carefully. However, in the end the Times determined that the possibility of government misuse was too great to ignore. "The program . . . is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires information," said Sulzberger.

Peace groups and administration critics lauded the Times' decision to publish the story. "This administration has performed numerous illegal acts during this illegal war," said Norman Chomsky, professor of phrenology and astrology at MIT and a leading critic of the American and British war efforts. "We have attacked Italy, which never attacked us. We have illegally sold arms to the British, we have illegally targeted Admiral Yamamoto for assassination, we have illegally jailed and executed so-called 'German spies' without benefit of trial. This administration is far worse than the regimes of Hitler, Tojo or Mussolini. It is drunk on power."

Privacy advocates also questioned the ability of the users of MAGIC and ULTRA to maintain the rights of people who might have been innocently short-waving private messages to friends and relatives inside Germany and Japan as well as occupied countries. The ACLU issued the following statement: "The revelation of these highly-questionable systems, MAGIC and ULTRA, raises the need to have a public review system in place to determine whether any particular intercepted transmission is important to the war effort. Preferably these reviews would be by a court of law with established procedures and appellate review. Certainly the governments of Germany and Japan would have standing in such a situation."

Following the publication, Prime Minister Churchill called the action by the Times, "a devastating loss equal in consequence to defeat on the battlefield."

President Roosevelt condemned the revelations as "tremendously damaging to the allies, profoundly helpful to Hitler and Tojo, and utterly destructive to free men and women everywhere." The President called on Attorney General Francis Biddle to immediately take action to prosecute the Times for treason, saying: "I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us."

In the face of these unprecedented criticisms, Sulzberger has remained adamant. "It would be better that Hitler and Tojo win this war than that we give up our ability to publish these secrets," he said. "If we fail to publish, the so-called "Axis" wins," he said.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

Scroll down to the item description, pertaining to the NYSlimes.

[doug from upland]

I have indeed been busy. Did you check out Dan Rather? -- http://cgi.ebay.com/PHOTO-Dan-Rathers-hit-by-door-on-his-way-out_W0QQitemZ220000872986QQihZ012QQcategoryZ367QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[.cnI redruM]

I saw that. Quite apt for Hamas on The Hudson.

[doug from upland]

Gee, I wonder where Smith got the idea? --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549102/posts

[Wombat101]

"Anyone who gives any money to the NYT is helping those who want to blow up more buildings."

Ah, yes, the old Orwellian Dialectic: If you're not anti-Nazi then you are, objectively, pro-Nazi.

Doesn't apply here.

I don't believe I'm about to do this, but, in defense of the Times (and there is very precious little to defend them with, granted) I don't believe the decision to publish the story in question was made in the belief that the Times would be helping terrorists, as much as it was made in the (smug) knowledge that it would hurt Bush.

The animus is not the multi-culti-kumbayah cult, it is a hatred of anything Bush. Short of verifiable stories (with photos) of Bush raping children, burning Jews, lynching blacks, and kicking puppies, the best the Times can do is to present everything that crosses it's editor's desks in a way in which George W. Bush is presented as the second coming of Josef Stalin.

Which is really strange, since the Times seems to have actually LIKED Josef Stalin. I guess they liked the faux communism and conveniently overlooked the real totalitarianism. Anyway, the fact that this objectively helped the Islamonazis was probably never even considered, since most people who read or work for the NY Times can be counted upon to not have the same sense that God gave to your typical Irish Setter --- with a brain tumor. Their "thinking" is so shallow, and so tainted by emotion (not logic) that for most, an original thought and cold glass of water might be enough to put them in a coma.

Anyway, be that as it may, one thing to always remember when it comes to the "Our civil liberties are in danger" crowd is this: they don't really object to NSA wiretapping, nor the Patriot Act, nor the government cracking open international banking records. What they object to is that George W. Bush (and John Ashcroft, et. al.) got to do it first, and with legal sanction. Secretly, the "other side" salivates over the prospect of controlling the government and having access to the same authority, only they will use the power fop "good ends" (defined as advancing socialism or eliminating their political enemies).

The Left has a history in this regard.

When a Leftist starts harranguing you about the "Bush Police State" and launching into hypotheticals about abuse, he's not concerned about your liberties; he's warning you about what he would do if armed with the same power.

[.cnI redruM]

I wonder if Smith posts here...

[Dilbert56]

What's so amazing is how truly stupid the NY Times editors are. They published this story, and the others with the express intent of hurting President Bush. Those of us killed in terrorist attacks are just "collateral damage". What they can't fathom is that Americans, even some who live in NYC, want the government to listen to the enemy's phone calls, to track their movements and to monitor their financial dealings. These disclosures have helped the President's popularity. That the NY Times continues with a failed tactic shows their hatred has made them irrational.

With each disclosure, Americans are learning the President kept his word when he said he'd do everything possible to stop another 9/11. They also recognize the blatant hypocrisy in the NY Times' positions. We had to disclose the NSA program because it might be illegal. We had to disclose the SWIFT monitoring even though everyone agrees it was legal. It's a page one scoop. The terrorists knew all about it anyway.

Riddle me this NY Times: If the terrorists knew about this already, why were we still catching them through this program? Even the 7/7/05 bombings were traced with this. So less than a year ago terrorists were still unaware.

[Tolik]

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Popocatapetl]

(May 28, 1944) The NYT announced today that Allied forces are planning a massive assault along the Normandy coast in a massive push onto the European continent. This ill-advised and aggressive attack will likely cause the death of hundreds of US soldiers and innocent civilians.

