Apparently the NYTimes now thinks its ok to give out details of an > illegally obtained CLASSIFIED military document. I expect everyone that > condemned those reporters involved with Valerie Plume to go after the > NYTimes on this too... Right about now.

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964BC3A132A­4Fmatthaggiescom@216­.196.97.136:>

Take your outrage to the "half dozen officials" that were> discussing > the report, not the paper for reporting it.

They should be prosecuted as well. The paper should not have> published information that they knew was classified information about> our strategic capacities. Both parties are at fault.

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in> news:Xns964CBF3FB6D­Bmatthaggiescom@216.­196.97.136: >

When six officials are discussing it, its going to get> published by someone eventually. >

Should the Pentagon Papers been published back during> Vietnam?

http://tinyurl.com/­d9cyd>

l: rsfckers> pw: stanfordsucks>

Apparently the NYTimes now thinks its ok to give out details of an > illegally obtained CLASSIFIED military document. I expect everyone that > condemned those reporters involved with Valerie Plume to go after the > NYTimes on this too... Right about now.>

Wow.>

Just Wow. ($1)>

Matthew Hennig wrote:>> http://www.nytimes.­com/2005/05/03/polit­ics/03military.html?­>>

Red herring. Nobody was condemning the reporters involved in the> Plame case - they were condemning the Bushies for deliberately leaking

info to the reporters. In this other situation - place the blame on> the officials involved, not the NYT. Papers have an obligation to> report stuff to you and me - it's their job in a free society. You> don't want stuff published? Make sure you don't reveal it then.

http://www.nytimes.­com/2005/05/03/polit­ics/03military.html?­>

http://tinyurl.com/­d9cyd>

l: rsfckers> pw: stanfordsucks>

Apparently the NYTimes now thinks its ok to give out details of an > illegally obtained CLASSIFIED military document. I expect everyone that > condemned those reporters involved with Valerie Plume to go after the > NYTimes on this too... Right about now.>

Wow.>

Just Wow. ($1)

If the information was classified, hell yeah, it should not have been > published. It's classified for a reason. Did release of the material

Do you want the press deciding what should and should not be classified > information?

I seem to recall a few people on here going on about Judith Miller and > Novak about it...

Oh, the officials who gave it out are just as much at fault too. They > should be sent to prison for it.

You could have concluded that five posts up.>

Dave Reid <ddreid@comcast.net­> wrote in> news:Xns964BED011CD­4Fddreidcomcastnet@2­16.196.97.131: >

If the information was classified, hell yeah, it should not have been > published. It's classified for a reason. Did release of the material> lead to harm to the military and its soldiers? From what I've read> about (admittedly little), I'd say its release helped fuel more> anti-war activism which did hurt the soldiers. >

Do you want the press deciding what should and should not be> classified information?

Alan Mundy <idontwan2knowspams­ucks@hotmail.com> wrote in> news:Xns964CC4D7743­Cidontwan2knowspamsu­c@65.32.5.122: >

I'm of the opinion that if there is a classified military report, its> classified for a reason - most likely to prevent people from getting> killed. So yes, I don't think that classified military information> should be reported. >

No, I don't think it's particularly stupid, but hey if you want to> compromise our military just so you can publicize a classified report,> thats your choice.

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964CBEB4116­B6matthaggiescom@216­.196.97.136:>

You obviously have zero experience with the military if you think > protecting lives is the only motivation for secrecy.>

There are plenty of examples throughout our history where soldiers and> citizens were put at greater risk by keeping embarassing things> secret.

Alan Mundy <idontwan2knowspams­ucks@hotmail.com> wrote in> news:Xns964CE72BD56­0Aidontwan2knowspams­uc@65.32.5.121: >

So who is the one to decide that something classified should be made> public? Should a NYTimes reporter who may or may not have an agenda? > Should a government employee who has it out for the administration be> the one to decide that a classified report needs to be put in public? > Who decides?

So who is the one to decide that something classified should be made> public? Should a NYTimes reporter who may or may not have an agenda?

