After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials. So what? I'd be upset if the president didn't take every precaution to protect U.S. citizens during a time of war.
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.
Does it strike you as odd that The New York Times decided to print this article now, on the very day the Senate debates renewing the Patriot Act?
Does the press feel any responsibility at all for the safety of Americans?
I smell a rat.
10 comments:
Why does the White House think it can tell the press what to say? Granted some of our press members dont really report the news acurately. Sales and ratings are what drives the press. But, asking a news service not to do something smacks of state control. On the other hand do we want riots? Not that that would happen.
What we don't want is terrorists knowing that we are monitoring their cell phone conversations. A fact that alerted UBL when it was leaked by the press a while back.
Our constitutional liberties survived during WWII, when false stories were printed by patriotic journalists in order to misdirect the enemy. Nowadays, the press corps seems to be intent on helping direct the enemy!
My point is we do not have a right to know classified information. Period. I don't care how much a hack journalist wants to be like
Woodward & Bernstein.
This smacks of selected leaking of classified information for the promotion of left-driven political agenda.
Holy crap, Cube! I just realized your blog address is Cube 47 (had to check it because I'm blogrolling you). That rocks. I'm a total 47 freak!
Oh, and my sound bite for what it's worth - I think it's slimy how the American media can be bought and manipulated just like the politicians...on both sides of the aisle.
People can debate and get angry all they want. I don't have a problem with the Patriot Act. Why? Because I don't have anything to hide.
Jamie voices much of my own opinion on this. But to add...
Does the press feel any responsibility at all for the safety of Americans?
Oh, they feel it all right. The problem is, they think they're protecting your safety of privacy rather than that of your life! Misguided to say the very least.
I gotta say, the White House can merely suggest to the press that certain articles may not be prudent at certain junctures. Asking a news service not to print something is not state control. Governments do it all the time. Federal, state, local, etc.
I was asked last WEEK by a local city official to hold off on one story I was writing in lieu of another. I declined because my original story was better.
I have had local officials come down on me for writing certain things and threatening to pull cooperation from future stories, but it hardly ever happens. Reporters need sources just as much as those sources need to get their stories out.
It's very symbiotic.
sar: nice to meet another 47-er. Do you get it from Trek?
Esther, the word misguided implies a naivete I'm not willing to grant. I don't think the press comes with clean hands. If this had happened during a democratic administration, they would've lauded the president's handling of the situation. But because it came during the Bush administration, they are dumping a load of crap onto a decision employed to save American lives! It is a disgusting political ploy.
I'm with J.D. I have no problem with the Patriot Act because I am a patriot & I have nothing to hide.
Hi Cube - actually it's my birthday, but it goes well beyond that now. So very cool to meet another 47 freak (as I endearingly refer to myself). :)
Happy birthday to you, Sar. I hope it's a good one.
Post a Comment