(August 4, 1945) The US intends to use an entire new kind of bomb against two cities in Japan. It will be carried by B-29 bombers that unless they are shot down are believed to be capable of each destroying an entire city. If, however, the planes are shot down and one of the bombs recovered, it is thought that the US has no more of these weapons.

[.cnI redruM]

Wow! I guess no one believed the NY Times even then!

[wagglebee]

This is absolutely brilliant and perfect!

I wonder if the Old Gray Whore would reprint this if someone bought an entire page ad.

[Ancesthntr]

The cure for this problem, as well as the absurd decision of the Supreme Court that holding/trying terrorists in Gitmo is illegal, is to DECLARE WAR. Once a formal Declaration of War has been obtained, various secrecy laws - which would make the actions of the NYT actionable treason - would come into effect. I appreciate that Bush wanted to keep things as normal as possible after 9/11, but it was a BIG mistake not to ask for a formal Declaration of War. It has allowed the Lefties to claim that "this isn't real, it isn't serious, there's no war", etc., etc., and has severely constrained the ability of this country to actually fight and defeat the enemy.

[Mike Darancette]

In the next weeks edition they talk about the Japanese Naval Codes.

[GOPJ]

Where is the "nailed it" guy?

You nailed it - he's in Post #28

[COBOL2Java]

Also we are "scrambling" our messages by having native Americans communicate by radio.

Uh oh! What would Ward Churchill say about that! ;-)

[.cnI redruM]

Do you really believe the line that the US has not declared war because it implies a willingness to go nuclear that others would find offensive and scary? I don't. I think the US Congress would hesitate to approve a Declaration of War for precisely some of the reasons you've laid out.

[COBOL2Java]

...I don't believe the decision to publish the story in question was made in the belief that the Times would be helping terrorists, as much as it was made in the (smug) knowledge that it would hurt Bush...

A distinction without a difference, IMHO.

[GOPJ]

The reason newspapers kept secrets during World War II was editors didn't want to be shot at dawn. Today the New York Times would get in more trouble printing a columnist without permission than publishing classified material. This has to change.

The New York Times has the right to print whatever - they can slander a private citizen, steal copyrighted material, reveal secrets. No prior restraint is needed. And that's good. I don't want a censor sitting in a newsroom deciding what we can read and what we can't read. Under Clinton, if there had been "prior" restraint we never would have heard of a blue dress. A censor would be sitting with Drudge too. No one wants a censor sitting in a newsroom. That would be wrong.

But that doesn't mean that the Times is above the law. The private citizen who was slandered can sue - and will win. The owner of copywrited material that the Times printed will sue - and win. And, in a saner world, if classified information was printed that helped the enemy in time of war, charges would be brought for treason. Newspapers have the right to print, but not the right to print outside the law.

The Times most likely has a high priced first amendment lawyer - and he's consulted when the Times thinks they might break the law. The Times, like most companies doesn't want to be successfully sued. That attorney would consul them not to slander a private citizen, not to print copywrited material without permission etc. That attorney was probably consulted in this case. We will never know what he said, but the results of that meeting are clear - the decision was made to publish. No legal problems. The Times felt there was less downside to this than printing a freelancers copy without permission.

Publishing classified information was not a legal threat to them. The threat was to the nation - but not to them. And that's wrong. Way out of balance. Publishing classified information that helps the enemy in time of war, should carry the highest concern - not the least.

I imagine Keller laughing saying, "yeah, American men will die because we've printed this - and maybe American citizens will die because of this - but it's no skin off our nose. They can't touch us -- and besides it sticks it to George Bush..." Bush has a right to be angry about his. His job is to protect us - the Times has shown a reckless disregard for the laws dealing with national security.

Our safety, the safety of the American people, received less respect than a young freelance writer would receive. This is wrong.

Any President's team - Republican or Democrat should never have to go, hat in hand during time of war, to beg a newspaper not to publish. That's wrong. The line is in the wrong place.

Here's what's sad -- if the Times lawyer had been asked if it's OK to print some two bit freelancers material without permission, the answer would have been NO. There should be equal concern for printing national secrets. But there's not.

Not that the Times can't "print" them, (freedom of the press matters) but they should know there will be hell to pay for the privilege. My feelings? The FBI should arrest the publisher and editor, allow them to bail out, and have this issue decided in a court of law. Maybe next time the Times attorney will tell them, "yes, you can publish - and if it's crucial you must, but there will be hell to pay - you could be arrested for treason. So think about it long and hard."

That would require soul searching... And that would be right.

[Tolik]

In other words, one should be responsible for his actions and bear consequences.

It is a conservative language, its foreign for NYT.

[Ancesthntr]

Do you really believe the line that the US has not declared war because it implies a willingness to go nuclear that others would find offensive and scary?

1. No.

2. Why on Earth would you think I believed that? Where in my post is that even hinted at?

3. I wish that we did have a willingness to go nuclear, and I believe that it would be extremely useful to this country to offend and (most especially) scare the offal out of certain countries. This kind of policy has worked for us since 1945, despite the best efforts of the "peace at any price" crowd to deny our nation the best tool available to stop general war. It is my opinion that we would probably have come to blows with the Soviet Union and/or China in a conventional WW3 had nukes not existed - and tens of millions would have died, just like in the first 2 bouts of insanity in the last century.

As to countries that this would apply to, Iran springs to mind first, North Korea second, and Iran in third, fourth and fifth place.