Should a government employee who has it out for the administration be> the one to decide that a classified report needs to be put in public?

Who decides?

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964CE142FAB­27matthaggiescom@216­.196.97.136:>

I got news for you, Matt.>

Everyone "may or may not have an agenda.">

Welcome to the world.

Matthew Hennig wrote:>

<snip>>

Yes - in a free society, the public has a right to know and the> reporter has an obligation to inform the public.

No - the government employee has an obligation not to reveal> classified information.

The government.

Alan Mundy <idontwan2knowspams­ucks@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:Xns964D37C1358­41idontwan2knowspams­uc@65.32.5.122:>

You still haven't answered the question. Who decides when a

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964D6C39D2C­6matthaggiescom@216.­196.97.136:>

A reporter who gets his/her hands on classified document has to decide, > in conjunction with the editor, whether to report on it.>

He/She can be held responsible if their actions are irresponsible.

Alan Mundy <idontwan2knowspams­ucks@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:Xns964D7DC6DC1­8Fidontwan2knowspams­uc@65.32.5.122:>

Do you think they should be held responsible for giving out private > details about our military operating strength?

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964D762D32E­36matthaggiescom@216­.196.97.136:>

That depends on the circumstances.>

Not in this case, no.

Even if the classified report contains details that might lead to direct> harm of our soldiers in a war zone? >

We agree here.>

And we agree here too. So I'm guessing you are against what happened> here too, since it wasn't the government decision that released this> information. >

I'm of the opinion that if there is a classified military report, its> classified for a reason - most likely to prevent people from getting> killed. So yes, I don't think that classified military information> should be reported.

More likely that something that is classified these days is classified > because it contains embarrassing revelations about the current > administration.

Jon Somalia <somaliaj@earthlink­.net> wrote in news:somaliaj-> 50F3F0.143223050520­05@news1-ge0.southea­st.rr.com:>

Especially in this case, since this report directly> contradicts what President Bush said in his most recent press> conference.

Alan Mundy was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.c­om> wrote in

No, as a matter of fact, he wouldn't.

If he covertly sold it to a spy for another country, yes, he would be in >jail.

If, however, he merely went to the nearest street corner and started >shouting it for anybody to hear, there is absolutely nothing that could >be done to him.

Dave Reid was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Jon Somalia <somaliaj@earthlink­.net> wrote in news:somaliaj-

Especially in this case, since this report directly contradicts what >President Bush said in his most recent press conference.

It's not unusual at all for classified information to directly> contradict what is said in a press conference, whether it be by the> President or anyone else in the administration.>

Duh, that's called "misinformation" and not wanting that classified> information revealed has absolutely nothing to do with> "embarrassment".>

Please, try to think things through a bit.

And how should Bush have answered that question in the press conference?

Duh, that's called "misinformation" and not wanting that classified> information revealed has absolutely nothing to do with> "embarrassment".

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964DD00AC36­92matthaggiescom@216­.196.97.136:>

Howzabout within shouting distance of the truth?

You can't honestly expect the president to say that our military> capacity is in any way hindered towards any other possible needs. > Honestly. I don't care if its a Democrat or a Republican. You don't> give the enemy the ammunition they need to pull something.

It's not unusual at all for classified information to directly> contradict what is said in a press conference, whether it be by the> President or anyone else in the administration.>

Duh, that's called "misinformation" and not wanting that classified> information revealed has absolutely nothing to do with> "embarrassment".>

Please, try to think things through a bit.

But of course the reason the report was published was to embarrass Bush. > The NYTimes and whichever government official(s) are involved did it > solely for that purpose.

And how should Bush have answered that question in the press conference?

You can't honestly expect the president to say that our military> capacity is in any way hindered towards any other possible needs. > Honestly. I don't care if its a Democrat or a Republican. You don't> give the enemy the ammunition they need to pull something.

In article <Xns964DE1978943Fma­tthaggiescom@216.196­.97.136>,> Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote:>

Maybe they had the audacity to think that the President lying to the > country is actually newsworthy.

