Times Reveals Enigma Codes

In other words, one should be responsible for his actions and bear consequences. It is a conservative language, its foreign for NYT.

The reason 60 Minutes, Dan Rather, and the New York Times can't come after us (bloggers) is because they are constrained by law. We're private citizens. They come after us and we'll sue their pants off -- and that's what the press care about. Will they be sued and will they be sued successfully?

There's two standards established by the courts - one for people who hold themselves out to the public, "public figures" -- just about anything can be said about them -- and an almost opposite standard for private citizens. Say something negative about a private citizen in print and it'll cost millions.

Have you noticed that beat cops are almost never quoted in a newspaper? Lots of them would make great copy - they'll say outrageous things - but below a certain rank, they're considered private citizens and if the paper makes them look bad, they sue. And sue successfully.

That Pinch can published classified material without consequences is a mistake. That he can publish classified material is an established reality - and I support that - but that he can publish without being sued or jailed or hung for treason is an outrage. I have no desire to "guilt trip" the press - not that it work anyhow - but I don't want to live in a world where the beat cop has more legal protection from the ravages of the press than the people charged with protecting national security.

As far as I know, nothing was done to the Trib or it's people by the FDR administration.

You are correct.Nothing was done to the Tribune or Colonel McCormick,its right wing owner. FDR wanted a treason indictment, but his AG and Marshall persuaded FDR that such an indictment would prove the story to the Japs. Letting it go, would allow the story to disappear as another wartime myth. In any event there is no evidence that Japan had even been aware of the story.

A more recent example of intelligence that could have been revealed was the Navy's successful tapping of the underwater cables of the Soviet's Northern and Pacific bases, Murmansk and Vladivostok. These missions involved entering Soviet waters and placing recordind devices on the cables and retrieving them at a later date. Such invasion of sovereign territory was in violation of international law. Would the Times of the late 60s thru the 80s have been so quick to reveal these missions?

"Would the Times of the late 60s thru the 80s have been so quick to reveal these missions?"

The Times would have probably been unaware of these missions to begin with because it seems that even at the height of the hippie-no-nukes-New-Ice-Age-is-upon-us movement, we still had (somewhat-more) responsible people in government. The Times,like any other media outlet, only repeats what others tell them (that is, when it isn't making stuff up). That's the nature of the beast.

That sort of information (US NAvy tapping Russkie phone cables inside Soviet Territory) could have started a nuclear war, had it been known.

The Times doesn't believe that a terrorist organization has (let alone might acquire) a nuclear arsenal. Only us nasty, Haliburton-lovin', Neanderthal republicans believe that Usama Bin Hidin' could get a nuke, not the Kennedy School Tea and Watercress Sandwiches set. There's a big distinction there.

Had it been an absolute, iron-clad, incontravertible truth that a terrorist or Saddam DID posses a nuke, the Times might have (I'm not saying 'would have') sat on the story because of the obvious implications.

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.