White House Forces Censorship of New York Times 356
VE3OGG writes "It would seem that scientists are not the only ones facing censorship from the White House. According to several news sources the New York Times originally had intended to run an article co-authored by a former employee of the National Security Council, critical of the current administration's policies toward Iran. The article had passed the CIA's publication review board, but was later redacted on orders from the White House. Article authors Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann were former advisers to the White House, and thus all of their publications are scrutinized by a board before they can be published. Of the numerous documents this pair has published since leaving their positions, they say this was the first that was actively censored.
Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Insightful)
Co-authoring any article with a government employee (or even a corporate employee) is always a risk. While the NYT is free to publish almost anything they want, the co-author (by nature of his/her employment) is not, which was the problem in this situation.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Insightful)
The co-author is a former employee. I fail to see the reasoning behind the censorship, given the circumstances. Perhaps, if it were some issue of national security, I could see the relevance. However, I do not believe it is. More like current administration security.
TLF
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:3, Insightful)
RonB
former employee of the NSC .. (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong and wrong again. He was a former adviser to the White House employed by the NSC. It just is what it looks like, the Bush regime trying to silence legimite criticism in the media.
was Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:3, Republican)
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of Expression (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Insightful)
It said the article had passed the review board so it could not have included anything secret.
USA has become a 1st world economy with a 3rd world society.
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2 things (Score:5, Insightful)
These days, neither are US newspapers, since they're subject to censorship from many directions. For trustworthy news, we now have to go to foreign news media (and even then double-check that they didn't get their news from censored sources), which I find rather sad.
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Insightful)
No, in a 3rd world society the article would have been published. But the author would be found shot dead in his car a few months later.
Talk about american values (Score:4, Insightful)
We listen to those, then we visit to slashdot and see that the u.s. government is actively censoring what it does not like, and than, to add insult to injury, we are seeing people here that can actually support such a blatant blashpemy of values.
I dont know which is worse.
Security Policy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:3, Insightful)
A system with proper checks and balances would allow the article to be published if either review board approved it, rather than both.
Anyway, this sort of crap is exactly why I refuse to work on anything that requires a security clearance.
Re:The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
And the point is that there is a large difference between damaging the U.S., and politically damaging the current administration. If revealing to the public what the administration is doing (note, not what the military or CIA or FBI etc, but the White House administration) is somehow damaging to the US, then maybe the fault doesn't lie with the people that revealed the actions, but the actions themselves. There should be only a few specific areas that the public can not know what the government is doing in their name.
Discussion and arguments of policy is fine and it should be discussed in a fair, open, and rational way.
I submit that when the New York Times, or most other media outlets, publish information, the discussion they present is anything but fair and rational, and since they often give only token space to opposing viewpoints, it is not very open either.
And this provides a rationale for preventing them from presenting their view?
One thing these people need to understand is that their right to publish these things is guaranteed by the U.S Government. Not the U.N. not by the UE, or anyone else. When they publish information that causes harm to the U.S. in their zeal in pursing their partisan agenda, they are actually weakening the very institution that guarantees their rights.
Again, it is very debatable whether the NYT publishes information that harms the U.S., or whether it merely causes political harm to the current administration. There is not much question that when representatives of the US government seek to deny these rights "guaranteed by the U.S. government", they are actually weakening the very institution they swore to uphold. I definitely know which one I find more troubling.
Re:former employee of the NSC .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, no. It looks like a bunch of blank lines. This article is only mildly critical compared to the thousands of others out there that are downright scathing. You think Bush came along and blanked out a few lines just because the authors criticized him?
Mod parent up! (It's a video) (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time, RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
So really, what is the end effect of this censorship? To draw attention to both the attitude of Bush & Co., while simultaneously providing the curious with the information that they weren't supposed to know.
This administration must have lead in their water. I have never seen such ham-handed, short-sighted, and just plain dumb policy. Kind of like a class of Special Ed students who have read Machiavelli and think they know how to run the world.
Re:That's how it works (Score:4, Insightful)
That's complete and utter horse shit. The Administration has added countless things to the list of "top secret" documents that have absolutely NOTHING to do with national security. I don't have time to document right now, but feel free to look. These days, EVERYTHING that the government does is related to "National Security"
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget, between unclassified & secret, there's a "confidential" designation. The CIA may have said "fine, there is no classified information" while the White House may have said "hold on, this isn't secret, but we think it should remain confidential."
Here's a Decensored Version (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Expression (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong.
Each review board is privy to information the other is not. CIA may not know FBI details, Oval office won't know CIA details to maintain plausable denial.
-nB
Re:Next time, RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I would be more sympathetic to these folks if the CIA hadn't conducted a six year campaign of leaks to undermine the president. I worked for Uncle Sam. When you do anything connected with the military you sign away your right to discuss it. Ever. There's nothing here that has anything to do with the first amendment.
And if you think the administration is fascist you should probably crack a history book and actually try to understand the meaning of the words you're writing. If Bush was really a fascist you wouldn't be reading this, since you'd be in a shallow mass grave somewhere. Are you so disconnected from reality?
Re:former employee of the NSC .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Um
So far as any war effort can be considered "good", I'd say that World War II was one of them. Ask the French how they felt about us when we moved into Paris. Ask the British how they felt when our men and war materiel started arriving at their ports. I understand your desire to provide valid criticism of the current Administration, but your comment demeans the thousands of Allied soldiers that died putting real evil back in the bottle, and the millions of U.S. citizens that worked hard to make it possible.
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes, when the government is doing evil things, they need to be called on it. I propose a simple litmus test. What kind of damage is caused by relasing information? If it causes embarrassment to our leadership and a general change in perception of our leadership abroad, that's not a material screw up that can be blamed on the media. It's the fault of whoever sanctioned the embarrassing activity. On the other hand, if they're leaking information that materially changes the balance of power in combat, it should be kept quiet.
So here's an interesting question: Should this guy [nytimes.com] be kept quiet?