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964E1D4F9F0­9Ematthaggiescom@216­.196.97.136:>

I would venture that anyone who can read a newspaper can tell> that the US military, particularly the Army, is dangerously> overstretched.

In article <Xns964E1D4F9F09Ema­tthaggiescom@216.196­.97.136>,> Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote:>

Oh, for crying out loud. He has no trouble disparaging the integrity> of the "filing cabinets in West Virginia full of paper IOUs" when he's> trying to sell his SS privatization scheme. And that's> unconstitutional.

But at least now I understand why you think Saddam should have told the > truth about his military capacity...

In article <Xns964DD00AC3692ma­tthaggiescom@216.196­.97.136>,> Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote:>

Truthfully.

So you would have absolutely no problem with the president telling the > operational capacity of our military to our of our enemies out there?

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964E68545E7­77matthaggiescom@216­.196.97.136:>

Apparently, "our enemies", in the President's eyes, include "the> American voters." I can certainly see not getting up and telling> everything that's classified, but the President has persuaded the> country to go along with things based on lies way too many times to> get a free pass on this sort of thing. If, for example, a President> claimed on national television that Paraguay had the bomb and that we> had to invade immediately, and we did, and it turned out that they> didn't, and he knew the whole time that they didn't, and that he just> wanted to invade for a "Wag The Dog"-like poll boost, which is it?

Cleverly concealing the true state of things to foil and confuse our> enemies, or flat-out lying for political purposes?

Jon Somalia <somaliaj@earthlink­.net> wrote in> news:somaliaj-4638C­8.11001006052005@new­s3-ge0.southeast.rr.­com: >

If you think the President should have given our enemies important> information that they could possibly use that can lead to deaths of our> soldiers, you have no hope. Should FDR have told the truth that we were> really landing at Normandy instead of Calais? After all, he lied about> it. I'm sure there was a classified report on his desk that said> differently, but he lied to the American people!

Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote in > news:Xns964E691EBAC­FCmatthaggiescom@216­.196.97.136:>

When did FDR every say we were landing at Calais?>

The Germans weren't sooper smart by 1942, but even they would have > suspected something if FDR did that.

So you would have absolutely no problem with the president telling the > operational capacity of our military to our of our enemies out there?

If you think the President should have given our enemies important> information that they could possibly use that can lead to deaths of our> soldiers, you have no hope. Should FDR have told the truth that we were> really landing at Normandy instead of Calais? After all, he lied about> it. I'm sure there was a classified report on his desk that said> differently, but he lied to the American people!

My point is that misinformation is not always a bad thing regarding the> military, which Trev and others seem to want us to believe. Sometimes> misinformation is necessary.

Actually, most of the SS fund is full of IOUs.

If you think these two things are at all similar, you have no hope Trev.

In article <Xns964E7AA4E56BDma­tthaggiescom@216.196­.97.136>,> Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com> wrote:>

Especially so if you want to start an unprovoked war and/or restrict the > freedom of the American people.>

I would agree that this is precisely the correct answer to the> question.

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another> five minutes, Matthew Hennig <matth@aggies.No_Ju­Nk.com>! >

Matthew. Do you seriously think it's not fairly common knowledge in > the international intelligence community? Motherfuckers may wear > towels on their heads, but they can count.

I would agree that this is precisely the correct answer to the> question.

Coach Qatar was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>woodruff­s@cableone.net (Trent Woodruff) wrote in news:427bf7ee.55145­3

Serious question: how much training do officers get in militaryspeak of >this kind?

Matthew Hennig was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>woodruff­s@cableone.net (Trent Woodruff) wrote in>>>Jon Somalia was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...

While that would probably have been the best answer, giving >misinformation is not a bad thing when it comes to the abilities of our >military.

While I agree with you about the statement regarding misinformation,> my point is that Trev's "statement" would do exactly that. The enemy> would still be left with their "beliefs" but would have no proof at> all.>

The best of both worlds...the President doesn't lie and the enemy> doesn't know.